Alright - I clicked the links. I really didn't understand what you were saying, I guess. You're stating "it is" to confirm that it's been a decade? That being the case, I apologize for the snappy comeback.
You poor little baby. You were chased out of LAX? Were you chased out by the kid with the gun, or were you chased out by TSA officials?
As for life-altering experiences where one fears for his life - MY RESPONSE IS TO PICK UP A WEAPON you idiot. Oh, but wait. You're obviously one of the sheep who has permitted himself to be disarmed, so that he might board an airplane.
Stop sniveling. If you choose to be part of the herd, then you have to rely on the sheep herder and his dog. I don't rely on him.
Thanks for playing - come back when you can roar like a lion, instead of mewling like a kitten.
It is foolish to fear me. I'm not a murderer. I have never stalked and killed anyone. I've never even robbed anyone. I'm not very violent until attacked. Now - if you had some intention of attacking me, or my loved ones, then you might have reason to fear me.
The US economy is being siphoned off to the tune of 1.5 billion dollars PER MONTH, by just one country. I have no idea where you pulled that "closed system" idea from, but it certainly didn't come from reality.
To be fair - the damned monkey watched as the snake ate all her babies. Yeah, there's good reason to fear snakes, unless you've grown to be so big that a snake no longer views you as a menu item. Which also explains why some people don't like those little miniature panthers that other people like to keep in their houses.
The right to keep and bear arms defines a free man, yes. Without the right to self defense, you are indeed a slave. Are you willing to use a sword to defend yourself against a robber? A baseball bat, maybe? Are you willing to defend yourself at all? Or, do you rely on the police to defend you?
I don't call the police, for anything. Well - that may not be entirely honest. I'll call the police to dispose of the bodies lying on the floor.
Oh, please. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars really are quite different.
In Afghanistan, a punitive expedition was warranted, to punish the Afghan government for harboring Al Queda and it's agents.
In Iraq, we invaded to liberate oil, first and foremost. The Iraq war was an openly profiteering war. Haliburton and it's subsidiaries were in the news constantly, always in connection to contracts worth billions, or at least hundreds of millions. No-bid contracts were the order of the day.
"Second: guns. Having a gun is a sign you are afraid. What are you afraid of? Ans: all the other people with guns."
Your first statement suggests that you might have a clue or two. Then you make that second statement, which suggests that you're actually pretty clueless. The one thing that defines a free man, is the right to keep and bear arms. Suppose that you take away all the guns. Suppose that you invent something tomorrow that can find and destroy every single firearm in the United States. The one weapon that YOU fear most is gone. The cops are without firearms, the criminals are without firearms, the honest citizen is without firearms. No one can any longer reach into a pocket, pull out a firearm, and kill. No one. Security guards and armed robbers alike are without guns.
Do you REALLY believe that no one will be murdered again?
If I really feel the need to murder someone, I may resort to a rock, a knife, a sword, a club, an electrical booby trap, poison, assault with a vehicle, assault with a trained animal, or just choke or beat the guy to death with my bare hands.
Wake up and smell the roses. PEOPLE murder people. Guns are as impassive and inanimate as any kitchen utensil.
Didn't take long to disintegrate into partisan politics, huh? As Falconhell already pointed out, Herr Bush instituted most of the stuff that Obama plays with today. Think about it, Herr Coward.
I suggest you dig a little deeper into human psychology. Try to figure out why people feel the need to be "in control" to start with. The need for power has it's roots in fear. The glory, adulation, respect, love, wealth, and whatever else are just fringe benefits. The need for power is based on fear.
Define "honest" first. Some of the most despicable sumbitches in history have been scrupulously honest. They believe everything that they ever said, and they honestly believe that they are creating a better world. While I despise Dick Cheney, and I only despise Bush slightly less than Cheney, I can make a pretty clear case that both were "honest men".
I would hope that you value honesty, but I would also hope that you don't naively equate "honest" with "good" or "effective leadership" or "honorable men", or much of anything else.
If you're going with that analogy - some of us prefer to be sheep dogs. Sheep are just sheep, after all. Some of us are not sheep, and are incapable of reacting as sheep. Of course, we run into another problem - the government is incapable of distinguishing between wolves and dogs. Anything with fangs must be a predator, and dangerous.
I'll keep my fangs, and damn the government. And, damn the mindless sheep as well.
Jesus - I downloaded the trilogy. Ehhh - yeah, the first one is worth watching again. The Hero video is alright. Marauders? Fek - getting past the first several minutes of photogenic inanities is hard as hell. Fascism? Plenty of it. Seems the producer feels that the first two films failed to drive home the fascist bit, and he's gone overboard to ensure it is unmistakable in the third.
The movies are pretty stupid though. No robot warriors. No cyborgs. No nanotech. No bio warfare. Well, maybe some bio - the bugs experimented on humans, and created some cool crap to infiltrate and undermine our own troops. You would think that "science fiction" could come up with more than psychics and grunts after three movies. Hell, Avatar did better in one movie.
AC already responded with my answer. Can I download IE and install it on Linux? I'll test IE tonight and report back . . . .
Oh - same old story. In order to run IE, I have to run it in Wine. And, I suppose that I would be restricted to IE7 or maybe IE8. Possibly to IE6. There really isn't any test to be conducted here, Microsoft still doesn't make a browser for me.
No problems worth talking about here in Linux Land. Chrome compares favorably with Opera and Firefox. There is not a great deal to choose between the three, IMHO.
I must point out that Chrome doesn't beat Firefox in memory usage. I just swapped from a Linux Mint Debian installation, in which I used Firefox primarily, to a Sabayon Linux installation, in which I use Chrome primarily. Similar configurations, similar extensions, similar page load - very similar memory usage. I suppose that anyone could do that same test for themselves, and different people would get different results. Someone who loads a butt-ton load of Java apps in their browser may find that brand Z works better, while someone who gloms onto every Flash app will find that brand Y works best, while the other dude who runs a stripped down version with no extensions enabled finds that brand X is bestest and fastest.
For MY purposes, it actually seems that Firefox may have a very slight edge on Chrome for memory usage, but I'd have to do some double checking before I committed myself to that statement.
Text based browsers are great, when that's all you need or want. We can bemoan the waste and bloat on the internet, but at the same time, all of us like a pretty browser with some bells and whistled. Of course, "pretty" is in the eye of the beholder, but for most of us "pretty" is something more than a mostly blank with simple print. The solution seems to be, install your favorite (or least despised, as the case may be) and tweak it to your liking.
Yep. The youngsters won't remember that, and some of the not-so-young have forgotten it. If Firefox disappeared tomorrow, and we never saw another release, it would have served it's primary purpose. We would still have four major browsers available, all largely "standards compliant", along with a number of less popular browsers. Firefox changed the landscape, dramatically.
I can't even remember which milestone I started on now, but it seemed to take FOREVER for 1.0 to come out. I guess it's close to a decade since I grabbed my first copy of Firefox now. To lazy to look up the dates for all the point.whatever releases.
That is one of the humorous sides of advertising online. I needed a part for my motorcycle. The original lasted for more than thirty years, but rubber compounds do age - so I made a purchase. For three weeks now, every place that advertising isn't blocked entirely, Google manages to slip an advert for the same or similar parts for motorcycles. DUHHH - the part I bought will probably last longer than I will now! I won't be needing another, unless I buy another 30 year old bike to add to my stable!
Not me. An administrator doesn't NEED my password to take possession of every file I own. He doesn't need my approval, permission, or anything at all - he can just TAKE possession of everything. That holds true for Linux, Windows, any Unix-like - and I suppose it holds true for any other operating system as well. Admin or root is god, the alpha and the omega, the be-all and end-all. Why should the administrator ever ASK me for a password? It's far more likely that Admin or root will tell ME what my new password is!
There was another story with that line in it. I remember the story, not the author. Think it was a woman, who was the master cracker. She and her friends discovered evidence of the AI that was actually running Washington and the military industrial complex. One by one, the AI induced each of her friends to kill themselves. Always, the question was, "Do you want to know more?" Finally she was the only one left, trying to crack into the system. Her monitor took on a life of it's own, and she heard the question, "Do you want to know more?" She answered "No", and ran off to a basement with a faraday cage built into it - and stayed.
"hen the user returns to the site and signs in with the password, the inkblots are displayed again "
So, the inkblots aren't displayed unless the password was correct? Isn't that the signal to the bot that it has the correct password? What is being gained with these images again?
Well - I'm glad that I'm not alone here. I just figured that I was experiencing yet another hardship due to bad color vision. The images made no sense to me at all - but then, I can't see the numbers on a color vision chart either.
One very specific right was mentioned in the book. The right to vote. You EARN that right.
There were no other rights that were denied non-veterans. You should have noted that the star's dad didn't WANT him to enlist. He told the kid there was no point in serving - they had enough money to send him to the best schools, or whatever he wanted to do.
Try to get your facts straight. Voting is a "right" only in recent times, historically. Before the US and the French republic, I don't believe that any society awarded the "right to vote" based on nothing more than achieving the age of 18, or 21. Prior that, one had to be a land owner, or possess so much wealth, or have been born into aristocracy to have a vote.
Slashdot Mirror
Alright - I clicked the links. I really didn't understand what you were saying, I guess. You're stating "it is" to confirm that it's been a decade? That being the case, I apologize for the snappy comeback.
I think I got onboard about here:
0.4/ 12/11/02, 6:00:00 PM
"I guess it is close to a decade since I grabbed my first copy of Firefox now."
If you choose to live life as an anal retentive, you could also choose to know what the hell you are being retentive about. ;)
You poor little baby. You were chased out of LAX? Were you chased out by the kid with the gun, or were you chased out by TSA officials?
As for life-altering experiences where one fears for his life - MY RESPONSE IS TO PICK UP A WEAPON you idiot. Oh, but wait. You're obviously one of the sheep who has permitted himself to be disarmed, so that he might board an airplane.
Stop sniveling. If you choose to be part of the herd, then you have to rely on the sheep herder and his dog. I don't rely on him.
Thanks for playing - come back when you can roar like a lion, instead of mewling like a kitten.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y612uIsQ9HM
It is foolish to fear me. I'm not a murderer. I have never stalked and killed anyone. I've never even robbed anyone. I'm not very violent until attacked. Now - if you had some intention of attacking me, or my loved ones, then you might have reason to fear me.
"It's a closed system, everyone is a re-distributor of income."
No, it is NOT a "closed system". It is an OPEN system, and it is very open.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/04/02/remittances-to-mexico-drop-11-pct-in-february/
The US economy is being siphoned off to the tune of 1.5 billion dollars PER MONTH, by just one country. I have no idea where you pulled that "closed system" idea from, but it certainly didn't come from reality.
To be fair - the damned monkey watched as the snake ate all her babies. Yeah, there's good reason to fear snakes, unless you've grown to be so big that a snake no longer views you as a menu item. Which also explains why some people don't like those little miniature panthers that other people like to keep in their houses.
The right to keep and bear arms defines a free man, yes. Without the right to self defense, you are indeed a slave. Are you willing to use a sword to defend yourself against a robber? A baseball bat, maybe? Are you willing to defend yourself at all? Or, do you rely on the police to defend you?
I don't call the police, for anything. Well - that may not be entirely honest. I'll call the police to dispose of the bodies lying on the floor.
Oh, please. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars really are quite different.
In Afghanistan, a punitive expedition was warranted, to punish the Afghan government for harboring Al Queda and it's agents.
In Iraq, we invaded to liberate oil, first and foremost. The Iraq war was an openly profiteering war. Haliburton and it's subsidiaries were in the news constantly, always in connection to contracts worth billions, or at least hundreds of millions. No-bid contracts were the order of the day.
"Second: guns. Having a gun is a sign you are afraid. What are you afraid of? Ans: all the other people with guns."
Your first statement suggests that you might have a clue or two. Then you make that second statement, which suggests that you're actually pretty clueless. The one thing that defines a free man, is the right to keep and bear arms. Suppose that you take away all the guns. Suppose that you invent something tomorrow that can find and destroy every single firearm in the United States. The one weapon that YOU fear most is gone. The cops are without firearms, the criminals are without firearms, the honest citizen is without firearms. No one can any longer reach into a pocket, pull out a firearm, and kill. No one. Security guards and armed robbers alike are without guns.
Do you REALLY believe that no one will be murdered again?
If I really feel the need to murder someone, I may resort to a rock, a knife, a sword, a club, an electrical booby trap, poison, assault with a vehicle, assault with a trained animal, or just choke or beat the guy to death with my bare hands.
Wake up and smell the roses. PEOPLE murder people. Guns are as impassive and inanimate as any kitchen utensil.
Didn't take long to disintegrate into partisan politics, huh? As Falconhell already pointed out, Herr Bush instituted most of the stuff that Obama plays with today. Think about it, Herr Coward.
I suggest you dig a little deeper into human psychology. Try to figure out why people feel the need to be "in control" to start with. The need for power has it's roots in fear. The glory, adulation, respect, love, wealth, and whatever else are just fringe benefits. The need for power is based on fear.
Define "honest" first. Some of the most despicable sumbitches in history have been scrupulously honest. They believe everything that they ever said, and they honestly believe that they are creating a better world. While I despise Dick Cheney, and I only despise Bush slightly less than Cheney, I can make a pretty clear case that both were "honest men".
I would hope that you value honesty, but I would also hope that you don't naively equate "honest" with "good" or "effective leadership" or "honorable men", or much of anything else.
If you're going with that analogy - some of us prefer to be sheep dogs. Sheep are just sheep, after all. Some of us are not sheep, and are incapable of reacting as sheep. Of course, we run into another problem - the government is incapable of distinguishing between wolves and dogs. Anything with fangs must be a predator, and dangerous.
I'll keep my fangs, and damn the government. And, damn the mindless sheep as well.
Jesus - I downloaded the trilogy. Ehhh - yeah, the first one is worth watching again. The Hero video is alright. Marauders? Fek - getting past the first several minutes of photogenic inanities is hard as hell. Fascism? Plenty of it. Seems the producer feels that the first two films failed to drive home the fascist bit, and he's gone overboard to ensure it is unmistakable in the third.
The movies are pretty stupid though. No robot warriors. No cyborgs. No nanotech. No bio warfare. Well, maybe some bio - the bugs experimented on humans, and created some cool crap to infiltrate and undermine our own troops. You would think that "science fiction" could come up with more than psychics and grunts after three movies. Hell, Avatar did better in one movie.
AC already responded with my answer. Can I download IE and install it on Linux? I'll test IE tonight and report back . . . .
Oh - same old story. In order to run IE, I have to run it in Wine. And, I suppose that I would be restricted to IE7 or maybe IE8. Possibly to IE6. There really isn't any test to be conducted here, Microsoft still doesn't make a browser for me.
No problems worth talking about here in Linux Land. Chrome compares favorably with Opera and Firefox. There is not a great deal to choose between the three, IMHO.
I must point out that Chrome doesn't beat Firefox in memory usage. I just swapped from a Linux Mint Debian installation, in which I used Firefox primarily, to a Sabayon Linux installation, in which I use Chrome primarily. Similar configurations, similar extensions, similar page load - very similar memory usage. I suppose that anyone could do that same test for themselves, and different people would get different results. Someone who loads a butt-ton load of Java apps in their browser may find that brand Z works better, while someone who gloms onto every Flash app will find that brand Y works best, while the other dude who runs a stripped down version with no extensions enabled finds that brand X is bestest and fastest.
For MY purposes, it actually seems that Firefox may have a very slight edge on Chrome for memory usage, but I'd have to do some double checking before I committed myself to that statement.
Text based browsers are great, when that's all you need or want. We can bemoan the waste and bloat on the internet, but at the same time, all of us like a pretty browser with some bells and whistled. Of course, "pretty" is in the eye of the beholder, but for most of us "pretty" is something more than a mostly blank with simple print. The solution seems to be, install your favorite (or least despised, as the case may be) and tweak it to your liking.
Yep. The youngsters won't remember that, and some of the not-so-young have forgotten it. If Firefox disappeared tomorrow, and we never saw another release, it would have served it's primary purpose. We would still have four major browsers available, all largely "standards compliant", along with a number of less popular browsers. Firefox changed the landscape, dramatically.
I can't even remember which milestone I started on now, but it seemed to take FOREVER for 1.0 to come out. I guess it's close to a decade since I grabbed my first copy of Firefox now. To lazy to look up the dates for all the point.whatever releases.
That is one of the humorous sides of advertising online. I needed a part for my motorcycle. The original lasted for more than thirty years, but rubber compounds do age - so I made a purchase. For three weeks now, every place that advertising isn't blocked entirely, Google manages to slip an advert for the same or similar parts for motorcycles. DUHHH - the part I bought will probably last longer than I will now! I won't be needing another, unless I buy another 30 year old bike to add to my stable!
Not me. An administrator doesn't NEED my password to take possession of every file I own. He doesn't need my approval, permission, or anything at all - he can just TAKE possession of everything. That holds true for Linux, Windows, any Unix-like - and I suppose it holds true for any other operating system as well. Admin or root is god, the alpha and the omega, the be-all and end-all. Why should the administrator ever ASK me for a password? It's far more likely that Admin or root will tell ME what my new password is!
"Do you want to know more"
There was another story with that line in it. I remember the story, not the author. Think it was a woman, who was the master cracker. She and her friends discovered evidence of the AI that was actually running Washington and the military industrial complex. One by one, the AI induced each of her friends to kill themselves. Always, the question was, "Do you want to know more?" Finally she was the only one left, trying to crack into the system. Her monitor took on a life of it's own, and she heard the question, "Do you want to know more?" She answered "No", and ran off to a basement with a faraday cage built into it - and stayed.
Who wrote it, and what was the name of it?
"hen the user returns to the site and signs in with the password, the inkblots are displayed again "
So, the inkblots aren't displayed unless the password was correct? Isn't that the signal to the bot that it has the correct password? What is being gained with these images again?
Well - I'm glad that I'm not alone here. I just figured that I was experiencing yet another hardship due to bad color vision. The images made no sense to me at all - but then, I can't see the numbers on a color vision chart either.
One very specific right was mentioned in the book. The right to vote. You EARN that right.
There were no other rights that were denied non-veterans. You should have noted that the star's dad didn't WANT him to enlist. He told the kid there was no point in serving - they had enough money to send him to the best schools, or whatever he wanted to do.
Try to get your facts straight. Voting is a "right" only in recent times, historically. Before the US and the French republic, I don't believe that any society awarded the "right to vote" based on nothing more than achieving the age of 18, or 21. Prior that, one had to be a land owner, or possess so much wealth, or have been born into aristocracy to have a vote.