Odd Number Star Trek Movies: Bad Even Number Star Trek Movies: Good
Odd releases of Windows: Good-ish (grading on a curve only against other versions of MS Windows) Even releases of Windows: God awful
(Assuming you count Windows 95 and Windows 98 as one release, which is more or less the case since Windows 98 was essentially Windows 95 with better USB support.)
Well, thanks for the "+1 Funny", but what I was really trying to say is that someone should mod Phil's comment up more since he actually answered a question that I'm sure a lot of us were wondering when we heard that some developers would still be using Bitkeeper after the core group moved away from it.
I motion that Phil be banned from Slashdot for actually ANSWERING THE QUESTION instead of telling the original poster to RTFA (which didn't have the answer to the question) or raving about the benifits of using Bitkeeper (which doesn't answer the ramifications of a project that includes some developers that are using it and some that aren't).
1. I hardly think that "[Bush is] the biggest threat to democracy since Hitler" without any supporting evidence is an extremely intelligent and insightful argument that needs a thoughtful rebuttal.
2. Have you ever considered that my first post was meant to be taken humorously?
3. Obviously I'm not putting my fingers in my ears and going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU", since I'm still reading this (although I don't know why) and responding.
For the record, I am just about the farthest thing you can be from a Republican. I did not vote for Bush, I WOULD NOT vote for Bush, and I do not think the is doing a good job, either domestically or internationally.
As awful as Bush is, though, he is far from rating a comparison to Hitler, and to make the comparison is to turn the Holocaust into a sound bite useful for taking pot-shots at politicians.
Finally, if you follow the links and read Godwin's own comments on Godwin's law, there are specific exemptions for actually talking about the Holocaust or other real-world Nazi activity.
This works fine even without the blackhole web server. I have a small DNS server on my home network that is "caching only" except for a few annoying domains like x10.com and doubleclick.net. Any lookup into these domains return 127.0.0.1, and simply get a "connection refused". The banner or popup simply doesn't load, usually without me noticing that anything was even supposed to happen.
If you run your own DNS server (I run a small caching-only DNS server on my home network), then this is even easier to block.
My little "caching only" DNS server thinks that it is authoritative for x10.com, doubleclick.net, and a few other obnoxious domains. Any attempt to resolve any hostname from one of these domains returns 127.0.0.1, which always seems to reject the connection, for some reason!
Those shots are often black and white to begin with!
Actually, they're not usually black and white, they're more often things like gamma, x-ray, UV, etc. Even simply making them black and white would make a significant change in the visible image.
I have a Sonly Clie' PDA with a digicam built in, and it can be used to demonstrate how digicams "see" color differently, especially in the near-infrared range.
If you go into the camera application and aim the Clie' at an infrared remote control (like a TV or stereo remote), and hit one of the buttons on the remote, the PDA camera will pick up the infrared and actually display it visibly!
[T]hey blindly assumed guilt based on the person and the place.
Not much different than the way that they managed to persuade the government to assume that any CD-R's sold will be used for recording pirated music, and persuaded several universities to assume that anyone participating in a peer-to-peer is trading illegal copies of music.
I don't know about you, but I am tired of being held hostage by the words "If it could save just one life, it would be worth it."
Agreed. Not only in the personal privacy sense, but this impacts nearly every aspect of our lives. Consumer protection is one thing, but when you can't find any hint of undisturbed nature within a mile of Tequamenon falls because the everything within a days walk has been covered with boardwalks and guard rails to make it "safe" and "accessible", then we've taken the idea too far.
I think the main reason that "Not today, but maybe soon" is winning is the crummy selection of choices in the poll. I'll bet that if "Not until someone comes up with a good audit process and a way to hold the vendor responsible" was a choice, the results would be a bit different. I don't see that happening "soon" so "maybe soon" was definitely not an option for me.
According to the news (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/donotcall_09- 25-03.html), the reason that the judge declared it unconstitutional is that it treated some forms of "speech" (commercial telemarketing) differently than others (charities and political calls).
The obvious answer would seem to be to redesign the DNC list to give individuals the options: Block Commercial Telemarketing: (Y/N) Block Calls from Political Organizations: (Y/N) Block Calls from Charities: (Y/N) Block Calls from In-Laws: (Y/N)
OK, maybe that last one is going a little too far...
Now before charities start to complain that they live and die by telephone fund raising, how many people that would be motivated by fundraising calls to make a donation would put their names on the list? It seems that this might acutally make fundraising EASIER by improving the efficiency, as the charities will only be calling people that are likely to be persuaded to donate.
And this neatly removes the "Free Speech" argument made by the Federal Judge in Denver.
>> And tell me what kind of legal basis does anyone have for doing something like this? > > It's quite simple really; Your first amendment gives you the right to free speech; > > BUT it doesn't say people must listen to you while you're speaking... > > which is what happens when you've been UDP's (everyone walks past you on your soapbox with their fingers in their ears)
Just out of curiosity, why are all of the posts like this one (which simply explain that the UDP is simply based on the well-established tenant that while group A has the right of free speech, group B is under no obligation to listen) being moderated down so heavily?
From what I understand of USENET, I thought that this was pretty much on target...
Speaking (AFAIK) for all of the @HOME network: The ban on servers is ONLY on servers that are "visible" from outside your LAN. This would not prevent you (for example) from running a print server on your LAN (as long as it wasn't accessible from outside of your LAN). This makes sense, since their intention is to keep people from chewing up bandwidth (unless they pay extra money for the @WORK service), not to impose silly restrictions on people (although they sometimes manage to do that, too).
Speaking only for the AT&T @HOME service: Although DHCP is used to make it easy to configure your network connection, the IP address itself is fixed. DHCP is not required, and Linux is one of the operating systems that is listed as supported.
My own configuration is that my lan is hidden behind a firewall (a *MUST HAVE* for any LAN with a full time Internet connection!!) with NAT capability (GNAT Box. http://www.gnatbox.com if you're interested. The free version allows up to five hosts on the protected network to access the Internet simultaneously.) The side benefit to this is that I only needed a single IP address to give Internet access to all four machines on my LAN.
I have my firewall configured to NOT use DHCP to configure the external address, which makes my network a little safer from "man in the middle" attacks. Not only is configuring the address statically expressly permitted, but it was actively encouraged by the tech who installed my cable modem.
Also, I am using my own network card to communicate with the cable modem. Again, AT&T @HOME took this in stride without even blinking.
Finally, I am using an unmodified Netscape 4.7 (downloaded directly from Netscape, not the version that AT&T @HOME gives you on their CD). I don't have any problem accessing either my account settings or the exclusive content that AT&T @HOME provides (FWIW).
From what I've seen, since AT&T bought TCI, things have been getting better and better in our area. Of course, if your @HOME service isn't provided by AT&T then YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
MS is the Anti-Star Trek.
Odd Number Star Trek Movies: Bad
Even Number Star Trek Movies: Good
Odd releases of Windows: Good-ish (grading on a curve only against other versions of MS Windows)
Even releases of Windows: God awful
(Assuming you count Windows 95 and Windows 98 as one release, which is more or less the case since Windows 98 was essentially Windows 95 with better USB support.)
Agreed.
Rule #1: Your bank does not email you about important stuff.
Rule #2: If your bank emails you, don't follow links in the email, just go log in like you normally do.
Two simple rules. This isn't rocket science!
Some that I haven't seen mentioned already
James Blish: The "Cities in flight" series
Edgar Rice Burroughs: John Carter of Mars series
At least until your pacemaker calculates that it doesn't need to beat again for 30 years....
I use the "Open" button on the DVD remote to mess with the cats' minds when they walk past the entertainment center.
Mr. Bigglesworth!
Within the last two months, I got screwed paying and being paid. Needless to say, after I use up my current balance I won't use PayPal again.
Aluminum might be lighter than copper, but last I knew copper was a better conductor.
Well, thanks for the "+1 Funny", but what I was really trying to say is that someone should mod Phil's comment up more since he actually answered a question that I'm sure a lot of us were wondering when we heard that some developers would still be using Bitkeeper after the core group moved away from it.
I motion that Phil be banned from Slashdot for actually ANSWERING THE QUESTION instead of telling the original poster to RTFA (which didn't have the answer to the question) or raving about the benifits of using Bitkeeper (which doesn't answer the ramifications of a project that includes some developers that are using it and some that aren't).
We expect better from you in the future, Phil!
I have two words for you: "Snow Crash" :)
1. I hardly think that "[Bush is] the biggest threat to democracy since Hitler" without any supporting evidence is an extremely intelligent and insightful argument that needs a thoughtful rebuttal.
2. Have you ever considered that my first post was meant to be taken humorously?
3. Obviously I'm not putting my fingers in my ears and going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU", since I'm still reading this (although I don't know why) and responding.
For the record, I am just about the farthest thing you can be from a Republican. I did not vote for Bush, I WOULD NOT vote for Bush, and I do not think the is doing a good job, either domestically or internationally.
As awful as Bush is, though, he is far from rating a comparison to Hitler, and to make the comparison is to turn the Holocaust into a sound bite useful for taking pot-shots at politicians.
Finally, if you follow the links and read Godwin's own comments on Godwin's law, there are specific exemptions for actually talking about the Holocaust or other real-world Nazi activity.
Next time, check your assumptions at the door.
Doesn't this mean that the discussion is no over (and you lost), by Godwin's law?
This works fine even without the blackhole web server. I have a small DNS server on my home network that is "caching only" except for a few annoying domains like x10.com and doubleclick.net. Any lookup into these domains return 127.0.0.1, and simply get a "connection refused". The banner or popup simply doesn't load, usually without me noticing that anything was even supposed to happen.
If you run your own DNS server (I run a small caching-only DNS server on my home network), then this is even easier to block.
My little "caching only" DNS server thinks that it is authoritative for x10.com, doubleclick.net, and a few other obnoxious domains. Any attempt to resolve any hostname from one of these domains returns 127.0.0.1, which always seems to reject the connection, for some reason!
Those shots are often black and white to begin with!
Actually, they're not usually black and white, they're more often things like gamma, x-ray, UV, etc. Even simply making them black and white would make a significant change in the visible image.
I have a Sonly Clie' PDA with a digicam built in, and it can be used to demonstrate how digicams "see" color differently, especially in the near-infrared range.
If you go into the camera application and aim the Clie' at an infrared remote control (like a TV or stereo remote), and hit one of the buttons on the remote, the PDA camera will pick up the infrared and actually display it visibly!
[T]hey blindly assumed guilt based on the person and the place.
Not much different than the way that they managed to persuade the government to assume that any CD-R's sold will be used for recording pirated music, and persuaded several universities to assume that anyone participating in a peer-to-peer is trading illegal copies of music.
Shortly after your post, Jason Schultz posted a reply (it's a few threads back) in which he says that he was misquoted, and also mislead as to exactly what he was giving an opinion on.. This is not to disparage your post (especially since it predates Jason's) -- but just to additional clarification here.
I don't know about you, but I am tired of being held hostage by the words "If it could save just one life, it would be worth it."
Agreed. Not only in the personal privacy sense, but this impacts nearly every aspect of our lives. Consumer protection is one thing, but when you can't find any hint of undisturbed nature within a mile of Tequamenon falls because the everything within a days walk has been covered with boardwalks and guard rails to make it "safe" and "accessible", then we've taken the idea too far.
I think the main reason that "Not today, but maybe soon" is winning is the crummy selection of choices in the poll. I'll bet that if "Not until someone comes up with a good audit process and a way to hold the vendor responsible" was a choice, the results would be a bit different. I don't see that happening "soon" so "maybe soon" was definitely not an option for me.
According to the news (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/donotcall_09- 25-03.html), the reason that the judge declared it unconstitutional is that it treated some forms of "speech" (commercial telemarketing) differently than others (charities and political calls).
The obvious answer would seem to be to redesign the DNC list to give individuals the options:
Block Commercial Telemarketing: (Y/N)
Block Calls from Political Organizations: (Y/N)
Block Calls from Charities: (Y/N)
Block Calls from In-Laws: (Y/N)
OK, maybe that last one is going a little too far...
Now before charities start to complain that they live and die by telephone fund raising, how many people that would be motivated by fundraising calls to make a donation would put their names on the list? It seems that this might acutally make fundraising EASIER by improving the efficiency, as the charities will only be calling people that are likely to be persuaded to donate.
And this neatly removes the "Free Speech" argument made by the Federal Judge in Denver.
>> And tell me what kind of legal basis does anyone have for doing something like this?
>
> It's quite simple really; Your first amendment gives you the right to free speech;
>
> BUT it doesn't say people must listen to you while you're speaking...
>
> which is what happens when you've been UDP's (everyone walks past you on your soapbox with their fingers in their ears)
Just out of curiosity, why are all of the posts like this one (which simply explain that the UDP is simply based on the well-established tenant that while group A has the right of free speech, group B is under no obligation to listen) being moderated down so heavily?
From what I understand of USENET, I thought that this was pretty much on target...
Speaking only for the AT&T @HOME service: Although DHCP is used to make it easy to configure your network connection, the IP address itself is fixed. DHCP is not required, and Linux is one of the operating systems that is listed as supported.
My own configuration is that my lan is hidden behind a firewall (a *MUST HAVE* for any LAN with a full time Internet connection!!) with NAT capability (GNAT Box. http://www.gnatbox.com if you're interested. The free version allows up to five hosts on the protected network to access the Internet simultaneously.) The side benefit to this is that I only needed a single IP address to give Internet access to all four machines on my LAN.
I have my firewall configured to NOT use DHCP to configure the external address, which makes my network a little safer from "man in the middle" attacks. Not only is configuring the address statically expressly permitted, but it was actively encouraged by the tech who installed my cable modem.
Also, I am using my own network card to communicate with the cable modem. Again, AT&T @HOME took this in stride without even blinking.
Finally, I am using an unmodified Netscape 4.7 (downloaded directly from Netscape, not the version that AT&T @HOME gives you on their CD). I don't have any problem accessing either my account settings or the exclusive content that AT&T @HOME provides (FWIW).
From what I've seen, since AT&T bought TCI, things have been getting better and better in our area. Of course, if your @HOME service isn't provided by AT&T then YMMV.