Although satirising the socially inept seems a bit like priding yourself on your skill at boxing against quadriplegics.
I've demonstrated social ineptitude in the past and I think one of the healthiest things to do about it is to laugh at myself and not take my fuck-up so seriously. Consider social anxiety: this is often caused by people being told that they should behave in a certain way and take trivial social rituals as of high importance, when in fact there's always the option to play along and not really care - or even not play along and not care.
As long as you've played fair and tried your best, who cares how you come across? Laugh at the guys who talk the bullshit talk, and laugh at yourself when you try and fail at it - you're fine and those worth being around will not judge you!
I can see many possible positive interpretations to adding a laughter track to Schindler's List. The Nazis' killing of millions of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and other deviants[tm] was obviously unacceptable and inhuman (or "very human", if you're appropriately cynical), but Schindler's List is a fictionalisation. Some possible purposes/interpretations might be:
(1) Experimenting with causing discomfort in an audience by juxtaposing happy emotions with ones of horror;
(2) Getting the audience to see things from the power-crazed Nazi PoV, no matter how perverse: to a true Nazi, getting rid of Jews was a a positive, enjoyable, productive, thing, and why not smile and be happy while you're doing what you think is the correct thing?
(3) Questioning the media's exploitation of victims of the Holocaust: was Schindler's List's main mission and/or lasting effect to remind people about the Holocaust, or to make a few media companies richer? Are they laughing at you by publishing this? Couldn't it be a Song for Whoever?
I have more interesting things to worry about than some upper limit which I'm not an eighth of the way to reaching. Incidentally, the Tuffmail text filter is great for stripping HTML and attachments from mail for archiving (as well as reading on restricted platforms).
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Apple fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of an iPad (a Cortex A8 w/256 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder in the cloud to another cloud. 20 minutes. At home, on my Core i3 running NT 6.1, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this iPad, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Safari will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Because of lack of multitasking and keyboard, I can't even type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various iDevices, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen an iPad that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Apples' faster chip architecture. My Linksys WRT54GL with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 1000 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.
Apple addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use an iPad over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
In other news, real geeks have their own root server with their own setup (including greylisting and amavisd with spamd and clamav).
Well, I was running an Alpha OpenVMS-based mailserver until I moved to Tuffmail, if that counts as unnecessary geekery. The server had uptime countable in years, but when it turned out that the hardware was underpowered and the electricity overconsumed for my growing needs, I had the choice of migrating to the nowadays turnkey Linux solutions people dare to call "geeky", or finding someone who could do it for me.
And I say that as someone who loathes the mediocrity of most outsourcing efforts (Google, I'm looking at you). If I want to tinker for the sake of tinkering, I'll write an OS or magick up and/or implement an obscure language... maintaining a mailserver is today boring to me, whereas the guys at Tuffmail seem to find it interesting enough to do it even better than I did.
When I call up Apple customer support, I'm calling up a representative of Apple. It is absolutely not my concern whether I'm talking to the director, a salaried employee or a third party callcentre in India. Unlike your night cleaning strawman, the callee speaks on behalf of Apple. If he declares Apple's property abandoned, that's Apple's problem.
1. The member of staff acted with prejudice towards sexuality, so I think the punishment is fair.
Oh, really? Do you have any evidence? If I brought a baboon into a supermarket, would that be OK? If I pointed out that my baboon was gay, would it be homophobic to refuse the beast entry?
2. They were so dim-witted as to not figure out that they'd misheard the person, what with the GUIDE DOG AT HIS SIDE and all... they shouldn't be in that job, or have some serious learning to do.
Correct. That's how business works - if you fuck up, you learn or you fail at business. An apology and some English lessons would be a fine start. Payment and an "equal opportunity" course are recipes to get the prejudiced to treat the disabled with undeserved contempt on the basis of one arsehole.
3. It would be nice to see the $1500 go to a charity, but its their choice.
It might be, but it shouldn't be. Equal opportunity is about the guy with the guide dog having an equal opportunity to dine at the restaurant. There's nothing about my lack of blindness which gives me the opportunity to gain $1500 from the restaurant, so there's nothing about his blindness which should give him the opportunity to do so.
I found a fancy unlocked car which you drive but which had obvious signs of belonging to the dealer. I contacted the dealer (not you, because it's not your property, even you carelessly left it while it was in your care), who was not interested in taking the car back. So I assumed the property was abandoned and disposed of it as I please.
I can understand being a bit annoyed that restaurant staff can't understand your Australian, and would appreciate an apology and perhaps recommend that the restaurant send its staff on a basic English course.
But an Equal Opportunities Reneducation class because someone misunderstood "guide" as "gay" and then correctly refused entry of a random dog, gay or otherwise? Accepting $1500 because of the no harm that's been done to you? That's just playing the disabled card to gain special favours, and makes things harder for decent people who happen to be disabled.
Was it because they were advertising in a direct, in-your-face, honest way that you were bothered? Would you have preferred dulcet tones to make it sound like the company cares for you? Or a pretentious douche mocking a fat guy on a white background? Or do you just feel religious guilt when you see a scantily clad woman?
I mean, a serious customer cares for service that's good enough at a price that's affordable, no? Why would he care what adults voluntarily do in a marketing production?
judges just refuse to acknowledge the fact that Google Brazil is a subsidiary and might not have any control about Orkut, which is hosted in US ground.
So judges in Brazil don't recognise the laugable sleight of hand which goes on in the USA to absolve corporations of their responsibility and duty to adhere to the law... sounds like a good thing to me! "Subsidiary" means nothing more than "department" except in the minds of creative accountants and ne'er-do-wells.
it's as if China ordered companies to censor information outside of China
Actually, that'd be more honest and consistent. If you're going to hold someone accountable to local law, you have to close the loophole where they can profit from illegitimate activity by doing the specifically illegal bit outside the country.
What has Google's failure (in your opinion) at profiting from a particular operation got to do with whether that operation's purpose is profit-making? Next you'll be telling me that the Xbox must have been invented for the good of the gaming community, because that was a sink for MS greenback for so long.
Assuming Google's books accurately represent the state of YouTube, say, I'd say that YouTube is a fine loss leader. It's a great way of earning eyeballs for future projects as traditional media becomes more comfortable with Internet broadcasting. It's a sensible risk, if you have the cash, to assume that bandwidth costs will go down whereas revenue from advertising and datamining will improve.
Google were damn smart from a business perspective to have bought it - and that's why they did it: to make money from you so that Page, Brin and other shareholders can buy a bigger jet. Not because they care about you or your speech.
There's absolutely no rational justification for allowing Google to profit from publishing their users' material while not being liable for the consequences of publication. The whole point of free market is that you take a risk and potentially reap a reward. To put risk in the hand of individuals and reward in the hands of corporations is, well, what we expect from the US and its satellite states. See also banks.
I don't necessarily agree with Brazilian/British libel law, but to the extent that it exists, it should apply to the profit-making publisher as much as it applies to the individual. Inequality before the law in matters of speech is more insidious than totally restricted speech.
So if you piss off some bureaucrat, he can shut off your air at his whim.
No, because the people have chosen representatives and (via those representatives) laws which will, by the convoluted process of government, stop bureaucrats from shutting off your air at their whim. What'd be the point?
but your totalitarian argument is pure crap and deserves to be treated as such.
Totalitarian would be to state that the right not to have my air shut off is "God-given", in which case only someone more powerful than "God" could stop me breathing - i.e. anyone with enough physical strength to strangle me.
Get out of your sophomoric libertarian fantasy, and understand that its society would cause you to end up with precisely the opposite environment to the one you dream of.
A problem solved around 15 or 20 years ago by parking the read/write heads in a special landing zone.
There's no reason why the heads can't get stuck in the landing zone - what do you think a landing zone is? Make wiser use of the same search engine you used to write that incorrect statement to find out how many people can't spin up drives which have been in storage for a few years.
There's really no reason a hard drive is suddenly going to "go bad" sitting on a shelf somewhere.
You can stand by your unsubstantianted statement with contrary evidence for as long as you want; but if you're not trolling then you're just making a recipe for future loss of your valuable data. FWIW, this is the only way I've ever lost data, about 5 years ago: not because it's the only drive it's happened to, but because it happened to a drive which (pebkac) wasn't properly backed up.
External USB floppy drives are like £20. If you're dealing with any nation/business which doesn't have an obsession with being first on the technical upgrade treadmill, you'll have a lower bound of one floppy appearing per year - and that's enough to justify the expense.
At least one. What makes you think an unpowered hard drive is suddenly going to go bad?
Famous last words. Stiction, i.e. stuck heads or dried out bearings, often cured by freezing the drive or banging it appropriately carefully.
I've only tried two that old.
Well, then...:-)
There's also far more boot discs on CD than their are on floppy.
But if you're having trouble booting off a CD/DVD, your best bet may be to do initial bootloading from a floppy, chaining via a more forgiving routine.
I can't see anything suggesting that you can't regard the whole filesystem as your database of sensitive data.
Any more fine grained option will increase the chance of info leakage (log, swap, metadata), and still end up with some data/metadata other than purely the PII encrypted.
No it isn't - it's just that the bank from which physical cash is withdrawn should end up with a net loss. Same thing would happen if I, as an Interweb merchant, sold goods to someone who had used a stolen CC - the $ would be deducted from my account and I'd have just given away free goods.
Cybercrime affecting some guy across the world and/or his local bank then becomes real theft by a Russian resident from a bank in Russia. Watch the Russian government suddenly take notice.
Defending them? I'm just contextualising the problem.
To wit, cybercrimes cause precisely as much harm as your bank/government in your country wants them to cause. It's like spam: you could pretend that you can shut down all spammers across the world at source, or you could deploy education and effective antispam solutions to protect potential victims.
Ah, cyber crime, the offence of sending ones and zeros down a wire to produce forbidden tones.
To specify, money in a bank is just an entry in a database. Someone fraudulently reduce some entry by $1000 and increase another by $1000? Roll back.
Banks have a problem with the administrative burden? Luckily, mine is owned substantially by the state now, so shouldn't be much of a problem enforcing this.
Slashdot Mirror
Although satirising the socially inept seems a bit like priding yourself on your skill at boxing against quadriplegics.
I've demonstrated social ineptitude in the past and I think one of the healthiest things to do about it is to laugh at myself and not take my fuck-up so seriously. Consider social anxiety: this is often caused by people being told that they should behave in a certain way and take trivial social rituals as of high importance, when in fact there's always the option to play along and not really care - or even not play along and not care.
As long as you've played fair and tried your best, who cares how you come across? Laugh at the guys who talk the bullshit talk, and laugh at yourself when you try and fail at it - you're fine and those worth being around will not judge you!
I can see many possible positive interpretations to adding a laughter track to Schindler's List. The Nazis' killing of millions of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and other deviants[tm] was obviously unacceptable and inhuman (or "very human", if you're appropriately cynical), but Schindler's List is a fictionalisation. Some possible purposes/interpretations might be:
(1) Experimenting with causing discomfort in an audience by juxtaposing happy emotions with ones of horror;
(2) Getting the audience to see things from the power-crazed Nazi PoV, no matter how perverse: to a true Nazi, getting rid of Jews was a a positive, enjoyable, productive, thing, and why not smile and be happy while you're doing what you think is the correct thing?
(3) Questioning the media's exploitation of victims of the Holocaust: was Schindler's List's main mission and/or lasting effect to remind people about the Holocaust, or to make a few media companies richer? Are they laughing at you by publishing this? Couldn't it be a Song for Whoever?
Yet they don't offer encryption. Lame.
What is your motive? You've posted that twice in this thread, yet the site is clear in several places that encryption is offered. Perhaps you want to see this comprehensive matrix of encryption offerings on various ports for various services.
And $50/year won't give you 7GB of storage.
I have more interesting things to worry about than some upper limit which I'm not an eighth of the way to reaching. Incidentally, the Tuffmail text filter is great for stripping HTML and attachments from mail for archiving (as well as reading on restricted platforms).
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Apple fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of an iPad (a Cortex A8 w/256 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder in the cloud to another cloud. 20 minutes. At home, on my Core i3 running NT 6.1, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this iPad, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Safari will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Because of lack of multitasking and keyboard, I can't even type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various iDevices, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen an iPad that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Apples' faster chip architecture. My Linksys WRT54GL with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 1000 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.
Apple addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use an iPad over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
In other news, real geeks have their own root server with their own setup (including greylisting and amavisd with spamd and clamav).
Well, I was running an Alpha OpenVMS-based mailserver until I moved to Tuffmail, if that counts as unnecessary geekery. The server had uptime countable in years, but when it turned out that the hardware was underpowered and the electricity overconsumed for my growing needs, I had the choice of migrating to the nowadays turnkey Linux solutions people dare to call "geeky", or finding someone who could do it for me.
And I say that as someone who loathes the mediocrity of most outsourcing efforts (Google, I'm looking at you). If I want to tinker for the sake of tinkering, I'll write an OS or magick up and/or implement an obscure language... maintaining a mailserver is today boring to me, whereas the guys at Tuffmail seem to find it interesting enough to do it even better than I did.
Gmail IMAP [google.com]. I don't see the ads because I don't use the webserver.
Ads are less intrusive than the datamining which will occur regardless of whether you see the ads. To me, anyway.
I use an ISP mailbox for primary mail.
Do you mean that you use your ISP's SMTP server? What about when you're on the road?
Tuffmail remains cooler, and has not sold out. Happy customer for several years.
When I call up Apple customer support, I'm calling up a representative of Apple. It is absolutely not my concern whether I'm talking to the director, a salaried employee or a third party callcentre in India. Unlike your night cleaning strawman, the callee speaks on behalf of Apple. If he declares Apple's property abandoned, that's Apple's problem.
1. The member of staff acted with prejudice towards sexuality, so I think the punishment is fair.
Oh, really? Do you have any evidence? If I brought a baboon into a supermarket, would that be OK? If I pointed out that my baboon was gay, would it be homophobic to refuse the beast entry?
2. They were so dim-witted as to not figure out that they'd misheard the person, what with the GUIDE DOG AT HIS SIDE and all... they shouldn't be in that job, or have some serious learning to do.
Correct. That's how business works - if you fuck up, you learn or you fail at business. An apology and some English lessons would be a fine start. Payment and an "equal opportunity" course are recipes to get the prejudiced to treat the disabled with undeserved contempt on the basis of one arsehole.
3. It would be nice to see the $1500 go to a charity, but its their choice.
It might be, but it shouldn't be. Equal opportunity is about the guy with the guide dog having an equal opportunity to dine at the restaurant. There's nothing about my lack of blindness which gives me the opportunity to gain $1500 from the restaurant, so there's nothing about his blindness which should give him the opportunity to do so.
Dear Apple fanboy,
I found a fancy unlocked car which you drive but which had obvious signs of belonging to the dealer. I contacted the dealer (not you, because it's not your property, even you carelessly left it while it was in your care), who was not interested in taking the car back. So I assumed the property was abandoned and disposed of it as I please.
I can understand being a bit annoyed that restaurant staff can't understand your Australian, and would appreciate an apology and perhaps recommend that the restaurant send its staff on a basic English course.
But an Equal Opportunities Reneducation class because someone misunderstood "guide" as "gay" and then correctly refused entry of a random dog, gay or otherwise? Accepting $1500 because of the no harm that's been done to you? That's just playing the disabled card to gain special favours, and makes things harder for decent people who happen to be disabled.
Was it because they were advertising in a direct, in-your-face, honest way that you were bothered? Would you have preferred dulcet tones to make it sound like the company cares for you? Or a pretentious douche mocking a fat guy on a white background? Or do you just feel religious guilt when you see a scantily clad woman?
I mean, a serious customer cares for service that's good enough at a price that's affordable, no? Why would he care what adults voluntarily do in a marketing production?
judges just refuse to acknowledge the fact that Google Brazil is a subsidiary and might not have any control about Orkut, which is hosted in US ground.
So judges in Brazil don't recognise the laugable sleight of hand which goes on in the USA to absolve corporations of their responsibility and duty to adhere to the law... sounds like a good thing to me! "Subsidiary" means nothing more than "department" except in the minds of creative accountants and ne'er-do-wells.
it's as if China ordered companies to censor information outside of China
Actually, that'd be more honest and consistent. If you're going to hold someone accountable to local law, you have to close the loophole where they can profit from illegitimate activity by doing the specifically illegal bit outside the country.
What has Google's failure (in your opinion) at profiting from a particular operation got to do with whether that operation's purpose is profit-making? Next you'll be telling me that the Xbox must have been invented for the good of the gaming community, because that was a sink for MS greenback for so long.
Assuming Google's books accurately represent the state of YouTube, say, I'd say that YouTube is a fine loss leader. It's a great way of earning eyeballs for future projects as traditional media becomes more comfortable with Internet broadcasting. It's a sensible risk, if you have the cash, to assume that bandwidth costs will go down whereas revenue from advertising and datamining will improve.
Google were damn smart from a business perspective to have bought it - and that's why they did it: to make money from you so that Page, Brin and other shareholders can buy a bigger jet. Not because they care about you or your speech.
Welcome to the world, kid.
Oh, wow, I didn't realise Google had registered as a charity - how much do you donate a month? I wouldn't want to freeload!
"It inconveniences the rich" isn't a reason to not apply a law to them.
The Internet as I know and hate it, including Slashdot, would still exist because it's fairly hard to libel someone in the US.
The problem is Brazilian libel law itself, not Brazil's correct application of the law to everyone.
Pretty much this.
There's absolutely no rational justification for allowing Google to profit from publishing their users' material while not being liable for the consequences of publication. The whole point of free market is that you take a risk and potentially reap a reward. To put risk in the hand of individuals and reward in the hands of corporations is, well, what we expect from the US and its satellite states. See also banks.
I don't necessarily agree with Brazilian/British libel law, but to the extent that it exists, it should apply to the profit-making publisher as much as it applies to the individual. Inequality before the law in matters of speech is more insidious than totally restricted speech.
So if you piss off some bureaucrat, he can shut off your air at his whim.
No, because the people have chosen representatives and (via those representatives) laws which will, by the convoluted process of government, stop bureaucrats from shutting off your air at their whim. What'd be the point?
but your totalitarian argument is pure crap and deserves to be treated as such.
Totalitarian would be to state that the right not to have my air shut off is "God-given", in which case only someone more powerful than "God" could stop me breathing - i.e. anyone with enough physical strength to strangle me.
Get out of your sophomoric libertarian fantasy, and understand that its society would cause you to end up with precisely the opposite environment to the one you dream of.
A problem solved around 15 or 20 years ago by parking the read/write heads in a special landing zone.
There's no reason why the heads can't get stuck in the landing zone - what do you think a landing zone is? Make wiser use of the same search engine you used to write that incorrect statement to find out how many people can't spin up drives which have been in storage for a few years.
There's really no reason a hard drive is suddenly going to "go bad" sitting on a shelf somewhere.
You can stand by your unsubstantianted statement with contrary evidence for as long as you want; but if you're not trolling then you're just making a recipe for future loss of your valuable data. FWIW, this is the only way I've ever lost data, about 5 years ago: not because it's the only drive it's happened to, but because it happened to a drive which (pebkac) wasn't properly backed up.
External USB floppy drives are like £20. If you're dealing with any nation/business which doesn't have an obsession with being first on the technical upgrade treadmill, you'll have a lower bound of one floppy appearing per year - and that's enough to justify the expense.
At least one. What makes you think an unpowered hard drive is suddenly going to go bad?
Famous last words. Stiction, i.e. stuck heads or dried out bearings, often cured by freezing the drive or banging it appropriately carefully.
I've only tried two that old.
Well, then... :-)
There's also far more boot discs on CD than their are on floppy.
But if you're having trouble booting off a CD/DVD, your best bet may be to do initial bootloading from a floppy, chaining via a more forgiving routine.
I can't see anything suggesting that you can't regard the whole filesystem as your database of sensitive data.
Any more fine grained option will increase the chance of info leakage (log, swap, metadata), and still end up with some data/metadata other than purely the PII encrypted.
No it isn't - it's just that the bank from which physical cash is withdrawn should end up with a net loss. Same thing would happen if I, as an Interweb merchant, sold goods to someone who had used a stolen CC - the $ would be deducted from my account and I'd have just given away free goods.
Cybercrime affecting some guy across the world and/or his local bank then becomes real theft by a Russian resident from a bank in Russia. Watch the Russian government suddenly take notice.
Defending them? I'm just contextualising the problem.
To wit, cybercrimes cause precisely as much harm as your bank/government in your country wants them to cause. It's like spam: you could pretend that you can shut down all spammers across the world at source, or you could deploy education and effective antispam solutions to protect potential victims.
Install Truecrypt; set up on system drive.
It's fairly shockingly idiot proof for a free and supposedly strong encryption solution.
Or Bitlocker if you have Ultimate, maybe.
Or VileFault if you must use a Mac.
Ah, cyber crime, the offence of sending ones and zeros down a wire to produce forbidden tones.
To specify, money in a bank is just an entry in a database. Someone fraudulently reduce some entry by $1000 and increase another by $1000? Roll back.
Banks have a problem with the administrative burden? Luckily, mine is owned substantially by the state now, so shouldn't be much of a problem enforcing this.