The gods are kind and benevolent. Not only do they bestow their gifts upon us (software), but they show us the way (source) so we can ascend to their level.
Not only do they welcome ascension, but the know that no being, god or mortal, is without flaw. They listen when we say there is a problem (bug report) and accept our suggestions (patches) to make the universe better.
so...the OSS developers are the Ancients and the proprietary software developers are the Ori? That explains the burning sensation in my rear when I use Windows. I guess that makes Miguel de Icaza to be Oma Desala...so who are the goa'uld?</stargate sg1>
This is a patently bad idea with regards to general usage. While this idea is great in theory, there is one major drawback:
More components mean more points of potential failure.
The problem in this is, should you need the firearm, at any time it may be unreliable no matter what you're using (even Kalashnikov recognized this in his design): when in a life-or-death situation, Murphy's law usually decides to rear its ugly head, and at that point you're playing the odds: I have x components, y components stand a chance of failing. If any one of y components fails, the firearm fails to function, and you may quickly wind up dead.
Now: that said, if we had a society where firearms weren't necessary for home protection or policing (I rarely ever see the latter in action where I live, so I require the former), then this would be great. On sport firearms, this would be great, because you don't need the reliability you would in a protection scenario. However, in any situation to where you have a life-or-death scenario, as many firearms are manufactured for in the first place, you do not EVER want extra complexity that may cause failure in function of your sidearm.
Actually, RedHat 9 updates are still available through the Fedora Legacy project (http://www.fedoralegacy.org/). Payment not required (though I'm pretty sure they'd like a donation or two)
While in a manner of speaking I'm all for this, it's already been done to death.
Throughout the last 100-someodd years, the rest of the US has looked to the South as "cheap labor" -- most of the factories that've closed here paid just at or barely above minimum wage, with no option for any real pay raises, and offer conditions that no state in the North would accept. Perhaps this is just a return to that trend. I can only hope that the trend of severe employee abuse won't carry over.
Perhaps somewhat ironically, most Klan members I've met are die-hard Democrats. Naturally, this goes back to when the Dems had the "fighting cock" as their mascot with the slogan "White Supremacy" as its banner, and these folks are currently in their late 60s to mid 70s.
They seem to hold on to some ideal that while the people they vote for publically display their affection and attention towards racial and ethnic minorities, inwardly they are working in favor of their extinction (i.e. supporting abortion for inner-city black women but not for upscale white women, supporting welfare programs imbalanced in favor of minorities so they'll never escape poverty, etc... (this is their justification, I'm not saying it's fact))
is in Scientology. Those individuals train for years to defeat a lie detector, even if they're not ready for it. The e-meter basically is a lie detector (it's a little hyper-sensitive on any reaction, as is shown from their "rock slam" of the needle bouncing like mad since they don't use the reduced bounce meters) that they train against for years to get to where nothing they say or do will carry a reaction (i.e. "floating").
Naturally, as was said before, you can defeat most polygraph tests with 30 minutes of training, or using the ability to answer the "wrong" question with the right answer for what they're asking you.
Re:Great now im going to lose my job
on
Flying By Brain
·
· Score: 1
or perhaps...the rat race? OW! HEY! QUIT! OUCH! (@*$^(#$(&)(^%$)@^%$#NO CARRIER
You might be right, but it also could be an attempt to clog bayesian filters for USENET spam (they do have those these days, right?) or just crapflood. However, I stand corrected. Thanks:)
USENET would be great, but on local servers, they can track IPs viewing each item (yeah, yeah, I know...proxies). The problem involved is that with USENET, there has to be a pre-specified set of newsgroups, and they have to go to a remote server and fetch them, as opposed to just opening your mailbox and getting all sorts of junk sent right to your door inconspicuously.
Besides -- with all the normal stuff that goes on on USENET, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't watched very closely already for any suspicious patterns. Email volume allows you to hide something in the midst of more junk in one week than all the USENET connections can dump in a year.
actually, you've pretty much hit the nail right on the head.
There's one program out there that turns a normal message into a spam message based on the textual content, and can be decoded by running it through the same program. However, this doesn't go far enough to a degree -- if you create such a message, there's only one way to distribute it effectively and subversively, as to not be detected and your agent compromised:
spam.
Simple steps:
Make certain your recipient has tens or hundreds of low-profile email accounts on every free mail provider out there
Craft your message as spam using a predetermined sequence, or use a one-time pad which the recipient has on hand that the return message will look like spam
Create dummy websites that contain order information for the product(s) you're selling, and actually sell something -- the subversive can effectively use this as a side phishing tool
Purchase several "100 TRILLION EMAIL ADDRESSES!@!@!@! $29.95!@!!!!!@" CDs, and scrape USENET and websites for email addresses
Each time, use a different spam relay
Spam every email in the list, including your recipients
From this, the message is completely lost in noise, and is theoretically disregarded...with all the spammers out there, the noise volume is enormous.
The only problem with this scenario is that your recipients have no measures to contact you again, but you can set up a web log or forum where you talk about kittens or someshit and they'll be able to place padded messages back, or whatever you want to do.
Now -- hopefully, if the national governments hadn't thought about this before, we'll see a "war on spam" where they'll drop a few bunker busters on a few spammers out there:D
I think what you're referring to is the return of the ANSI bomb -- there have been several patches to programs such as less and vim to prevent this from occurring, but your recollection is correct; you can place certain control sequences in output messages (I'd imagine a wide-open syslog would be relatively simple) that, when displayed via certain terminals and/or certain programs, could cause command execution with the privileges of the user.
Here is the result of some quick googling on the subject.
This idea's kind of an anachronism, but it held very true not 25 years ago.
Ma Bell used to charge per phone in the house, so most households had only one phone and one phone line (the rest would disable the ringers on any newer phones so the CO would only see one phone).
At any rate, when you were calling someone, they may have been at the other end of the house or even outside when you called, hence the one minute "rule", to give them time to get to the phone.
Is this anything like a certain other organization stating that everyone "ought to have" universal health care, without saying how, or who's going to pay for it, etc? This is a normal function of politicians, folks, nothing to see here.
1. Not sure or certain; doubtful: unemployed and facing an insecure future.
2. Inadequately guarded or protected; unsafe: A shortage of military police made the air base insecure.
3. Not firm or fixed; unsteady: an insecure foothold.
4.
1. Lacking stability; troubled: an insecure relationship.
2. Lacking self-confidence; plagued by anxiety: had always felt insecure at parties.
(seen on IRC shortly after the release of the movie "Hackers") "d00d!! 3y3 h4x3d 4 g1bs0n l4st n1gh7!!@!!@!" "Yeah, I screwed with my guitar, too. Now it sounds like a drowning cat."
in a true democracy there should be an absolute separation between church and state.
Just a small note here -- in a "true democracy", should the majority decide that they wish for the state to be religious, it will be. Therefore, this statement cannot be applied properly even in theory.
As some communists have said (yes, I know Stalin was one of them, and he was quite correct), true democracy breeds socialism.
So... if we are talking about casual conversation, then you cannot rule out dialect. Therefore, by virtue of dialect, should some region decide "quiboffle" is a word and use it in casual conversation, would it be "incorrect", or would it be dialectically proper for that region?
Also, how many words began as a dialectic anomaly and were codified by the "ruling masters" of the language? I would venture to say at least half.
Usage of contractions in formal language is extraordinarily bad grammar. Your use of "doesn't" falls under this rule as well.
There is little codification of contractions in the English language, as they are not words to begin with, but fragments of two words placed together for speed of pronunciation and writing.
"Ain't", "aren't", "should've", etc... are all "bad grammar", regardless of their perceived position of "correctness". You can create your own contractions (what a novel idea!), and while they would not be technically correct in any sense of grammar, they would still be acceptable in average conversation.
How many people do you hear utilize "shouldn't've" and "couldn't've" as short for "should not have" and "could not have"?
Slashdot Mirror
so...the OSS developers are the Ancients and the proprietary software developers are the Ori? That explains the burning sensation in my rear when I use Windows. I guess that makes Miguel de Icaza to be Oma Desala...so who are the goa'uld?</stargate sg1>
This was what mine was before I upgraded:
Dis beez my box.
It don' be real fast.
But if you fuck wit it,
I be kickin' yo ass.
-- Management
2006 - 1983 = 21? man...I guess that's the new math for you
isn't anonymizer.com run by the CIA? Not to be dense or paranoid, but I heard somewhere that it is.
This is a patently bad idea with regards to general usage. While this idea is great in theory, there is one major drawback:
More components mean more points of potential failure.
The problem in this is, should you need the firearm, at any time it may be unreliable no matter what you're using (even Kalashnikov recognized this in his design): when in a life-or-death situation, Murphy's law usually decides to rear its ugly head, and at that point you're playing the odds: I have x components, y components stand a chance of failing. If any one of y components fails, the firearm fails to function, and you may quickly wind up dead.
Now: that said, if we had a society where firearms weren't necessary for home protection or policing (I rarely ever see the latter in action where I live, so I require the former), then this would be great. On sport firearms, this would be great, because you don't need the reliability you would in a protection scenario. However, in any situation to where you have a life-or-death scenario, as many firearms are manufactured for in the first place, you do not EVER want extra complexity that may cause failure in function of your sidearm.
Actually, RedHat 9 updates are still available through the Fedora Legacy project (http://www.fedoralegacy.org/). Payment not required (though I'm pretty sure they'd like a donation or two)
While in a manner of speaking I'm all for this, it's already been done to death.
Throughout the last 100-someodd years, the rest of the US has looked to the South as "cheap labor" -- most of the factories that've closed here paid just at or barely above minimum wage, with no option for any real pay raises, and offer conditions that no state in the North would accept. Perhaps this is just a return to that trend. I can only hope that the trend of severe employee abuse won't carry over.
Perhaps somewhat ironically, most Klan members I've met are die-hard Democrats. Naturally, this goes back to when the Dems had the "fighting cock" as their mascot with the slogan "White Supremacy" as its banner, and these folks are currently in their late 60s to mid 70s.
They seem to hold on to some ideal that while the people they vote for publically display their affection and attention towards racial and ethnic minorities, inwardly they are working in favor of their extinction (i.e. supporting abortion for inner-city black women but not for upscale white women, supporting welfare programs imbalanced in favor of minorities so they'll never escape poverty, etc... (this is their justification, I'm not saying it's fact))
is in Scientology. Those individuals train for years to defeat a lie detector, even if they're not ready for it. The e-meter basically is a lie detector (it's a little hyper-sensitive on any reaction, as is shown from their "rock slam" of the needle bouncing like mad since they don't use the reduced bounce meters) that they train against for years to get to where nothing they say or do will carry a reaction (i.e. "floating").
Naturally, as was said before, you can defeat most polygraph tests with 30 minutes of training, or using the ability to answer the "wrong" question with the right answer for what they're asking you.
or perhaps...the rat race? OW! HEY! QUIT! OUCH! (@*$^(#$(&)(^%$)@^%$#NO CARRIER
This link should be http://thenaderfactor.com/ instead -- "thenadorfactor.com" isn't resolving (nor even registered)
You might be right, but it also could be an attempt to clog bayesian filters for USENET spam (they do have those these days, right?) or just crapflood. However, I stand corrected. Thanks :)
USENET would be great, but on local servers, they can track IPs viewing each item (yeah, yeah, I know...proxies). The problem involved is that with USENET, there has to be a pre-specified set of newsgroups, and they have to go to a remote server and fetch them, as opposed to just opening your mailbox and getting all sorts of junk sent right to your door inconspicuously.
Besides -- with all the normal stuff that goes on on USENET, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't watched very closely already for any suspicious patterns. Email volume allows you to hide something in the midst of more junk in one week than all the USENET connections can dump in a year.
"White Yankee" should be "Yankee White", which is an old codeword for "for the president's eyes only"
actually, you've pretty much hit the nail right on the head.
There's one program out there that turns a normal message into a spam message based on the textual content, and can be decoded by running it through the same program. However, this doesn't go far enough to a degree -- if you create such a message, there's only one way to distribute it effectively and subversively, as to not be detected and your agent compromised:
spam.
Simple steps:
From this, the message is completely lost in noise, and is theoretically disregarded...with all the spammers out there, the noise volume is enormous.
The only problem with this scenario is that your recipients have no measures to contact you again, but you can set up a web log or forum where you talk about kittens or someshit and they'll be able to place padded messages back, or whatever you want to do.
Now -- hopefully, if the national governments hadn't thought about this before, we'll see a "war on spam" where they'll drop a few bunker busters on a few spammers out there :D
I think what you're referring to is the return of the ANSI bomb -- there have been several patches to programs such as less and vim to prevent this from occurring, but your recollection is correct; you can place certain control sequences in output messages (I'd imagine a wide-open syslog would be relatively simple) that, when displayed via certain terminals and/or certain programs, could cause command execution with the privileges of the user.
Here is the result of some quick googling on the subject.
This idea's kind of an anachronism, but it held very true not 25 years ago.
Ma Bell used to charge per phone in the house, so most households had only one phone and one phone line (the rest would disable the ringers on any newer phones so the CO would only see one phone).
At any rate, when you were calling someone, they may have been at the other end of the house or even outside when you called, hence the one minute "rule", to give them time to get to the phone.
Horse and carriage for me! I get 500 miles to the bale. Though the horse didn't like much when I tried to change his alternator...
Is this anything like a certain other organization stating that everyone "ought to have" universal health care, without saying how, or who's going to pay for it, etc? This is a normal function of politicians, folks, nothing to see here.
1 entry found for UNSECURE.
UNSECURE
\Un`se*cure"\, a. Insecure. [R.] --Milton.
5 entries found for INSECURE.
insecure adj.
1. Not sure or certain; doubtful: unemployed and facing an insecure future.
2. Inadequately guarded or protected; unsafe: A shortage of military police made the air base insecure.
3. Not firm or fixed; unsteady: an insecure foothold.
4.
1. Lacking stability; troubled: an insecure relationship.
2. Lacking self-confidence; plagued by anxiety: had always felt insecure at parties.
holy crap indeed
(seen on IRC shortly after the release of the movie "Hackers")
"d00d!! 3y3 h4x3d 4 g1bs0n l4st n1gh7!!@!!@!"
"Yeah, I screwed with my guitar, too. Now it sounds like a drowning cat."
it's vulnerable to XSS exploitation as well...hrmmm.. (just pops an alert() saying "test")
Just a small note here -- in a "true democracy", should the majority decide that they wish for the state to be religious, it will be. Therefore, this statement cannot be applied properly even in theory.
As some communists have said (yes, I know Stalin was one of them, and he was quite correct), true democracy breeds socialism.
So... if we are talking about casual conversation, then you cannot rule out dialect. Therefore, by virtue of dialect, should some region decide "quiboffle" is a word and use it in casual conversation, would it be "incorrect", or would it be dialectically proper for that region?
Also, how many words began as a dialectic anomaly and were codified by the "ruling masters" of the language? I would venture to say at least half.
Usage of contractions in formal language is extraordinarily bad grammar. Your use of "doesn't" falls under this rule as well.
There is little codification of contractions in the English language, as they are not words to begin with, but fragments of two words placed together for speed of pronunciation and writing.
"Ain't", "aren't", "should've", etc... are all "bad grammar", regardless of their perceived position of "correctness". You can create your own contractions (what a novel idea!), and while they would not be technically correct in any sense of grammar, they would still be acceptable in average conversation.
How many people do you hear utilize "shouldn't've" and "couldn't've" as short for "should not have" and "could not have"?