Heh. I didn't make them myself, just hunted through the Google results. I'm pleasantly surprised, actually; all I knew about before were the Drawing Board theme and 2 others which I didn't really like. These seem to be actual new and original themes. I especially like Blue and Aerial, and I'll be trying them as soon as I can get home and fire up Mac-On-Linux.
Anyway, as I said, I've got them all mirrored in case Apple gets C&D-happy.
I'm very angry at Apple and especially Steve Jobs he's a loser head. Here are some themes. I have mirrored them with some leet lisp code so if they get lawyerDoSed I can put up a mirror. I like these themes.
That's because pretty much every day Slashdot will link to www.blahblahblah.com, and within 5 minutes you'll see a story in the queue about "I just happened to be browsing around my favorite site, blahblahblah.com, and I decided that this would make a good k5 story.". No mention of Slashdot having it first, or even admitting that the author might once in a while glance at Slashdot, because "I don't read/. any more".
You know the comments people always make about/. having a prejudice against The Register? Well, that goes double for K5 and Slashdot, and the ironic thing is it's usually the people who complain about Slashdot doing it. Of course, half the stories being links from Slashdot can't mean that Slashdot has some decent content. Of course not. Slashdot baa-aaa-aaad, Kuro5hin gooo-ooo-ood. Baaaaa!
Seeing 2 sites turn into mirrors of each other can be quite disconcerting.
Ok, I am off topic here, but... do you really think anyone would depend on the Internet where lives are at risk?
That's what the Internet was created for: keeping crucial installations running in the event of nuclear war. You don't get much more into "lives at risk" than that. You've probably parroted or at least heard the saying: "the Internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it". This comes from the fact that the Internet interprets damage as, well, damage, and routes around it. TCP is designed for reliability.
Many people have been brainwashed to believe the Interet is unreliable. It is not. Web sites are singularly bad at being fault-tolerant, due to being the single point of failure. Most instant messaging programs are pathetically fragile, due to having to go (unencrypted, no less) through the provider's server. And sadly, the active destruction of "open relays" destroys a tremendous amount of the usefulness of SMTP. These are just examples of stupidity, though, or of people trading reliability for other factors.
Look at DNS. Or IRC (although most networks aren't set up for real reliability, sadly). I know people who have had their continent's main Internet link ripped from the ocean floor, and they were back in minutes talking like normal. I would have no problem trusting my life to a properly designed and implemented Internet-based system.
I am sure most of them would be connected to a LAN, have other means of communication, control of electronics, and backup power generators in case a power plant is somehow affected.
Please explain to me what any of this has to do with the Internet. The only thing I can see as remotely relevant is "other means of communication". Well duh. But the Internet is likely the best, most efficient, and sometimes the only realistic way of transmitting certain information. Say you've got a hospital with MRI images, and they've got an expert from somewhere else helping them perform this crucial operation. How else would you suggest they transmit the data? By fax?
Now, if your network is set up right, you will have redundant links, and a decent admin should be able to block many of the bogus packets at the main routers. But if the attacking country is serious, they will likely go after all of these, and do their best to avoid being filtered. Flooding the networks with garbage is one of the few ways to really damage the Internet. If someone started DoSing my country, I would absolutely consider it an act of war.
It's war. You always end up thinking the other guy is subhuman, at least at some level. He's killing your guys! You have to think that, or you'll go insane. Yes, it sucks. But who said war doesn't suck?
Unfortunately, Willy Higinbotham did not find any interest in his game, and did not patent it. What a pitty, when we see all the money involved in video games !
Somewhat sad that when someone comes up with a way to entertain people, one that has irreversibly transformed our society, the only thing certain people can think of is "Ooh! Get a patent! No one else can play!"
Imagine for a minute if someone had patented "an electronic device for projecting imaginary scenes onto a television screen, which the user interacts with for entertainment". Without competition, video games likely would have stagnated. Atari ended up mismanaging themselves rather badly; imagine if they had had a monopoly on video games.
I understand patents in principle, but I think humans are generally too stupid and greedy for them to work.
"We know that you've been contacted by a certain individual, a man who calls himself Morpheus. Now whatever you think you know about this man is irrelevant. He is considered by many authorities to be the most dangerous man alive. My colleagues believe that I am wasting my time with you but I believe that you wish to do the right thing. We're willing to wipe the slate clean, give you a fresh start and all that we're asking in return is your cooperation in bringing a known terrorist to justice."
For a start the nazis were individual people who could each make their own decisions, whereas a corporate
entity is obliged to act in the best interests of its shareholders.
Define "best interests". I think playing nice with the Internet community could certainly turn out to be beneficial to a company's stock price in the long run. Surely the law doesn't require a greedy approach to corporate strategy that disallows any long-term planning...
Why do Slashdot readers who submit stories have to put snide comments in them? Is this really necessary?
Because people like to express their opinions, and if their opinions are longer than 1 sentence long, everyone starts hollering "SHUT UP JONKATZ PLZTHX!!!!!1". What would be ironic would be for me to add a snide remark about/. readers and the attention span of the average gnat. But I won't.
So whats your thought for the woman who gets
raped and uses RU486 is she a murderer or is it ok when its convenient to some?
I'd say it's murder, and here's an analogy that I just came up with by my very own self:
Your house is burglarized, and for some strange bizarre reason the burglar brings a newborn baby with him and leaves it in your living room. Now, this burglary was quite traumatic; in fact, you can't stop shaking and crying. And you don't want to have this baby around, because even the sight of it reminds you of the horrible crime that was just committed. You want it out of your house now.
Are you justified in chopping this baby up with an axe and throwing it in the garbage, or should you wait for Social Services to show up, when you can hand the baby off to someone willing to care for it?
So a deity that rapes a 13 year old (Mary), then impregnates her is ok?
She didn't seem to mind...
So since you wanna "assume" then what about the other god's other people have written about
This is a much more interesting attack than the ones you were making earlier. The Bible is actually far more internally consistent than you give it credit for, especially when you use such pathetic examples. You'd be far better off with your latest strategy: pointing out the many religious beliefs around the world and their sometimes subtle yet major differences.
You touched briefly on it before with your Nag Hamadi link, but it might also do you good to address the notion of "the Bible" as a monolithic entity, along with the fact that a council of sinful men took it upon themselves to announce to the masses exactly what the perfect God did or did not say, and exactly which directions of thinking were and were not to be allowed. A final point of interest is that the different councils came up with different sets of "acceptable" writings.
--
Re:ahh... Jesus. so thats it
on
Spidergoats
·
· Score: 1
Jesus mistakenly tells his followers that he will return and establish his kingdom within their lifetime. Mt.16:28,
23:36, 24:34
"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,
that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." -- John 18:36
Just because I'm bored, I'll knock a few of the silly ones over...
And Cain knew his wife." That's nice, but where the hell did she come from? Gen.4:17
He had sisters, y'know.
God repents. Gen.6:6-7, Ex.32:14, 1 Chr.21:15
Well, Webster's 1st definition of "repent" is "To feel pain, sorrow, or regret, for what one has done or
omitted to do.". As with many words, the meaning of "repent" has likely drifted over time (the dictionary includes an example quote from Shakespeare).
Genesis 6:6-7 perfectly fits this definition, which can be confirmed from the now archaic positioning of the word "repent" in both verses, as well as the redundant statement "and it grieved him at his heart" in the first (Hebrew writings often utilize repetition for emphasis or clarification).
The 2nd definition of "repent" is "To change the mind, or the course of conduct, on account
of regret or dissatisfaction.". Interestingly, the example given is from Exodus 13:17: "Lest, peradventure, the people repent when they see
war, and they return to Egypt.". This also fits, of course, and 1 Chronicles 21:15 is the same way.
The "sons of God" copulated with the "daughters of men," and has sons who became "the mighty men of old, men of
renown." Gen.6:2-4
"There were giants in the earth in those days." Gen.6:4
Why is this absurd? Do we know every single tribe, bit of history, or variant of homo sapiens that has ever existed in history?
Noah, the just and righteous. Gen.7:1
Noah, the drunk and naked. Gen.9:20-21
Lot [the just and righteous (2 Pet.2:7-8)] offers his daughters to a crowd of angel rapers. Gen.19:8
People screw up. And?
The rest of your references seem to be things that you think are just too silly to take seriously. Well, assuming the Biblical god is in fact a supernatural deity, wouldn't it make sense that he could do Special Stuff?
I've been saying for years that this kind of anonymous tip thing is a bad idea. The way it's set up eliminates any other moderate options, leaving only the drastic full red alert panic reaction. It's similar to the situation with teachers and counselors; they are required to report instances of abuse (or even suspected abuse) and therefore have lost any discretion or ability to help. Here's a hint, kids: unless you're comfortable with public and forceful police involvement with your situation, never tell a teacher or counselor anything.
Yes, she said it. However, this quote was taken out of context, because this sentence is included in the paragraph:
File sharing is misnamed.
When I share something with you, I only
have a portion of it left for me. File sharing
is really file copying. This activity is not
per se bad; it is how it is often used that is
the problem.
I think everybody agrees with that. Now, yes, we all know she's insane and hungry for power, but if you read the rest of the quote in that interview, she almost sounds reasonable, and she makes a few interesting points.
C'mon, people, if we want to argue about something, let's not resort to posting vaguely inflammatory out-of-context quotes.
You've finally lost me there. Could you explain how a form can "use mail". Surely you aren't talking about hyperlinks to
mailto: URLs, which have nothing to o with forms?
Actually, some browsers support <FORM ACTION="mailto:...">, which places the URL-encoded results of the form into the body of a message and sends it. I believe Netscape started this, and I dunno how portable it is.
It encourages duplicity amongst school children and could lead to greater levels of fear and viciousness in revenge. How often in
high school did someone piss you off and you wished you had a way to really get back at them?
No kidding. It gets even scarier when you add profit to the list of possible motivations for reporting your enemies.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. Remember CDDB?
I set any CDDBP-aware app I come across to use FreeDB.
Any organization that rapes the enthusiasm of volunteers deserves to die a quick and painful death.
--
Anyway, as I said, I've got them all mirrored in case Apple gets C&D-happy.
--
--
--
You know the comments people always make about /. having a prejudice against The Register? Well, that goes double for K5 and Slashdot, and the ironic thing is it's usually the people who complain about Slashdot doing it. Of course, half the stories being links from Slashdot can't mean that Slashdot has some decent content. Of course not. Slashdot baa-aaa-aaad, Kuro5hin gooo-ooo-ood. Baaaaa!
Seeing 2 sites turn into mirrors of each other can be quite disconcerting.
--
That's what the Internet was created for: keeping crucial installations running in the event of nuclear war. You don't get much more into "lives at risk" than that. You've probably parroted or at least heard the saying: "the Internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it". This comes from the fact that the Internet interprets damage as, well, damage, and routes around it. TCP is designed for reliability.
Many people have been brainwashed to believe the Interet is unreliable. It is not. Web sites are singularly bad at being fault-tolerant, due to being the single point of failure. Most instant messaging programs are pathetically fragile, due to having to go (unencrypted, no less) through the provider's server. And sadly, the active destruction of "open relays" destroys a tremendous amount of the usefulness of SMTP. These are just examples of stupidity, though, or of people trading reliability for other factors.
Look at DNS. Or IRC (although most networks aren't set up for real reliability, sadly). I know people who have had their continent's main Internet link ripped from the ocean floor, and they were back in minutes talking like normal. I would have no problem trusting my life to a properly designed and implemented Internet-based system.
Please explain to me what any of this has to do with the Internet. The only thing I can see as remotely relevant is "other means of communication". Well duh. But the Internet is likely the best, most efficient, and sometimes the only realistic way of transmitting certain information. Say you've got a hospital with MRI images, and they've got an expert from somewhere else helping them perform this crucial operation. How else would you suggest they transmit the data? By fax?
Now, if your network is set up right, you will have redundant links, and a decent admin should be able to block many of the bogus packets at the main routers. But if the attacking country is serious, they will likely go after all of these, and do their best to avoid being filtered. Flooding the networks with garbage is one of the few ways to really damage the Internet. If someone started DoSing my country, I would absolutely consider it an act of war.
--
--
--
--
--
Somewhat sad that when someone comes up with a way to entertain people, one that has irreversibly transformed our society, the only thing certain people can think of is "Ooh! Get a patent! No one else can play!"
Imagine for a minute if someone had patented "an electronic device for projecting imaginary scenes onto a television screen, which the user interacts with for entertainment". Without competition, video games likely would have stagnated. Atari ended up mismanaging themselves rather badly; imagine if they had had a monopoly on video games.
I understand patents in principle, but I think humans are generally too stupid and greedy for them to work.
--
--
Because that would be a device "primarily designed or produced to circumvent" copy protection. Then the RIAA would get ya.
--
Define "best interests". I think playing nice with the Internet community could certainly turn out to be beneficial to a company's stock price in the long run. Surely the law doesn't require a greedy approach to corporate strategy that disallows any long-term planning...
--
--
Because people like to express their opinions, and if their opinions are longer than 1 sentence long, everyone starts hollering "SHUT UP JONKATZ PLZTHX!!!!!1". What would be ironic would be for me to add a snide remark about /. readers and the attention span of the average gnat. But I won't.
--
I'd say it's murder, and here's an analogy that I just came up with by my very own self:
Your house is burglarized, and for some strange bizarre reason the burglar brings a newborn baby with him and leaves it in your living room. Now, this burglary was quite traumatic; in fact, you can't stop shaking and crying. And you don't want to have this baby around, because even the sight of it reminds you of the horrible crime that was just committed. You want it out of your house now.
Are you justified in chopping this baby up with an axe and throwing it in the garbage, or should you wait for Social Services to show up, when you can hand the baby off to someone willing to care for it?
--
She didn't seem to mind...
This is a much more interesting attack than the ones you were making earlier. The Bible is actually far more internally consistent than you give it credit for, especially when you use such pathetic examples. You'd be far better off with your latest strategy: pointing out the many religious beliefs around the world and their sometimes subtle yet major differences.
You touched briefly on it before with your Nag Hamadi link, but it might also do you good to address the notion of "the Bible" as a monolithic entity, along with the fact that a council of sinful men took it upon themselves to announce to the masses exactly what the perfect God did or did not say, and exactly which directions of thinking were and were not to be allowed. A final point of interest is that the different councils came up with different sets of "acceptable" writings.
--
"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." -- John 18:36
Incidentally, Matthew 23:36 most likely refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
I'd assume that everybody will, assuming there's any truth to the idea of the resurrection of the dead...
Mark 13:30 is the one interesting problem you have presented today.
One could assume that refers to what John saw.
Some readers may also be interested in the idea of preterism.
Oh, make your HTML a little less ugly plzthx
--
He had sisters, y'know.
Well, Webster's 1st definition of "repent" is "To feel pain, sorrow, or regret, for what one has done or omitted to do.". As with many words, the meaning of "repent" has likely drifted over time (the dictionary includes an example quote from Shakespeare).
Genesis 6:6-7 perfectly fits this definition, which can be confirmed from the now archaic positioning of the word "repent" in both verses, as well as the redundant statement "and it grieved him at his heart" in the first (Hebrew writings often utilize repetition for emphasis or clarification).
The 2nd definition of "repent" is "To change the mind, or the course of conduct, on account of regret or dissatisfaction.". Interestingly, the example given is from Exodus 13:17: "Lest, peradventure, the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt.". This also fits, of course, and 1 Chronicles 21:15 is the same way.
Why is this absurd? Do we know every single tribe, bit of history, or variant of homo sapiens that has ever existed in history?
People screw up. And?
The rest of your references seem to be things that you think are just too silly to take seriously. Well, assuming the Biblical god is in fact a supernatural deity, wouldn't it make sense that he could do Special Stuff?
--
--
--
I think everybody agrees with that. Now, yes, we all know she's insane and hungry for power, but if you read the rest of the quote in that interview, she almost sounds reasonable, and she makes a few interesting points.
C'mon, people, if we want to argue about something, let's not resort to posting vaguely inflammatory out-of-context quotes.
--
Actually, some browsers support <FORM ACTION="mailto:...">, which places the URL-encoded results of the form into the body of a message and sends it. I believe Netscape started this, and I dunno how portable it is.
--
No kidding. It gets even scarier when you add profit to the list of possible motivations for reporting your enemies.
--