Some of you with "moderator points" need to get over yourselves. If you want to waste them on people just because they use nasty language, then you negate their value. There are good posts that you could have promoted, but instead you chose to flex your scrawny muscles.
Fuck you... ignoramus. I don't install Gnome 3. It's money very well spent. Just ask the people who spent it. (Umm, if you haven't figured it out, your opinion is less than worthless to me)
YOU fucking shut up, you condescending twat. There are more choices than what you dictate. Windows 8 is more than just a bad user interface, it's a shift towards seizing control of our computing environment like Microsoft has never done before. They want PCs to be dumbed down, locked down devices controlled by them where all developers have to pay them homage in order to sell software for the platform. They can't phase out "legacy" applications (that's what they are referring to them as already) immediately, but there will be more disincentives coming.
What makes you think Microsoft is going to allow VLC in the Microsoft Store? They won't like the license, and they won't like the codecs (for reasons more than one). This is exactly the problem with their control freak plan.
I am fighting against this tooth and claw. I refuse to help people with Windows 8 (I build computers, I do computer service... repairs, cleanup, lessons/instruction). The only thing I will do is replace it... in fact I am offering Windows 7 and Linux installs (Mint if they don't ask for something specific) for a nominal fee. I am talking complete setup for my minimum fee of $40. I don't care if I spend 6 hours, it's time well spent.
I have a cheap, bog standard LG brand SATA drive that seems to do OK. I don't rip audio CDs very often, but last time I did (I just do "cdparanoia -B") it didn't seem to take long.
Here's my output of "cdparanoia -A" (I did this three times with similar result)
This is on Linux 3.6.5 on x86_64.
grogan@getstuffed:~$ cdparanoia -A cdparanoia III release 10.2 (September 11, 2008)
Using cdda library version: 10.2 Using paranoia library version: 10.2 Checking/dev/cdrom for cdrom...
Testing/dev/cdrom for SCSI/MMC interface
SG_IO device:/dev/sr0
CDROM model sensed sensed: HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GH24LS50 YP01
Checking for SCSI emulation...
Drive is ATAPI (using SG_IO host adaptor emulation)
Checking for MMC style command set...
Drive is MMC style
DMA scatter/gather table entries: 1
table entry size: 524288 bytes
maximum theoretical transfer: 222 sectors
Setting default read size to 27 sectors (63504 bytes).
Verifying CDDA command set...
Expected command set reads OK.
Attempting to set cdrom to full speed...
drive returned OK.
I didn't say it could randomly load arbitrary code. The grubx64.efi (whether it's actually grub to be chainloaded or something else renamed) gets signed when the user imports the key from disk, so if it's maliciously replaced after that, it would fail to load. I actually did read the whole article (I did try to explain why I think MS won't like this), and all of the comments including new ones that appeared later and I do understand how this works and what it implies. I assumed that I didn't need to parrot the article or comments, because you would have read them too.
The author doesn't believe that they will do so (nor do I) as proper procedure was followed and it's non malicious, but it is acknowledged that it could be pretty short lived if Microsoft blacklists the key.
It was not a compromise between agreeing humans, the signing process is (mostly) automated but yes, I am sure they are aware of it now. We'll see what is said about this.
Yes, you're correct about this particular signed shim being x86 only. But it will be tried for ARM as well, you can bet on that. It is on ARM where something like this will be most needed. We'll see if an ARM bootloader shim survives this signing process.
MS isn't going to like this. Whether they would try to stop it, or could get away with it is another matter. I'll be more curious to see what happens with ARM.
The signing process is relatively mechanical... Joe Blow could do it (with the proper notarization) and there is no way they can consider the full functionality of the binary that you upload to be signed. You put your credentials on the line, you pay the money, you get your binary certified. If it's bad, then there is someone to go after. The way they have set this up, it can only be reactive.
The implications of this will not make them happy. I'm betting that you would realize that this is being done for more than just our "safety". They want to make it a pain in the ass to use anything else, especially with Windows RT on ARM (where you can't allow secure boot to be disabled if you want your shiny Windows 8 compliance sticker), where they think they can seize control now at this crossroads. Windows 8 is designed to steer everyone towards the Microsoft Software Store.
This signed Grub shim is a wildcard, and it only needs to be done once. A barrier has been removed, that will rightly enable others to skip the BS.
You're right though, given that they followed due process and are not malicious, Microsoft will not be able to do anything about it. It is, however, my opinion that they will complain, as this was not the intent of the signing process.
Here's what's funny. The chainloaded "Grub" boot loader is actually circumventing the secure boot, because it has its own "OS kernel-like" functionality until it passes control over to the kernel components that it's booting. Grub was used to circumvent Microsoft's DRM, and now it will be used to circumvent their secure boot nonsense. I love it.
Grub is way more complex, knowledgeable (figuratively speaking... it's got high level filesystem drivers etc.) and functional than any bootloader Microsoft would envision. They'll be crying foul. Not only will this be used to boot Linux, but it will also allow booting any other OS without signing.
... and fuck you small minded twats with moderator points. I'm tired of being admonished by people who don't know what they are talking about.
Dell does NOT manufacture the hardware, they pay companies like FoxConn to make the boards, and of course the chipsets and onboard devices are made by their respective manufacturers, even if the firmware identifies "Dell".
The Linux community writes kernels components and drivers that DETECT the hardware and probe for settings. This way you don't need a specific ".inf file" definition (windows terminology) because it identifies itself as a "Dell wireless adapter" (for example) and they changed a few parameters to make it different than a bog standard Atheros device.
It is certainly NOT Dell that provides any sort of "Linux compatibility". They don't write the drivers for Windows either!
The Linux community does the work to ensure that the kernel and userspace driver frameworks can work with existing hardware on the market. Not "Dell engineers". It's not difficult to choose Linux compatible hardware. I do it before purchasing any hardware/computer/laptop and I haven't led myself astray yet.
No, it won't be worth it to me in the long run. (only in the short term... it might save me some work if I actually liked Ubuntu, which I don't. I'd be blasting that in favour of a distro that I like better anyway)
Linux is free... if they can't sell a laptop with a free OS on it, for at least the same price as the shitware load, then something is rotten. It's probably more like the lack of kickbacks from the shitware vendors. Also, Microsoft practically gives Windows away to OEMs (usually with strings attached) to maintain their stranglehold.
"Buying" (you don't really own fuck all when you pay for content) a movie doesn't entitle you to go and download it from whatever source you wish. You will still be subject to the same legal perils as everyone else. In fact under Canada's new copyright provisions, being disallowed to break digital locks (DRM) trumps all other provisions of fair use and it's going to be illegal to even make a copy of a DVD. In fact software that circumvents the CSS will no longer be legal to distribute in Canada.
It remains to be seen what they are going to enforce, but think before casually accepting "this law". You can bet that if laws are written in the books a certain way, the copyright creeps will be lobbying, demanding that they be enforced to the letter, to their benefit.
You people are so full of shit. There's more to it than just memory use. (I don't give a fuck anyway, my browser can have 8 Gb of RAM if it will take it)
Browsers are one of thing things that DO benefit from a 64 bit build because they handle relatively large amounts of data and can do it with fewer clock cycles.
... and here I used up all my mod points. I don't know what their problem is, it surely can't take much to keep it compiling for x64 under Windows.
I can almost understand why it took them so long to come out with a 64 bit flash plugin (for either platform) though. Imagine what a fuckstick mess that code base would be. It's proprietary, changed hands so many times, and the result is a 10 megabyte+ monstrosity of a library (my current 64 bit libflashplayer.so is 18 megabytes, lol). It was probably a bitch bastard to get to compile at first.
Firefox has no excuse for not having 64 bit builds available. (Yes, binaries. It's a different environment. More homogeneous, which makes it easier for them, but it's also not so easy for Windows users to set up a build environment to compile their own)
What? Fuck off... that's the browser I use to check my forums etc. in Windows (because it's a 64 bit build). Like I'm going to stay with alpha quality code that's no longer updating.
Oh well, if I have to use a 32 bit browser I guess it will be Google Chrome. (I don't use Firefox in Linux anymore, I do Chromium builds once a week or so)
I don't have a build environment in Windows, that's such a pain in the ass. I just have Windows for gaming, so I don't do that stuff.
I'm pretty much all out of uses for Mozilla Firefox. I don't even like it anymore, with the stupid things they've done and the user interface etc. They even keep removing about:config options.
You would have to be a "full time stoner" (regular user) to understand it. It affects people differently (that's where I will agree that there is some danger) but generally, a long time, experienced user is not intoxicated or significantly impaired by moderate cannabis use. It's more akin to having a cup of coffee than an intoxicant and that's the mindset of most chronic users.
I think observation (did the driver actually do anything wrong?) and field sobriety tests should be given more weight than drug testing for the presence of cannabis metabolites. This method would also catch people who are sleep deprived, or trying to function while ill when they should have stayed home. (Such people should be warned, not charged though. You have to draw the line somewhere. We can't possibly forbid driving for all conditions where people aren't at their best)
I've been smoking it several times a day, for 35+ years now and I have friends in their 70's who have been smoking it for 50+ years. However, a novice user tripping out on potent cannabis certainly would be impaired. Unlike alcohol (which lowers inhibitions) though, they would probably themselves be scared to drive. They would most likely FEEL inhibited and say "I'm not goin nowhere!" (an actual quote that I will always remember, from someone in that very situation. It was funny to me at the time). I have seen this many times. Go smoke someone up before we go somewhere and have them realize they are now too messed up. Some people won't even go out in public, let alone drive.
So no, I don't believe it is as dangerous as alcohol. It can't be ignored, but it also isn't appropriate to treat it the same way as alcohol "DUI".
I'm in Canada, by the way. It's a bit more tolerated by folks here (I don't mean government or law enforcement, it's illegal and criminal to possess or drive under the influence) and it's not so stigmatized. So users can lead perfectly normal lives.
Of course, anyone whose career depends on drugs being illegal is going to lobby against even one inch of compromise. It is disingenuous for that U.N. drug watchdog cocksucker to even comment on the issue.
That's why you never ask police their opinion on things like this either. (and yes, I know of L.E.A.P. but they are a very small minority). Their unions would forbid them, even if they wanted to be honest and objective. Anything that reduces the need for more policing would be against their interests.
The prison industry was one of the biggest lobbyists against legalization, during the California cannabis referendum.
They are conditioned to believe this shit at early ages... "If you want to be rich some day, you have to think this way and support Free Market Capitalism. Anything else is just bad, and you don't need to know any more about it. Let's just call it all Socialism. It kind of rhymes with Satan, well, it starts with the same letter, at least."
This is why you have stupid people, who haven't a pot to piss in, that lobby against things that are in their own interests, in favour of the corporate greed.
Ordinary workers, living from paycheck to paycheck, getting in debt, saying that at least under (Insert Republican candidate they've been conditioned to support) they get to "keep what they have". No sir, they don't want anything like subsidized health care, they'd rather go into mortal debt for an emergency appendectomy. At least they are living the American Dream and doing it on their own, because government handouts are Socialism, which is the same as Communism (See, the old U.S.S.R. had the word "Socialist" in the title)
Now these big companies, whose "freedom" they worship, are wanting to claw back their meager wages and benefits while execs get bonuses. Damn those unions for interfering with the God Given Rights of the corporations.
Of course not all Americans are this obtuse, it's just that they are also taught to be very vocal when others don't agree with their beliefs, or criticize their country.
No, I am saying that IE8 is erroneously putting up that message. I know what it means and yes, it's been around much earlier than IE6. I think I remember it in Netscape even.
I don't sign in to youtube. I don't sign in to Google. I opted out of all the social networking tripe. (I forget what they call it, but there's a central site you can use to opt out of Google Everything all at once, and only keep what you want.) I have a disposable Gmail account, with completely false information that I log in to maybe once every few months (or if I'm expecting correspondence) and then I log out of it.
So no, I really don't care to have my searches over SSL. It's just unnecessary overhead. I also don't care to read mailing list archives or download source code over SSL either.
Yes, I don't like the use of https where it's not needed. It's more overhead all around and YES it matters on busy servers and slow, high latency links. It can also meant he difference between accessing and not accessing the site with a misconfigured router (e.g. wrong MTU on a PPPoE connection can make SSL not work correctly. There's one ISP here that needs packets no larger than 1454 bytes or there's trouble signing into various services. The default on the routers is 1492 for PPPoE, which is supposed to be correct but gets people every time. The ISP doesn't "support" routers, unless they supply, configure and lock you out of them. So I get service calls over that all the time)
I do not need SSL on Google. Like I give a fuck if people snoop my search phrases. (I'll search for "kiss my ass" just in case the bogey man is listening) I would want SSL for signing in to, say, Gmail or something but I don't need it for all communications. Now that Google has carried the https over to Youtube, some silly browsers (e.g. IE8) prompt on the loading of every damned page because there's a mix of secure and non secure content. Really smart.
I certainly will not be brow beaten into sacrificing MY freedom and privacy for fishing expeditions to catch criminals. Being falsely accused or even just investigated by a bunch of overbearing cops is more harassment than I will tolerate. Call me all the names you want, at least "tool" won't be among them.
Even in the intended case of a relative being an alleged match... what then? Are they to be interrogated and harassed into providing their family tree? Only a complete and utter moron would submit to that in the first place. Yes, I know, the world is full of those people who think they are innocent and have nothing to fear from The Law. Wait until you're on the receiving end of a bunch of sociopathic assholes who think the end justifies the means.
I am very suspicious about this. Why would he submit a sample if he is the one who did it? This is probably all bollocks and the man is innocent.
I would never submit my DNA in that manner. If that made me the odd man out, implying guilt because I won't cooperate, so be it. If they go and take a sample by whatever means, it wouldn't be admissible anyway.
What I hate are new versions of programs that become unfriendly to my dark GTK+ style. Input forms with unreadable text (I switched to Chromium from Firefox because of that rubbish), white text on white etc. Even VirtualBox is pissing me off... the same thing seems to be happening with my dark QT style. Fortunately it's only the one screen that's affected and it doesn't make the program unusable for me.
Gnome has used GTK+ for a very long time. It's not really just a "gimp library" anymore, but a "Graphical User Interface Toolkit"
Gimp 2.8 requires GTK+ 2.26 or something like that. You could simply remove the devel packages for atk/cairo/pango/glib/gtk+ (leaving the distro packages installed for dependencies at runtime) and put your new libraries in --prefix=/usr/local. I haven't ever used CentOS on a workstation, but I'd be surprised if I couldn't get Gimp 2.8 working with a little fiddling.
I hate Gnome 2 almost as much as I hate Gnome 3, so it doesn't really matter to me either way. I will never use a Gnome-centric distribution. (even if you don't use Gnome, all your GTK apps in the repos would be built with Gnome dependencies and you need to install half of it anyway)
Slashdot Mirror
Some of you with "moderator points" need to get over yourselves. If you want to waste them on people just because they use nasty language, then you negate their value. There are good posts that you could have promoted, but instead you chose to flex your scrawny muscles.
Fuck you... ignoramus. I don't install Gnome 3. It's money very well spent. Just ask the people who spent it. (Umm, if you haven't figured it out, your opinion is less than worthless to me)
YOU fucking shut up, you condescending twat. There are more choices than what you dictate. Windows 8 is more than just a bad user interface, it's a shift towards seizing control of our computing environment like Microsoft has never done before. They want PCs to be dumbed down, locked down devices controlled by them where all developers have to pay them homage in order to sell software for the platform. They can't phase out "legacy" applications (that's what they are referring to them as already) immediately, but there will be more disincentives coming.
What makes you think Microsoft is going to allow VLC in the Microsoft Store? They won't like the license, and they won't like the codecs (for reasons more than one). This is exactly the problem with their control freak plan.
I am fighting against this tooth and claw. I refuse to help people with Windows 8 (I build computers, I do computer service... repairs, cleanup, lessons/instruction). The only thing I will do is replace it... in fact I am offering Windows 7 and Linux installs (Mint if they don't ask for something specific) for a nominal fee. I am talking complete setup for my minimum fee of $40. I don't care if I spend 6 hours, it's time well spent.
I have a cheap, bog standard LG brand SATA drive that seems to do OK. I don't rip audio CDs very often, but last time I did (I just do "cdparanoia -B") it didn't seem to take long.
Here's my output of "cdparanoia -A" (I did this three times with similar result)
This is on Linux 3.6.5 on x86_64.
grogan@getstuffed:~$ cdparanoia -A
cdparanoia III release 10.2 (September 11, 2008)
Using cdda library version: 10.2 /dev/cdrom for cdrom... /dev/cdrom for SCSI/MMC interface /dev/sr0
Using paranoia library version: 10.2
Checking
Testing
SG_IO device:
CDROM model sensed sensed: HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GH24LS50 YP01
Checking for SCSI emulation...
Drive is ATAPI (using SG_IO host adaptor emulation)
Checking for MMC style command set...
Drive is MMC style
DMA scatter/gather table entries: 1
table entry size: 524288 bytes
maximum theoretical transfer: 222 sectors
Setting default read size to 27 sectors (63504 bytes).
Verifying CDDA command set...
Expected command set reads OK.
Attempting to set cdrom to full speed...
drive returned OK.
=================== Checking drive cache/timing behavior ===================
Seek/read timing:
[74:21.35]: 62ms seek, 0.32ms/sec read [41.8x]
[70:00.32]: 56ms seek, 0.32ms/sec read [41.5x]
[60:00.32]: 57ms seek, 0.35ms/sec read [37.9x]
[50:00.32]: 61ms seek, 0.37ms/sec read [35.7x]
[40:00.32]: 58ms seek, 0.41ms/sec read [32.8x]
[30:00.32]: 61ms seek, 0.45ms/sec read [29.7x]
[20:00.32]: 62ms seek, 0.51ms/sec read [26.2x]
[10:00.32]: 73ms seek, 0.58ms/sec read [22.9x]
[00:00.32]: 71ms seek, 0.74ms/sec read [18.1x]
Analyzing cache behavior...
Approximate random access cache size: 16 sector(s)
Drive cache tests as contiguous
Drive readahead past read cursor: 234 sector(s)
Cache tail cursor tied to read cursor
Cache tail granularity: 1 sector(s)
Cache read speed: 0.14ms/sector [94x]
Access speed after backseek: 0.71ms/sector [18x]
Backseek flushes the cache as expected
Drive tests OK with Paranoia.
I didn't say it could randomly load arbitrary code. The grubx64.efi (whether it's actually grub to be chainloaded or something else renamed) gets signed when the user imports the key from disk, so if it's maliciously replaced after that, it would fail to load. I actually did read the whole article (I did try to explain why I think MS won't like this), and all of the comments including new ones that appeared later and I do understand how this works and what it implies. I assumed that I didn't need to parrot the article or comments, because you would have read them too.
The author doesn't believe that they will do so (nor do I) as proper procedure was followed and it's non malicious, but it is acknowledged that it could be pretty short lived if Microsoft blacklists the key.
It was not a compromise between agreeing humans, the signing process is (mostly) automated but yes, I am sure they are aware of it now. We'll see what is said about this.
Yes, you're correct about this particular signed shim being x86 only. But it will be tried for ARM as well, you can bet on that. It is on ARM where something like this will be most needed. We'll see if an ARM bootloader shim survives this signing process.
MS isn't going to like this. Whether they would try to stop it, or could get away with it is another matter. I'll be more curious to see what happens with ARM.
The signing process is relatively mechanical... Joe Blow could do it (with the proper notarization) and there is no way they can consider the full functionality of the binary that you upload to be signed. You put your credentials on the line, you pay the money, you get your binary certified. If it's bad, then there is someone to go after. The way they have set this up, it can only be reactive.
The implications of this will not make them happy. I'm betting that you would realize that this is being done for more than just our "safety". They want to make it a pain in the ass to use anything else, especially with Windows RT on ARM (where you can't allow secure boot to be disabled if you want your shiny Windows 8 compliance sticker), where they think they can seize control now at this crossroads. Windows 8 is designed to steer everyone towards the Microsoft Software Store.
This signed Grub shim is a wildcard, and it only needs to be done once. A barrier has been removed, that will rightly enable others to skip the BS.
You're right though, given that they followed due process and are not malicious, Microsoft will not be able to do anything about it. It is, however, my opinion that they will complain, as this was not the intent of the signing process.
Here's what's funny. The chainloaded "Grub" boot loader is actually circumventing the secure boot, because it has its own "OS kernel-like" functionality until it passes control over to the kernel components that it's booting. Grub was used to circumvent Microsoft's DRM, and now it will be used to circumvent their secure boot nonsense. I love it.
Grub is way more complex, knowledgeable (figuratively speaking... it's got high level filesystem drivers etc.) and functional than any bootloader Microsoft would envision. They'll be crying foul. Not only will this be used to boot Linux, but it will also allow booting any other OS without signing.
... and fuck you small minded twats with moderator points. I'm tired of being admonished by people who don't know what they are talking about.
Dell does NOT manufacture the hardware, they pay companies like FoxConn to make the boards, and of course the chipsets and onboard devices are made by their respective manufacturers, even if the firmware identifies "Dell".
The Linux community writes kernels components and drivers that DETECT the hardware and probe for settings. This way you don't need a specific ".inf file" definition (windows terminology) because it identifies itself as a "Dell wireless adapter" (for example) and they changed a few parameters to make it different than a bog standard Atheros device.
It is certainly NOT Dell that provides any sort of "Linux compatibility". They don't write the drivers for Windows either!
Fuck off... Dell doesn't manufacture hardware.
The Linux community does the work to ensure that the kernel and userspace driver frameworks can work with existing hardware on the market. Not "Dell engineers". It's not difficult to choose Linux compatible hardware. I do it before purchasing any hardware/computer/laptop and I haven't led myself astray yet.
No, it won't be worth it to me in the long run. (only in the short term... it might save me some work if I actually liked Ubuntu, which I don't. I'd be blasting that in favour of a distro that I like better anyway)
Linux is free... if they can't sell a laptop with a free OS on it, for at least the same price as the shitware load, then something is rotten. It's probably more like the lack of kickbacks from the shitware vendors. Also, Microsoft practically gives Windows away to OEMs (usually with strings attached) to maintain their stranglehold.
I would not reward Dell for their whoring.
"Buying" (you don't really own fuck all when you pay for content) a movie doesn't entitle you to go and download it from whatever source you wish. You will still be subject to the same legal perils as everyone else. In fact under Canada's new copyright provisions, being disallowed to break digital locks (DRM) trumps all other provisions of fair use and it's going to be illegal to even make a copy of a DVD. In fact software that circumvents the CSS will no longer be legal to distribute in Canada.
It remains to be seen what they are going to enforce, but think before casually accepting "this law". You can bet that if laws are written in the books a certain way, the copyright creeps will be lobbying, demanding that they be enforced to the letter, to their benefit.
You people are so full of shit. There's more to it than just memory use. (I don't give a fuck anyway, my browser can have 8 Gb of RAM if it will take it)
Browsers are one of thing things that DO benefit from a 64 bit build because they handle relatively large amounts of data and can do it with fewer clock cycles.
Stop spreading FUD, you apologist for lazy cunts.
... and here I used up all my mod points. I don't know what their problem is, it surely can't take much to keep it compiling for x64 under Windows.
I can almost understand why it took them so long to come out with a 64 bit flash plugin (for either platform) though. Imagine what a fuckstick mess that code base would be. It's proprietary, changed hands so many times, and the result is a 10 megabyte+ monstrosity of a library (my current 64 bit libflashplayer.so is 18 megabytes, lol). It was probably a bitch bastard to get to compile at first.
Firefox has no excuse for not having 64 bit builds available. (Yes, binaries. It's a different environment. More homogeneous, which makes it easier for them, but it's also not so easy for Windows users to set up a build environment to compile their own)
What? Fuck off... that's the browser I use to check my forums etc. in Windows (because it's a 64 bit build). Like I'm going to stay with alpha quality code that's no longer updating.
Oh well, if I have to use a 32 bit browser I guess it will be Google Chrome. (I don't use Firefox in Linux anymore, I do Chromium builds once a week or so)
I don't have a build environment in Windows, that's such a pain in the ass. I just have Windows for gaming, so I don't do that stuff.
I'm pretty much all out of uses for Mozilla Firefox. I don't even like it anymore, with the stupid things they've done and the user interface etc. They even keep removing about:config options.
You would have to be a "full time stoner" (regular user) to understand it. It affects people differently (that's where I will agree that there is some danger) but generally, a long time, experienced user is not intoxicated or significantly impaired by moderate cannabis use. It's more akin to having a cup of coffee than an intoxicant and that's the mindset of most chronic users.
I think observation (did the driver actually do anything wrong?) and field sobriety tests should be given more weight than drug testing for the presence of cannabis metabolites. This method would also catch people who are sleep deprived, or trying to function while ill when they should have stayed home. (Such people should be warned, not charged though. You have to draw the line somewhere. We can't possibly forbid driving for all conditions where people aren't at their best)
I've been smoking it several times a day, for 35+ years now and I have friends in their 70's who have been smoking it for 50+ years. However, a novice user tripping out on potent cannabis certainly would be impaired. Unlike alcohol (which lowers inhibitions) though, they would probably themselves be scared to drive. They would most likely FEEL inhibited and say "I'm not goin nowhere!" (an actual quote that I will always remember, from someone in that very situation. It was funny to me at the time). I have seen this many times. Go smoke someone up before we go somewhere and have them realize they are now too messed up. Some people won't even go out in public, let alone drive.
So no, I don't believe it is as dangerous as alcohol. It can't be ignored, but it also isn't appropriate to treat it the same way as alcohol "DUI".
I'm in Canada, by the way. It's a bit more tolerated by folks here (I don't mean government or law enforcement, it's illegal and criminal to possess or drive under the influence) and it's not so stigmatized. So users can lead perfectly normal lives.
Of course, anyone whose career depends on drugs being illegal is going to lobby against even one inch of compromise. It is disingenuous for that U.N. drug watchdog cocksucker to even comment on the issue.
That's why you never ask police their opinion on things like this either. (and yes, I know of L.E.A.P. but they are a very small minority). Their unions would forbid them, even if they wanted to be honest and objective. Anything that reduces the need for more policing would be against their interests.
The prison industry was one of the biggest lobbyists against legalization, during the California cannabis referendum.
They are conditioned to believe this shit at early ages... "If you want to be rich some day, you have to think this way and support Free Market Capitalism. Anything else is just bad, and you don't need to know any more about it. Let's just call it all Socialism. It kind of rhymes with Satan, well, it starts with the same letter, at least."
This is why you have stupid people, who haven't a pot to piss in, that lobby against things that are in their own interests, in favour of the corporate greed.
Ordinary workers, living from paycheck to paycheck, getting in debt, saying that at least under (Insert Republican candidate they've been conditioned to support) they get to "keep what they have". No sir, they don't want anything like subsidized health care, they'd rather go into mortal debt for an emergency appendectomy. At least they are living the American Dream and doing it on their own, because government handouts are Socialism, which is the same as Communism (See, the old U.S.S.R. had the word "Socialist" in the title)
Now these big companies, whose "freedom" they worship, are wanting to claw back their meager wages and benefits while execs get bonuses. Damn those unions for interfering with the God Given Rights of the corporations.
Of course not all Americans are this obtuse, it's just that they are also taught to be very vocal when others don't agree with their beliefs, or criticize their country.
No, I am saying that IE8 is erroneously putting up that message. I know what it means and yes, it's been around much earlier than IE6. I think I remember it in Netscape even.
I don't sign in to youtube. I don't sign in to Google. I opted out of all the social networking tripe. (I forget what they call it, but there's a central site you can use to opt out of Google Everything all at once, and only keep what you want.) I have a disposable Gmail account, with completely false information that I log in to maybe once every few months (or if I'm expecting correspondence) and then I log out of it.
So no, I really don't care to have my searches over SSL. It's just unnecessary overhead. I also don't care to read mailing list archives or download source code over SSL either.
In this case none of that content needs to be encrypted in the first place. This isn't your bank, it's just a video site.
I have noticed the problem only with IE8. I suppose that nobody else except you and it, have a clue?
It is probably erroneous.
Yes, I don't like the use of https where it's not needed. It's more overhead all around and YES it matters on busy servers and slow, high latency links. It can also meant he difference between accessing and not accessing the site with a misconfigured router (e.g. wrong MTU on a PPPoE connection can make SSL not work correctly. There's one ISP here that needs packets no larger than 1454 bytes or there's trouble signing into various services. The default on the routers is 1492 for PPPoE, which is supposed to be correct but gets people every time. The ISP doesn't "support" routers, unless they supply, configure and lock you out of them. So I get service calls over that all the time)
I do not need SSL on Google. Like I give a fuck if people snoop my search phrases. (I'll search for "kiss my ass" just in case the bogey man is listening) I would want SSL for signing in to, say, Gmail or something but I don't need it for all communications. Now that Google has carried the https over to Youtube, some silly browsers (e.g. IE8) prompt on the loading of every damned page because there's a mix of secure and non secure content. Really smart.
I certainly will not be brow beaten into sacrificing MY freedom and privacy for fishing expeditions to catch criminals. Being falsely accused or even just investigated by a bunch of overbearing cops is more harassment than I will tolerate. Call me all the names you want, at least "tool" won't be among them.
Even in the intended case of a relative being an alleged match... what then? Are they to be interrogated and harassed into providing their family tree? Only a complete and utter moron would submit to that in the first place. Yes, I know, the world is full of those people who think they are innocent and have nothing to fear from The Law. Wait until you're on the receiving end of a bunch of sociopathic assholes who think the end justifies the means.
I am very suspicious about this. Why would he submit a sample if he is the one who did it? This is probably all bollocks and the man is innocent.
I would never submit my DNA in that manner. If that made me the odd man out, implying guilt because I won't cooperate, so be it. If they go and take a sample by whatever means, it wouldn't be admissible anyway.
This is like a witch hunt.
It sounds like a shitty deal, alright.
What I hate are new versions of programs that become unfriendly to my dark GTK+ style. Input forms with unreadable text (I switched to Chromium from Firefox because of that rubbish), white text on white etc. Even VirtualBox is pissing me off... the same thing seems to be happening with my dark QT style. Fortunately it's only the one screen that's affected and it doesn't make the program unusable for me.
Gnome has used GTK+ for a very long time. It's not really just a "gimp library" anymore, but a "Graphical User Interface Toolkit"
Gimp 2.8 requires GTK+ 2.26 or something like that. You could simply remove the devel packages for atk/cairo/pango/glib/gtk+ (leaving the distro packages installed for dependencies at runtime) and put your new libraries in --prefix=/usr/local. I haven't ever used CentOS on a workstation, but I'd be surprised if I couldn't get Gimp 2.8 working with a little fiddling.
I hate Gnome 2 almost as much as I hate Gnome 3, so it doesn't really matter to me either way. I will never use a Gnome-centric distribution. (even if you don't use Gnome, all your GTK apps in the repos would be built with Gnome dependencies and you need to install half of it anyway)