Could the producers of a film for an international audience have chosen other than to use a name weighted with such intense political, historic, and religious conflicts?
If they were seeking harmony, why not Eden?
Or representing an exile or remove, why not Coventry?
Hell, Syndey or Augusta would have done that without causing so much trouble, the theological and philosophical underpinnings of the story wouldn't have been weakened by the use of a different name.
Considering that Exim was originally made to be "bug-for-bug" compatible with sendmail (from the older manpage for exim), and that it still supports much of the sendmail-style configuration, I'd think you'd like it....
And I've had less trouble from exim than I have from sendmail. Then again, I run a small ( users 100) site.
There's a website put together by military spouses and military personnel on leave, and they make a great deal of money cranking out in-game money for The Sims Online and selling it for US $$.
(tongue in cheek) Amazing when the US Military is subsidising its income in the electronic entertainment industry.
Truthfully, I'm ashamed that they have to, but glad they have the opportunity to make the money they need in such a non-conventional manner.
I don't think that's it, but I agree that there's something else to it. From here:
Microsoft is not telling corporate managers that the use of open-source applications might land them in hot water with patent attorneys. And Microsoft is not saying that the open-source development community is a hotbed of misappropriation of private property.
This is not because Microsoft disagrees with the above. But it's just so much easier to give the dirty work to SCO
"Think about if I was the CIO of a company and I'm going to be running my business on an operating system that has an intellectual property foundation that, by almost everyone's admission, is built on quicksand."
You know, EVERYone's admission. EVEN YOU.
"but to seek an opinion of their legal counsel as to the issues that we raised."
We want these companies to make legal judgements requiring very precise knowledge of the law based on our vague claims.
And for our next trick, we're going to reveal our dubious patent on the carburetor and claim that the intake manifold is an infringing work because it depends on our intellectual property.
I don't think SCO cares if anyone believes them or not. The only thing that matters is whether or not a judge finds their legal argument sound enough to award them a judgement. Anything else they say is just smoke and mirrors, a nod in the general direction of Publik Opeenion.
The only way the price will go down and stay down is if someone leaks the so-called evidence (or some juicy internal memos...) and the Emperor is discovered to be wanderin' around buck nekkid, so to speak.
Granted, very true all of those are farces, but you gotta wonder, are their actual aims what they say they are, or just nifty ways to spend lots of money and encourage social conformity?
As to ones that succeeded (at least for a time, sorry, I'm sleepy and can think of only two) Operation Paperclip and COINTELPRO.
Sort of like Black Ops. Of course all the operations you hear about were failures, by definition. This does not mean that there are successes, but one would wonder why it was such a popular thing for governments if it had a 100% failure rate.
The blacks denied voting were Haitians and Cubans, and they were largely Republican votes.
1. If they weren't U.S. citizens, how could they have been eligible in the first place?
2. Half of the people who were removed from the rolls were caucasian, take whatever you like from that.
3. Many of the people had no criminal records.
4. Take a look. Apparently it was more important to get the felons off the rolls than to allow the innocent to exercise their franchise. Seems kinda backwards in the land of "guilty until proven innocent."
Along with all the military votes thrown out by LePore and the rest of the crooked Democrats, it's just more AlGore dishonesty.
This never would have been an issue if AlGore hadn't pissed on the Greens over the Florida Everglades, or even if he had won his home states of Tennessee or Arkansas.
Not sure what you mean regarding the first case. The main issue for the Greens was the attempt to get 5% of the national vote in order to qualify for federal election money.
And overall, no matter who you believe should have won, you miss the point of the article.
The election system is already creaky, and adding more bells and whistles to it is only going to make it even harder work towards making it honest.
I think the connection you're missing is this, partially taken from the article itself:
In the commercial environment we have on the Internet, companies have made it incredibly easy for the average person to trigger a flood of mail into your inboxes, physical and e-mail.
By making spam less profitable (and in fact subject to legal penalties for any company indulging in it), the mechanisms by which someone could do the equivalent of a DDOS on someone's snailmail box will become less available.
What would be wonderful is if the e-mail breed of spam was legislated against, and there was some kind of spill-over to paper spam which placed restrictions on it as well....
Consequences are difficult. UO has done the best job of it, EQ the worst on its red servers (at least when I was playing)
For a while, "naked mages" (think a wizard running around with a spellbook and an attitude) were terrifying... if you killed them, you got nothing, and the only way to kill them was to get in melee range....
Not only that, users are conditioned to click 'ok' in order to get on with what they're doing (if they haven't gotten rid of the secure/non-secure transition popup), and the padlock is a tiny visual change for the user, they have to do SOMETHING different. This kind of change will probably happen every few years from now on as people start "tuning out" the "distraction."
Hm, there's an idea. Getting the user's attention on a transition from secure to insecure mode with a series of self-replicating pop-up windows filled with whatever pr0n the last few users you've fired have in their old home directories. THAT would get their attention.
*checks the proxy logs* Then again, it may be entirely too common an event to draw notice.
I'm kinda sick of people saying the turnaround happened with IE 4.0. Yes, that had a lot of nifty new features. But Dog help you if you were any more demanding of your computer than the Average End User.
The MIS manager here practically had to pull teeth to get the staff (and the tech staff) to switch from Netscape 4.7 until we could mass migrate the workstations to 5.5 (boy, that was fun. not.). I think neither IE 4.0 or 5.0 were as good as Netscape 4.7 (Netscape 6.0 was a howler, though....), and for one specific reason: Any IE crash caused SERIOUS stability problems until 5.5 came out.
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter what an application does on paper, or what it does when the conditions are right and the stars are aligned and all the world is in tune on a spring afternoon. It's how it handles the day to day workload, and - just as important - how well it plays with the other children. Prior to the 5.5 *coughs* patch *coughs*, not only did it not play well, it had the disturbing habit of running after the other children with a chainsaw.
Note: I use Mozilla, and if I had my way, so would the rest of the staff. Nice easy deployment , very easy given our network setup to pass out pop-up block lists, image block lists, e-mail preferences (i.e. NONE), java/javascript settings etc. Much better and less of a pain than Pop-up stopper/proxomitron/etc.
Random aside: My "favorite call of the week" is usually a user who is buried under a mess of pop-up windows. The really fun ones are the very rare occasions when I walk up and suddenly there's a panicked user trying to body-check me away from a computer that has windows filled with nekkid women popping up all over the desktop. Heh.
The OEMs may want to keep MS happy, but the people they REALLY want to keep happy are the ones giving them money. If MS locks the machine down to the point that a Linux port falls beyond the eventual point of diminishing returns, then quite probably most third-party software will have problems too. Which will mean a LOT of customers saying "This is a piece of @#$&!!!!!" Note that the average user can't reliably tell the difference between what's controlled by software and and what's controlled by hardware, they just want it to work so they can get away from the evil box and get back to whatever it was they were doing (or get the evil box to serve up more pr0n).
Also, the more they standardize the PC architecture, the more they actually strengthen the ix86 branch - fewer people spending their time writing drivers for an ever-growing number of devices. Reducing the number of moving targets that have to be coded for is a Good Thing.
And if they do cry DCMA when someone bypasses an "untrusted operating system detection" routine in the BIOS (assuming for the sake of argument that they tried such a thing, which I find doubtful), then they go right back into court. And not every administration is going to be as M$ friendly as The Shrub is.
> iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -s slashdot.org -j UP_MY_ASS
Owww... If you're going to go to the trouble of NATting access back there, why open up such a well-used back door?
*winces*
It's only gonna get bigger with time...
IE was effected on my box. So was every Office 2000 application, and Mozilla as well.
This could be unrelated, but after SP-1, swapping programs in and out of memory takes MUCH longer.
256MB of RAM is NOT enough to run XP after the Service Pack, at least not if you're using IE and Mozilla at the same time. Running it on my computer at home with 1GB of RAM, there's no noticeable difference at all.
I'll apply the patch and see what happens. But if a Service Pack changes that much, then it's not just me having an older machine, it's also MS forgetting to raise the lower bound on the Reccommended (Not Minimum...) hardware requirements.
Bah. New people surf the web all the time, as well as new people looking at/. and the major websites. I think this warning is a Good Thing, it takes up little bandwidth, and is polite.
Why slam people for being slightly conscietious? It's behavior to be encouraged, not discoraged.
And fails - the validator coughs up 19 errors on line one and gives up (I posted 50 earlier, but that was incorrect, it started barfing at column 50 on line one is where I got that number from:P)
Just go in and save the file locally, then upload it to the validator to test it.;D
tools like nmap can fingerprint a system's OS by the behavior of its tcp/ip stack. From there+the server software, the architecture is easier to find out, if the server does not directly provide the information.
Slashdot Mirror
The same question could be turned around thusly:
Could the producers of a film for an international audience have chosen other than to use a name weighted with such intense political, historic, and religious conflicts?
If they were seeking harmony, why not Eden?
Or representing an exile or remove, why not Coventry?
Hell, Syndey or Augusta would have done that without causing so much trouble, the theological and philosophical underpinnings of the story wouldn't have been weakened by the use of a different name.
Considering that Exim was originally made to be "bug-for-bug" compatible with sendmail (from the older manpage for exim), and that it still supports much of the sendmail-style configuration, I'd think you'd like it....
And I've had less trouble from exim than I have from sendmail. Then again, I run a small ( users 100) site.
There's a website put together by military spouses and military personnel on leave, and they make a great deal of money cranking out in-game money for The Sims Online and selling it for US $$.
(tongue in cheek) Amazing when the US Military is subsidising its income in the electronic entertainment industry.
Truthfully, I'm ashamed that they have to, but glad they have the opportunity to make the money they need in such a non-conventional manner.
"Think about if I was the CIO of a company and I'm going to be running my business on an operating system that has an intellectual property foundation that, by almost everyone's admission, is built on quicksand."
You know, EVERYone's admission. EVEN YOU.
"but to seek an opinion of their legal counsel as to the issues that we raised."
We want these companies to make legal judgements requiring very precise knowledge of the law based on our vague claims.
And for our next trick, we're going to reveal our dubious patent on the carburetor and claim that the intake manifold is an infringing work because it depends on our intellectual property.
*wanders off for more coffee...*
I don't think SCO cares if anyone believes them or not. The only thing that matters is whether or not a judge finds their legal argument sound enough to award them a judgement. Anything else they say is just smoke and mirrors, a nod in the general direction of Publik Opeenion.
The only way the price will go down and stay down is if someone leaks the so-called evidence (or some juicy internal memos...) and the Emperor is discovered to be wanderin' around buck nekkid, so to speak.
I'm just wondering why it hasn't happened yet.
To address your reply and the one above.
Granted, very true all of those are farces, but you gotta wonder, are their actual aims what they say they are, or just nifty ways to spend lots of money and encourage social conformity?
As to ones that succeeded (at least for a time, sorry, I'm sleepy and can think of only two) Operation Paperclip and COINTELPRO.
Sort of like Black Ops. Of course all the operations you hear about were failures, by definition. This does not mean that there are successes, but one would wonder why it was such a popular thing for governments if it had a 100% failure rate.
I wonder how much weight the AC posting name would eventually be given for trolling, one way or the other... It would be an interesting experiment.
If nothing else, it would settle the old question of whether ACs post worthwile comments or not in an empirical fashion.
1. If they weren't U.S. citizens, how could they have been eligible in the first place?
2. Half of the people who were removed from the rolls were caucasian, take whatever you like from that.
3. Many of the people had no criminal records.
4. Take a look. Apparently it was more important to get the felons off the rolls than to allow the innocent to exercise their franchise. Seems kinda backwards in the land of "guilty until proven innocent."
Along with all the military votes thrown out by LePore and the rest of the crooked Democrats, it's just more AlGore dishonesty.
No more crooked than letting party workers to prepare absentee ballots before they go out, and error check them when they come back in. Everyone in that election was dirty, and insisting the rules be followed to the letter is better than tweaking ballots once they've come back in.
This never would have been an issue if AlGore hadn't pissed on the Greens over the Florida Everglades, or even if he had won his home states of Tennessee or Arkansas.
Not sure what you mean regarding the first case. The main issue for the Greens was the attempt to get 5% of the national vote in order to qualify for federal election money.
And overall, no matter who you believe should have won, you miss the point of the article. The election system is already creaky, and adding more bells and whistles to it is only going to make it even harder work towards making it honest.
<ad hominem attack gleefully snipped>
I think the connection you're missing is this, partially taken from the article itself:
In the commercial environment we have on the Internet, companies have made it incredibly easy for the average person to trigger a flood of mail into your inboxes, physical and e-mail.
By making spam less profitable (and in fact subject to legal penalties for any company indulging in it), the mechanisms by which someone could do the equivalent of a DDOS on someone's snailmail box will become less available.
What would be wonderful is if the e-mail breed of spam was legislated against, and there was some kind of spill-over to paper spam which placed restrictions on it as well....
Consequences are difficult. UO has done the best job of it, EQ the worst on its red servers (at least when I was playing)
For a while, "naked mages" (think a wizard running around with a spellbook and an attitude) were terrifying... if you killed them, you got nothing, and the only way to kill them was to get in melee range....
Also Zodiac, which was one of his earliest. Not quite as polished, as funny, and more irreverent than Snow Crash.
He seems to like dry humor, irony, mystical experiences, sex , and underdogs.
Not necessarily in that order.
Not only that, users are conditioned to click 'ok' in order to get on with what they're doing (if they haven't gotten rid of the secure/non-secure transition popup), and the padlock is a tiny visual change for the user, they have to do SOMETHING different. This kind of change will probably happen every few years from now on as people start "tuning out" the "distraction."
Hm, there's an idea. Getting the user's attention on a transition from secure to insecure mode with a series of self-replicating pop-up windows filled with whatever pr0n the last few users you've fired have in their old home directories. THAT would get their attention.
*checks the proxy logs* Then again, it may be entirely too common an event to draw notice.
I'm kinda sick of people saying the turnaround happened with IE 4.0. Yes, that had a lot of nifty new features. But Dog help you if you were any more demanding of your computer than the Average End User.
The MIS manager here practically had to pull teeth to get the staff (and the tech staff) to switch from Netscape 4.7 until we could mass migrate the workstations to 5.5 (boy, that was fun. not.). I think neither IE 4.0 or 5.0 were as good as Netscape 4.7 (Netscape 6.0 was a howler, though....), and for one specific reason: Any IE crash caused SERIOUS stability problems until 5.5 came out.
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter what an application does on paper, or what it does when the conditions are right and the stars are aligned and all the world is in tune on a spring afternoon. It's how it handles the day to day workload, and - just as important - how well it plays with the other children. Prior to the 5.5 *coughs* patch *coughs*, not only did it not play well, it had the disturbing habit of running after the other children with a chainsaw.
Note: I use Mozilla, and if I had my way, so would the rest of the staff. Nice easy deployment , very easy given our network setup to pass out pop-up block lists, image block lists, e-mail preferences (i.e. NONE), java/javascript settings etc. Much better and less of a pain than Pop-up stopper/proxomitron/etc.
Random aside: My "favorite call of the week" is usually a user who is buried under a mess of pop-up windows. The really fun ones are the very rare occasions when I walk up and suddenly there's a panicked user trying to body-check me away from a computer that has windows filled with nekkid women popping up all over the desktop. Heh.
The OEMs may want to keep MS happy, but the people they REALLY want to keep happy are the ones giving them money. If MS locks the machine down to the point that a Linux port falls beyond the eventual point of diminishing returns, then quite probably most third-party software will have problems too. Which will mean a LOT of customers saying "This is a piece of @#$&!!!!!" Note that the average user can't reliably tell the difference between what's controlled by software and and what's controlled by hardware, they just want it to work so they can get away from the evil box and get back to whatever it was they were doing (or get the evil box to serve up more pr0n).
Also, the more they standardize the PC architecture, the more they actually strengthen the ix86 branch - fewer people spending their time writing drivers for an ever-growing number of devices. Reducing the number of moving targets that have to be coded for is a Good Thing.
And if they do cry DCMA when someone bypasses an "untrusted operating system detection" routine in the BIOS (assuming for the sake of argument that they tried such a thing, which I find doubtful), then they go right back into court. And not every administration is going to be as M$ friendly as The Shrub is.
> iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -s slashdot.org -j UP_MY_ASS Owww... If you're going to go to the trouble of NATting access back there, why open up such a well-used back door? *winces* It's only gonna get bigger with time...
>>you just spouted off ideologically
>That would be hard. I don't even think I have an
>ideology. In fact, I reject the notion of ideology
>because it denies objectivity.
Oh, you're an existentialist!
Pity it's still an ideology, though.
IE was effected on my box. So was every Office 2000 application, and Mozilla as well.
This could be unrelated, but after SP-1, swapping programs in and out of memory takes MUCH longer.
256MB of RAM is NOT enough to run XP after the Service Pack, at least not if you're using IE and Mozilla at the same time. Running it on my computer at home with 1GB of RAM, there's no noticeable difference at all.
I'll apply the patch and see what happens. But if a Service Pack changes that much, then it's not just me having an older machine, it's also MS forgetting to raise the lower bound on the Reccommended (Not Minimum...) hardware requirements.
One, your examples are either proper names or words that have vague alternative meanings, if any at all.
/. in?
/., it's STILL a window.
Two, what is this thing you're reading
*ignores the chorus of "a browser, you moron!"*
A window.
If I'm on my Debian box which runs KDE, and I'm reading
If I'm on a Mac or a SPARC workstation, *drumroll* It's still a window!
It's only slightly worse than if the case was over GUI/LUI as the names involved.
[delurk]
/. and the major websites. I think this warning is a Good Thing, it takes up little bandwidth, and is polite.
Bah. New people surf the web all the time, as well as new people looking at
Why slam people for being slightly conscietious? It's behavior to be encouraged, not discoraged.
[lurking re-engaged]
It identifies itself as XHTML 1.0 (strict)
:P)
;D
And fails - the validator coughs up 19 errors on line one and gives up (I posted 50 earlier, but that was incorrect, it started barfing at column 50 on line one is where I got that number from
Just go in and save the file locally, then upload it to the validator to test it.
I told Konqueror to lie.
Save the index.html file
upload it to http://validator.w3.org
After NINETEEN ERRORS ON LINE ONE, here is the last line from the output:
Sorry, this document does not validate as XHTML 1.0 Strict.
Bzzzzzt.
OmniHTTPD is another good one for windows... If I have a choice of servers but not OSes, I'll run that anyday over IIS.
tools like nmap can fingerprint a system's OS by the behavior of its tcp/ip stack. From there+the server software, the architecture is easier to find out, if the server does not directly provide the information.