About sendmail.cf
on
Postfix
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This is pure conjecture on my part, but I suspect the syntax (and I use the word loosely) of the sendmail.cf file was evolved for ease of parsing via whatever code originally implemented sendmail. It's very nearly a binary format.
I'm no sendmail appologizer, but the only time anyone should be messing with.cf files is when they're writing new recipies. The sendmail.m4 file is dead simple to work with.
As for me, I've been using qmail since '97 and I recommend it to anyone with the patience to change the way they think about MTA configuration. It's well worth the one week of agonizing confusion. You'll wonder why anyone would do it any other way.
That's impressive, but not enough to be worth the trouble of switching for most people.
14604584 -> 5868846 (60%) -> 4560296 (69%) Another 9% of the original space was saved.
8146186 -> 1007529 (88%) -> 630357 (92%) Another 5% was saved
33378982 -> 7216151 (78%) -> 6034907 (82%) Another 4% was saved
Certainly if space is all that matters, the smaller size is better, but relative to the original size and.bz2 compression, these improvements are not significant. When.bz2 is shrinking files to a third of their original sizes, there's not a whole lot of room left to be interesting.
These figures look more impressive than they are because we are tempted to compare the second and third number, and (in the case of the second example) we see what looks like an additional 37% compression because 63 is 37% less than 100, but 100 - 63 is 5% of 814.
This is why bz2 still has a hard time pushing out gz. It takes more CPU, and it's not THAT much of an improvement.
Despite what ivory tower CS folks would like us to believe, it's not practical to apply proofs to all programming to guarentee correct operation. Godel might even argue that it's impossible for any non-trivial algorithem to be bug free. Any program more complex than Freecell can only approach "stable release quality" asymtotically. To achieve what you request, versions would have to be assigned as 4.9, 4.99, 4.999, 4.9999,... because there's always one more bug.
The alternative would be to re-number versions as they reveal their stability: "Ok, that last 5.0? That was actually 4.9.100, this one is the real 5.0." This would undermine the real purpose of the version number, which is to uniquely identify the VERSION of something.
The version number cannot and should not be used to ascertain the quality of that version. There's no substitute for actually researching or testing the performance of the product to see if it's what you want.
I hate to spring to the defense of Big Corporations, but it's really not that hard to interpret Marketsp'aek positively:
"I define AE as a business strategy for customers who want to respond in real time to changes affecting their business."
My translation: AE is (an expensive product which helps companies setup) a business strategy under which trends trigger actions. The use of 'business strategy' sounds meaningless, but it's actually two words which imply two paragraphs. 'Strategy' in this case is an overloaded term referring to a collection of tools, policies, and proceedures.
The use of 'real time' in business means something very different from its meaning in computer science. It means 'today' instead of 'eventually'. I work for a large media company with an animal for a mascot, and it takes us years to respond to changes in the marketplace. Most of our innertia is rooted in size, conservative management, and fear of risk. However, if we had a system of automation which identified potentially interesting changes in the marketplace, especially in merchandising, it could save us a lot of money.
For example, how much should we invest in online sales, and how much in more traditional sales? We make money from both, now, so it's a very serious question. A missed sale is a lost sale, but there's no point in trying to extract blood from a turnip. We have people who try to figure out where the tastiest blood is, but they are limited by their tools and proceedures. This AE might actually be just the thing they need.
I don't know if AE is any good, or if it's what it claims to be, but I do know that marketing speak CAN have a real meaning in a marketing context. When we geeks ridicule the suits for talking gibberish, it's no better than when they ridicule us for our acronyms, l33t, tech talk and other not-quite-english that we use. "We aggregate packet-based transactions, over-selling a large pipe to small nodes who could collectively saturate that pipe, but in practice don't" would mean nothing to a marketing type, but to an ISP sysadmin it's her raison d'etre.
If we hope to make any progress in the things that really matter (digital freedom), we need to learn to communicate with these people. Their protocols may be bad, but it works for them, and marketing types don't have firmware upgrades, so we need to learn to speak their protocols if we hope to route any traffic through them, or to comandeer them for our noble purposes.:)
I'm a sysadmin at a major online media company with a large-eared mascot where we have about 700 windows and 100 unix servers. We have competent people tightening everything, but historical and political reasons our production environment is exposed to our desktop environment, and we were heavily impacted by several worms.
If we had a mono-culture consisting entirely of Free Software, we would be completely unexposed and invulnerable to threats introduced via email.:)
In all seriousness, security analisys in our environment would be a lot simpler if we had less varieties of software to contend with. It's true that any compromise would be a more complete comprimise, but automating our security would be much simpler at the same time. As it is, we have virtually every desktop and server OS available for i386, PPC and sparc, and it's a security nightmare. I have a lot of respect for the folks I work with for keeping it all under control.
Someone crafts a physical scene which is likely to be photographed, and whose digital representation when photograhed is bootable and the images comprimise a machine booted from a digital camera containing pictures of the scene.
The guy there specifically wants to address this very problem and has created a java applet for new programmers to use to get aquanted with procedural programming.
He's been at it for over a year, and hasn't had much feedback. Maybe the/. crowd can help him out... (please be kind!).
They aggregate geeky products into one place and make it fun to shop there. I know I'm paying more for my toys when I shop at ThinkGeek, but I get what I pay for: a fun shopping experience. I trust them to treat me well and to pick good toys. I've never been disappointed.
Remember, the value of something is Whatever The Market Will Bare. If someone is willing to pay 120% of suggested retail for something, it's worth it to them. That's one of the awesome things about a truely free market. I can pay cost + margin at Costco or SAMS and get crappy service, or I can pay double cost at a boutique and get waited on hand and foot. Or I can alternate as my mood (or wallet) changes.
That's a little something we like to call "freedom".
1. Software is a lot more stable than we think
a. My (*nix/Windows/MacOS) computer has been up for X days/years 2. Some software is faulty because it can be
a. Out of Fast/Cheap/Correct, correct is first to go
b. It's Good Enough (for management/the market)
c. No accountability for faults 3. Developers/managers insist on using broken tools (C language) 4. The problem is just Too Hard
a. Software gets more complex faster than it gets better
b. We don't have the tools to build it right yet
c. It's impossible to test every code path and state
d. Software is a new "science" we don't yet understand 5. It's the hardware/interfaces to other software
a. VCRs and other closed simple systems don't break
b. Even with ECC memory and disks, there's a non-zero chance of a
random single bit error from cosmic rays going uncorrected and
gumming up the works
c. Each piece works as designed, but every combination of pieces can not
be designed or tested, and will always have unanticipated states
(think The Matrix)
Solutions
0. It's not a problem (it's a result of other problems) 1. Fix bugs by removing code instead of adding it 2. Pay more, wait, or fix it yourself (tip the Fast/Cheap/Correct balance) 3. Over-build systems to be more defensive against all errors
(and use better tools and components)
Use a USB or firewire attached storage space for critical data. Attach the storage to user's belt so if they walk away from the machine they take the critical data with them.
...a CD that is. If they have problems they call me, whether they have Windows or some Linux.
My conversion rate is slow, one person a year, but I'm satisfied with the results. People are asking me how to do new cool things instead of how to make their computer stop doing stupid things they didn't ask it to.
Traveling to a place which is experientially identical to the past, but which has no effect on the present a person left is not time travel.
If I don't know the difference between China, China Town, and China Grove, taking a stroll in San Francisco is not the same as flying 8000 miles.
"Why won't you accept our cookie? We're not doing anything with it that you have any reason to care about. There's no reason to use a browser that doesn't work with cookies. You're just being paranoid and weird."
I happen to agree with you that cookies should not be required except when used for actual functionality (banking, shopping, email online). This is obviously not one of those cases. My only point is that _they_ don't see the problem with cookies in the first place because they don't think like us. They probably bought every version of Windows when it came out, and they probably think DRM is good for artists and users.
A friend said something last night that first this perfectly: "I don't understand why people insist on being wrong."
A full-length movie would be 2 hours. Why would you need to download it in 5 seconds?
The short answer to all technological motivation questions is PORN.
But here's the long answer.
Had you read the article, you'd know the motivation was to reduce latency of communiation between locations participating in large-scale simultions. It's for a kind of meta-beowolf cluster.
Even so, note that this paves the way for far richer content. A normal movie is a three-dimensional picture (and sounds): it's an array of two-dimmensional pictures indexed by time. If it takes five seconds to convey two hours of video, that means it's feasable to transmit four-dimensional video in a worth-while amount of time. Four-dimensional video would be a movie the viewer can walk around in. We don't currently have the technology to generate or view a full-motion three-dimensional world, but anyone who read the article would know this protocol is barely out of the lab yet.
A lot of/. drones have also been wondering what would generate or receive this much data. The answer to this is also to RTFA: arrays of computers generate and receive the data. Besides which, by the time this technology is readily available to the masses, the associated components needed to take advantage of it will also be available. How many motherboards sold these days have an ISA slot? rs232 port? AT keybaord? How many have on-board 100Mbit 10baseT? USB? PCI-64? AGP 8X? Does anyone still by MTM hard drives? Or remember them? Does anyone still buy ram in chips? SIMMs?
right now, it's useless
The folks who developed this did didn't do it for you. It has a use now, and will have more uses as the associated technologies develop. There's a lot more to the world than you or I will ever wrap our tiny brains around...
matches query
0015 "Mars is somewhat the same distance from" -bush -quayle -gore
0321 "Mars is somewhat the same distance from" +bush -quayle -gore
0110 "Mars is somewhat the same distance from" -bush +quayle -gore
0086 "Mars is somewhat the same distance from" -bush -quayle +gore
1360 "Mars is somewhat the same distance from"
Now, do you really believe any of these people actually said that? I wonder what else has been mis-attributed to them....
"http://www.example.com" is redundant. The "www." doesn't add any information. "http://example.com" ought to be sufficient. It's not that hard to include an A record for the origin of a zone in DNS.
Other redundancies:
user@mail.example.com
"I'd just like to say"
"At the end of the day, you've got to look at the bottom line and ask yourself..."
most of slashdot
This is a misleading phrase. It seems simple enough on the surface: if I have my property, then clearly you don't have it. However, life is not the zero-sum game it appears to be. I don't own the high-rise I work in, but I still get some benefits of its existance because my employer pays rent to the owners. I don't own the apartment I live in, the restaurants I eat at, or the radio stations I listen to. The people who own these things, are millionares on paper, and may even live a lavish livestyle, but I'm benefiting from their investments too even though I don't own their property.
Wealthy people don't sit around on piles of food and clothing laughing at the poor people who can't afford them. They re-invest their wealth in whatever way will grow it the fastest. Sometimes they even spend it.
It's true that when you pay $100 for a hockey ticket that you don't have that $100 anymore, but it's not true that you don't get $100 worth of enjoyment or SOMETHING out of it, otherwise you wouldn't pay it. If you don't get more than $100 worth of whatever from it, don't make the transaction. The real growth in an economy stems from the fact that normal transactions benefit both parties. The goods and services exchanged are worth more to the parties who recieved them than to the parties who paid them.
So, "one man's loss is another man's gain" only applies when the transaction is not voluntary for both parties. This is called stealing, and it requires force or deception, both of which are illegal except when practiced by the government or those with good enough lawyers.
Don't be jealous just because some people can afford to live the rockstar lifestyle. Remember to separate the ends from the means. Being rich is not destructive, stealing is.
People were irritating in theaters before they had cell phones. There have been people talking, having big hats, having big hair, being fat, having crying children, having body odor and everything else ever since we've gathered in groups to enjoy things together.
People have been bad drivers since long before cell phones existed. Don't blame the phone for the driver's irresponsibility. People shave, put on lipstick, argue with their children, get drunk, you name it. Cell phones are not the problem.
There is no conclusive link between cellphones and brain cancer. The wall-powered microwave ovens people use everywhere have far greater capacity to do real damage to people than the battery-powered 7-days-without-a-charge cell phones. We actually know what microwaves do to flesh. We do it to food and water all the time. There hasn't been a problem with microwave ovens, much less cellphones.
Sometimes one finds change in the couch. One rarely finds change in one's significant other. The comparison is meaningless.
Emergency calls on a cell phone are always free. If it's not an emergency, why are you calling collect? Are you just cheap? Or are you making an emergency out of something that could really wait?
Cell phones aren't actually obsolete in a year just because etc. Some people are sheep who will buy anything with a bigger number or cuter design. I've had my phone for two years, and I would have had my previous phone for five if I hadn't given it to a friend as a present. Computers are 'obsolete in a year' just as much as cell phones, but I bet you would rather have a two-year old computer than your very own payphone. Again the comparison is meaningless.
Yes, payphones ARE the safest option if you're up to no good. So what?
What's convienient about getting calls at payphones? Standing around waiting? The lack of privacy?
There are cell phones which can be had with no long-term commitment or credit check. They're not cheap, but they exist.
Cell phones don't have to come on vacations either. If you think they do, you need better friends. I like having a cell phone wherever I go for convienience, but it's a choice I make, not an obligation.
Yes, when the payphone doesn't work, you walk/bus/hitchike/taxi to the next one. YAY.
My cellphone has excellent reception. It's better than a lot of people's home land lines. If you've had bad experiences, it's probably because you or your friends are cheap, as mentioned above.
I could go on and on too. I swear I could strangle the jackasses who confuse the tools people use with the stupid things they do with the tools. I could also strangle the jackasses who have cellphone envy and try to mask it as some kind of superiority.
I work hard to make sure I have the resources to live the kind of life I want to live. I want the ability to stay in touch with people I go shopping with so we don't have to agree to meet at the food court. If my girlfriend is in a car accident again, I want her to be able to reach me as soon as possible. If there's an earthquake and I'm trapped in a building, I want to be able to call for help and tell them I'm alive but bleeding and running out of air. If I'm on an airplane and hostages take over with box cutters, I want to say goodbye to my girlfriend before the plane runs into a building.
I'm tired of anti-cellphone BS. There are no legitimate complaints against the phones themselves, and the complaints about the users have nothing to do with the phones.
I don't watch TV or read newspapers for this very reason. They pander to the people who lap up sensationalism.
Most people would rather read, "I hate it" than "It's fine", or "I love it". Noone is going to get excited if Dvorak writes an article on what's right about macs, linux, dogs, the weather, love and peace... you get the idea.
People already know what they want to think, and they're just looking for a pat on the back. "See? Dvorak hates it too! I'm right! He invented a keyboard layou, so he knows what he's talking about!"
So then the question is, is it really so bad? I hate it because I think it's a waste of resources, a sham, and encourages general stupidity. But who am I to say so? I don't read it or watch it, so it's not affecting me.
The topic is a motorcycle safety device. The post you replied to is about motorcycle safety. It's also good advise for anyone, no matter what vehical they're in/on. There's nothing off-topic or troll-like about the post at all.
The principle of Optimum Slackitude points out that because of Moore's Law, the overall cost in time or money can be decreased by waiting to being. If current numbers predict 12 years to exhaust the keyspace, and we wait 18 months to start, then that first 18 months worth of effort will have to be made up at the end, but 12 years later computers will be 2^8 or 256 times faster. That first 18 months worth of effort will only take 2-3 days to make up at the end of the project.
I think that's probably what people object to about starting this project now instead of in a couple years.
Slashdot Mirror
This is pure conjecture on my part, but I suspect the syntax (and I use the word loosely) of the sendmail.cf file was evolved for ease of parsing via whatever code originally implemented sendmail. It's very nearly a binary format.
.cf files is when they're writing new recipies. The sendmail.m4 file is dead simple to work with.
I'm no sendmail appologizer, but the only time anyone should be messing with
As for me, I've been using qmail since '97 and I recommend it to anyone with the patience to change the way they think about MTA configuration. It's well worth the one week of agonizing confusion. You'll wonder why anyone would do it any other way.
Certainly if space is all that matters, the smaller size is better, but relative to the original size and .bz2 compression, these improvements are not significant. When .bz2 is shrinking files to a third of their original sizes, there's not a whole lot of room left to be interesting.
These figures look more impressive than they are because we are tempted to compare the second and third number, and (in the case of the second example) we see what looks like an additional 37% compression because 63 is 37% less than 100, but 100 - 63 is 5% of 814.
This is why bz2 still has a hard time pushing out gz. It takes more CPU, and it's not THAT much of an improvement.
Despite what ivory tower CS folks would like us to believe, it's not practical to apply proofs to all programming to guarentee correct operation. Godel might even argue that it's impossible for any non-trivial algorithem to be bug free. Any program more complex than Freecell can only approach "stable release quality" asymtotically. To achieve what you request, versions would have to be assigned as 4.9, 4.99, 4.999, 4.9999, ... because there's always one more bug.
The alternative would be to re-number versions as they reveal their stability: "Ok, that last 5.0? That was actually 4.9.100, this one is the real 5.0." This would undermine the real purpose of the version number, which is to uniquely identify the VERSION of something.
The version number cannot and should not be used to ascertain the quality of that version. There's no substitute for actually researching or testing the performance of the product to see if it's what you want.
I hate to spring to the defense of Big Corporations, but it's really not that hard to interpret Marketsp'aek positively:
:)
"I define AE as a business strategy for customers who want to respond in real time to changes affecting their business."
My translation: AE is (an expensive product which helps companies setup) a business strategy under which trends trigger actions. The use of 'business strategy' sounds meaningless, but it's actually two words which imply two paragraphs. 'Strategy' in this case is an overloaded term referring to a collection of tools, policies, and proceedures.
The use of 'real time' in business means something very different from its meaning in computer science. It means 'today' instead of 'eventually'. I work for a large media company with an animal for a mascot, and it takes us years to respond to changes in the marketplace. Most of our innertia is rooted in size, conservative management, and fear of risk. However, if we had a system of automation which identified potentially interesting changes in the marketplace, especially in merchandising, it could save us a lot of money.
For example, how much should we invest in online sales, and how much in more traditional sales? We make money from both, now, so it's a very serious question. A missed sale is a lost sale, but there's no point in trying to extract blood from a turnip. We have people who try to figure out where the tastiest blood is, but they are limited by their tools and proceedures. This AE might actually be just the thing they need.
I don't know if AE is any good, or if it's what it claims to be, but I do know that marketing speak CAN have a real meaning in a marketing context. When we geeks ridicule the suits for talking gibberish, it's no better than when they ridicule us for our acronyms, l33t, tech talk and other not-quite-english that we use. "We aggregate packet-based transactions, over-selling a large pipe to small nodes who could collectively saturate that pipe, but in practice don't" would mean nothing to a marketing type, but to an ISP sysadmin it's her raison d'etre.
If we hope to make any progress in the things that really matter (digital freedom), we need to learn to communicate with these people. Their protocols may be bad, but it works for them, and marketing types don't have firmware upgrades, so we need to learn to speak their protocols if we hope to route any traffic through them, or to comandeer them for our noble purposes.
I'm a sysadmin at a major online media company with a large-eared mascot where we have about 700 windows and 100 unix servers. We have competent people tightening everything, but historical and political reasons our production environment is exposed to our desktop environment, and we were heavily impacted by several worms.
:)
If we had a mono-culture consisting entirely of Free Software, we would be completely unexposed and invulnerable to threats introduced via email.
In all seriousness, security analisys in our environment would be a lot simpler if we had less varieties of software to contend with. It's true that any compromise would be a more complete comprimise, but automating our security would be much simpler at the same time. As it is, we have virtually every desktop and server OS available for i386, PPC and sparc, and it's a security nightmare. I have a lot of respect for the folks I work with for keeping it all under control.
Someone crafts a physical scene which is likely to be photographed, and whose digital representation when photograhed is bootable and the images comprimise a machine booted from a digital camera containing pictures of the scene.
That would be awesome.
The guy there specifically wants to address this very problem and has created a java applet for new programmers to use to get aquanted with procedural programming.
/. crowd can help him out... (please be kind!).
He's been at it for over a year, and hasn't had much feedback. Maybe the
devapprentice.com
They aggregate geeky products into one place and make it fun to shop there. I know I'm paying more for my toys when I shop at ThinkGeek, but I get what I pay for: a fun shopping experience. I trust them to treat me well and to pick good toys. I've never been disappointed.
Remember, the value of something is Whatever The Market Will Bare. If someone is willing to pay 120% of suggested retail for something, it's worth it to them. That's one of the awesome things about a truely free market. I can pay cost + margin at Costco or SAMS and get crappy service, or I can pay double cost at a boutique and get waited on hand and foot. Or I can alternate as my mood (or wallet) changes.
That's a little something we like to call "freedom".
Use a USB or firewire attached storage space for critical data. Attach the storage to user's belt so if they walk away from the machine they take the critical data with them.
...a CD that is. If they have problems they call me, whether they have Windows or some Linux.
My conversion rate is slow, one person a year, but I'm satisfied with the results. People are asking me how to do new cool things instead of how to make their computer stop doing stupid things they didn't ask it to.
I've had a Verizon cell for six years and have received no telemarketing calls.
I replied to the wrong thread.
I've been a Verizon customer for six years and haven't gotten any telemarketing calls on my cell phone.
Traveling to a place which is experientially identical to the past, but which has no effect on the present a person left is not time travel. If I don't know the difference between China, China Town, and China Grove, taking a stroll in San Francisco is not the same as flying 8000 miles.
"Why won't you accept our cookie? We're not doing anything with it that you have any reason to care about. There's no reason to use a browser that doesn't work with cookies. You're just being paranoid and weird." I happen to agree with you that cookies should not be required except when used for actual functionality (banking, shopping, email online). This is obviously not one of those cases. My only point is that _they_ don't see the problem with cookies in the first place because they don't think like us. They probably bought every version of Windows when it came out, and they probably think DRM is good for artists and users. A friend said something last night that first this perfectly: "I don't understand why people insist on being wrong."
The short answer to all technological motivation questions is PORN.
But here's the long answer.
Had you read the article, you'd know the motivation was to reduce latency of communiation between locations participating in large-scale simultions. It's for a kind of meta-beowolf cluster.
Even so, note that this paves the way for far richer content. A normal movie is a three-dimensional picture (and sounds): it's an array of two-dimmensional pictures indexed by time. If it takes five seconds to convey two hours of video, that means it's feasable to transmit four-dimensional video in a worth-while amount of time. Four-dimensional video would be a movie the viewer can walk around in. We don't currently have the technology to generate or view a full-motion three-dimensional world, but anyone who read the article would know this protocol is barely out of the lab yet.
A lot of /. drones have also been wondering what would generate or receive this much data. The answer to this is also to RTFA: arrays of computers generate and receive the data. Besides which, by the time this technology is readily available to the masses, the associated components needed to take advantage of it will also be available. How many motherboards sold these days have an ISA slot? rs232 port? AT keybaord? How many have on-board 100Mbit 10baseT? USB? PCI-64? AGP 8X? Does anyone still by MTM hard drives? Or remember them? Does anyone still buy ram in chips? SIMMs?
right now, it's useless
The folks who developed this did didn't do it for you. It has a use now, and will have more uses as the associated technologies develop. There's a lot more to the world than you or I will ever wrap our tiny brains around...
matches query
0015 "Mars is somewhat the same distance from" -bush -quayle -gore
0321 "Mars is somewhat the same distance from" +bush -quayle -gore
0110 "Mars is somewhat the same distance from" -bush +quayle -gore
0086 "Mars is somewhat the same distance from" -bush -quayle +gore
1360 "Mars is somewhat the same distance from"
Now, do you really believe any of these people actually said that? I wonder what else has been mis-attributed to them....
"http://www.example.com" is redundant. The "www." doesn't add any information. "http://example.com" ought to be sufficient. It's not that hard to include an A record for the origin of a zone in DNS.
..."
:)
Other redundancies:
user@mail.example.com
"I'd just like to say"
"At the end of the day, you've got to look at the bottom line and ask yourself
most of slashdot
heh heh
"that one man's gain is another man's loss."
This is a misleading phrase. It seems simple enough on the surface: if I have my property, then clearly you don't have it. However, life is not the zero-sum game it appears to be. I don't own the high-rise I work in, but I still get some benefits of its existance because my employer pays rent to the owners. I don't own the apartment I live in, the restaurants I eat at, or the radio stations I listen to. The people who own these things, are millionares on paper, and may even live a lavish livestyle, but I'm benefiting from their investments too even though I don't own their property.
Wealthy people don't sit around on piles of food and clothing laughing at the poor people who can't afford them. They re-invest their wealth in whatever way will grow it the fastest. Sometimes they even spend it.
It's true that when you pay $100 for a hockey ticket that you don't have that $100 anymore, but it's not true that you don't get $100 worth of enjoyment or SOMETHING out of it, otherwise you wouldn't pay it. If you don't get more than $100 worth of whatever from it, don't make the transaction. The real growth in an economy stems from the fact that normal transactions benefit both parties. The goods and services exchanged are worth more to the parties who recieved them than to the parties who paid them.
So, "one man's loss is another man's gain" only applies when the transaction is not voluntary for both parties. This is called stealing, and it requires force or deception, both of which are illegal except when practiced by the government or those with good enough lawyers.
Don't be jealous just because some people can afford to live the rockstar lifestyle. Remember to separate the ends from the means. Being rich is not destructive, stealing is.
I could go on and on too. I swear I could strangle the jackasses who confuse the tools people use with the stupid things they do with the tools. I could also strangle the jackasses who have cellphone envy and try to mask it as some kind of superiority.
I work hard to make sure I have the resources to live the kind of life I want to live. I want the ability to stay in touch with people I go shopping with so we don't have to agree to meet at the food court. If my girlfriend is in a car accident again, I want her to be able to reach me as soon as possible. If there's an earthquake and I'm trapped in a building, I want to be able to call for help and tell them I'm alive but bleeding and running out of air. If I'm on an airplane and hostages take over with box cutters, I want to say goodbye to my girlfriend before the plane runs into a building.
I'm tired of anti-cellphone BS. There are no legitimate complaints against the phones themselves, and the complaints about the users have nothing to do with the phones.
Grow up, people.
I don't watch TV or read newspapers for this very reason. They pander to the people who lap up sensationalism.
Most people would rather read, "I hate it" than "It's fine", or "I love it". Noone is going to get excited if Dvorak writes an article on what's right about macs, linux, dogs, the weather, love and peace... you get the idea.
People already know what they want to think, and they're just looking for a pat on the back. "See? Dvorak hates it too! I'm right! He invented a keyboard layou, so he knows what he's talking about!"
So then the question is, is it really so bad? I hate it because I think it's a waste of resources, a sham, and encourages general stupidity. But who am I to say so? I don't read it or watch it, so it's not affecting me.
The topic is a motorcycle safety device. The post you replied to is about motorcycle safety. It's also good advise for anyone, no matter what vehical they're in/on. There's nothing off-topic or troll-like about the post at all.
The principle of Optimum Slackitude points out that because of Moore's Law, the overall cost in time or money can be decreased by waiting to being. If current numbers predict 12 years to exhaust the keyspace, and we wait 18 months to start, then that first 18 months worth of effort will have to be made up at the end, but 12 years later computers will be 2^8 or 256 times faster. That first 18 months worth of effort will only take 2-3 days to make up at the end of the project.
I think that's probably what people object to about starting this project now instead of in a couple years.