I'd like to say that these people are insane. They want to hate everyone, even though they are not conscious of it. They want everyone to love them, even though they are not conscious of it. They don't even realize that they are alienating themselves from the world. All that they know is that everybody is out to get them.
It's too bad that these people are allowed to roam around freely in society. Such incoherant people ought to be locked up so that the rest of us can get on with our lives. But what do I know? After all, I'm posting on slashdot.
Actually, although using a clothes line is best overall, people can still dry some clothes indoors. I usually dry some items by laying them over my bed. When I'm about to dry on my bed, I make sure that my bed is made & keep that part clean so that I can lay out clean clothes. @ night, if they aren't dry, you just gather them up & dump them in a pile on a clean surface. Another option is to just go to sleep & leave them there. I don't think there ever was a time when the bed was so wet that I couldn't use it. I'm not even sure that it was damp.
Warning: it all depends on how thick your clothes are, how thick your bed spreads are, & how well your machine spin dries the clothes.
As for slacks & dress shirts, I usually dry them by putting them on hangers & leaving them out in the open. Other shirts & pants go in the dryer, because they tend to get difficult to dry indoors.
I think that drying dress shirts on clothes hangers is the best because for many of them, you won't need to iron them later on.
I tried drying a pair of jeans on a hanger, & it worked out pretty well.
All of you might be surprised @ how much time you save. All the stuff that needs to go on hangers are going to have to go on hangers, so you might as well hang them to dry, & skip the ironing altogether.
Thanks for clarifying the punch-card-butterfly-ballot issue. Even those who argued against the butterfly ballots never even brought up the binding problem. Maybe I wasn't paying attention.:^/
Regarding time, I'm not worried about that. After all, there are ways around that. People could set up more polling stations. I'm not saying that it has to be that way. I'm just saying that there are options.
Well, I'm not saying that they must used chads. I'm just saying that a variety of tests is important. This way, they don't discriminate against 1 type of person, but against all types.
People should be encouraged to tell their friends what to do before the actual voting. This will encourage people to work together.
If they do use chads, then maybe they could instruct the voter to remove all of them, but to remove them 1 @ a time in a non-consecutive order. This way, if the voter leaves a chad which gets removed anyways, then it will work in his favour. Again, I'm not saying that we must have chads. I just think that it would be best if we had variations of tests. I have nothing against ruling in favour of the voter because I'm not trying to make life misrable. I'm trying to eliminate the worse possible cases. In the Florida votes the cases that bothered me were the 1s that involved voting who couldn't read the cards in a different angle or straight on.
That being said, where the actual vote counts, I wouldn't mind making it simpler. Only the test needs to be "hard". To simpify things, maybe we could instruct voters to put a mark in the scantron bubble @ the left of the name, and/or circle the name. In the Florida voting, if I recall correctly, they had chads in the middle, & names surrounding the chads. As far as following the instructions, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I would be flexible enough to allow the community to use another layout such as chads/boxes/bubbles/whatever on the left & candidates on the right.
Also, I wouldn't mind letting people vote in a different language or use Braille, etc. That's something that needs to be hammered out in a case by case basis. Monolingual countries may not want more languages. Bilingual countries might want them. It's all up to everybody.
In short, I still stand my ideas, but I gladly accept your comment about the chads accidentally getting knocked out. I wasn't aware that chads were like that.
I agree. I think that they should make voting more complex. If you can't even punch out a chad because it's @ a wrong angle, then how are you going to decide who to vote for? The candidates are way more complex than voting. The issues require way more attention.
Make it more difficult to do. Give instructions which aren't complex in & of themselves, but add up to quite a lot. For example: 1.) Punch out chads 1, 2, 7, & 12. 2.) Draw an "X" without quotes in the bottom left corner. 3.) Circle the candidate of your choice.
See? Pretty simple. Chads won't make a difference in the actual voting. They do test for comprehension, however. You don't even need a grade 8 education. Grade 7 should be more than enough.
I went & took a look, hoping to take you up on your offer, but I couldn't find it. Maybe I deleted it instead of commenting. That's not my normal tendency for things like system scripts.
Maybe it was actually something else. I just remember a message about modules & calculating something like module dependencies
I appreciate your comments & explanations. Thanks for your time.
For once, I like seeing GNU in front of something. I would call it "GNU Image", though. The extra space might make it more readable. "OpenImage" sounds good too. Once again, I would recommend a space, but this time it isn't as relevant. I like "GNU Image" more than "OpenImage".
Your suggestions are all very clean & simple. They don't raise any questions, like "GIMP".
his point was that when we see something hard being done by someone unexpected, we sometimes fail to notice how poorly it's actually being done.
I don't understand what you are saying here. Was he saying that the woman preacher's lack of skill demonstrated how poorly the men were preaching? or how poorly the woman was preaching?
I've never heard of this before.
PS. I did follow the link. I still don't understand.
Well, I didn't take it seriously. I didn't know if you meant it humourously or not, but I didn't think that you were offensive.
You are right in that there is that usual tone. It's almost rather amusing to watch 2 people, who probably actually agree on something, argue because they didn't bother to hear what the other person was saying. It'd be like you saying that you like oranges & me saying that I like apples. We could argue & argue, but did we bother to ask questions:
do we both like the other fruit as well as the other fruit or do we just like 1 of the fruits?
are we arguing about which is best or what we like or what?
These are pretty stupid questions & the list could go on, but they need to be asked if we are to engage in a discussion about Linux vs. BSD or whatever the topic may be.
Holding a company responsible for having a crappy spam filter is ridiculous.
[snip] As for SMTP based e-mail; it?s like VHS to Beta. They'll use it just because it?s cheaper even with the porn. And who doesn't like a little bit of donkey love on a Monday morning?
Yeah, but the company chose a bad protocol & a bad way of establishing contact with the outside world. The investors seem to be saving money by hiring Indian programmers. So, the investors ought to take that money & build better software to avoid receiving spam.
I can assure you that anything that stops spam & improves communications between employees & customers will almost always pay off under normal circumstances.
I don't know what I mean. I'm confused too. I honestly thought that a module is a module, & that if the hardware doesn't change, then the driver itself shouldn't need to be probed. Since I never add new hardware, I thought that relevant information could be kept in a safe place. I honestly don't know what I'm talking about. Even though I searched pretty hard for any clues, I couldn't find anything. That's why I never asked anybody about it.
That is, until I suggested this idea of mounting root as read-only on that ROX file manager mailing list. I also mentioned the problem of waiting for modprobe, & a fellow said that we don't need to modprobe each time. This seems to be verified by the fact that I managed to comment out the part of the boot up scripts that run modprobe. I've been booting up without it for some time.
On an unrelated note, I mentioned this to that mailing list, because Gentoo doesn't seem too open to the idea of a read-only root system. I based that opinion of the results of searches for read-only root.
Like I said, I honestly don't know what I'm talking about. I just know that my system has been running quite well without modprobe, & I did do a search on modprobing. I don't recall any manual explaining in layman's terms whether or not it was needed for every reboot, whether or not you have new hardware. From what little I understand, kudzu, udev & hotplug are supposed to take care of new stuff in their respective contexts.
I never tried asking about modprobe in the forums because it never occurred to me. I haven't the foggiest idea why it never occurred to me. As for start up scripts, I disabled as many as I could. I even modified some of them. There is 1 script [I can't remember which], which appears to run modprobe no matter what. Even if you don't have any modules, you'll still run it.
I recommend using -a instead of -p so that the user can quickly verify the changes, & then type Enter or Yes, or whatever, to continue. It saves having to recalculate the dependencies.
I read through http://packages.gentoo.org/ 6 days a week. I'm pretty sure that there is nothing there that requires updating every week. Many of the changes are on hardware that you may not have. For example, if you have x86 then you won't need the Sparc upgrades. I think that you're wasting bandwidth, because the changes that are on your system tend to be very minor. If I understand correctly, the changes tend to be install-related, which means that if you installed already, then you won't see any benefits. It would only benefit people who haven't been able to install.
It can automatically build all the dependencies for the program too, saving you much time and effort.
I agree with this. Much of the user friendliness is in taking care of the dependencies. Users @ all skill levels don't want to search around for dependencies.
I also agree that the installation process is user friendly. User friendly isn't necessarily the same as automated. Sometimes you need to have certain options, but if the installer automatically installs without the option, then it could be considered user unfriendly. I consider the install documentation user friendly, because it tries to explain what you need to do, as well as give reasonable defaults.
Another large benefit of gentoo is it doesn?t install anything that isn?t needed to clutter your system up. It will install the bare bones, (ssh, etc) and then you can emerge anything you want. This is much nicer than most OS?s which will load it with crap from the start.
This is not true. It installs some things that I definitely don't need. I don't use my CD drive, so it shouldn't be installing things like "eject". There were a couple of other programs that I definitely didn't want, also. These programs weren't huge so it didn't really matter, but still.
Another complaint that I have is the modprobing every time you boot up. I turn my workstation off each night to save electricity, & wear 'n tear. To have to go through the modprobe each time is wasteful. Modprobbing is supposed to be done during kernel install.
Why does the sender have to get on HotMail's global white list? Why can't the receiver put the sender on his own private white list? The story submitter said that the mail goes to the spam box, which means that it gets through, but it gets through & causes inconvenience. Once the recepient adds the sender to the address book, the mail should end up in the inbox. I could be wrong, though.
If these people want jobs, then they have to start being competitive. Learning to use email is a good start. It's important to use problem solving skills here.
This is just a thought off the top of my head. Maybe the spammers sign up for a mailing list manually, & then direct all incoming email to an address harvestor.
Do you give out your phone number to everyone, just in case they want to phone you, & don't have Internet access? Quit acting like this is the 1990s. It's not as if someone is obligated to sift through 100s of spam a day, just in case a complete stranger wants to contact him. If he has questions, then it should be directed to the list or to people who want to give out email addresses.
it did seem kinda "dirty" to me to be using smb to access a linux server from a linux client, but i really liked the ability to tunnel a single port (if i recall correctly) over ssh.
I think that I know what you mean.
I like using 1 "thing" to do as much as possible. So, when I found out that our customers could give us some data through ssh, I implemented it right away. I'm not sure if that's the best method, but I like the idea that we are supposed to be using ssh anyways, so we may as well use it as much as possible.
If I understand your use of the word, "dirty", then I would argue that it's dirtier to design each tool for such a specific task, that it becomes obsolete in a short amount of time.
That reminds me of my hunch that people aren't always what they seem; here on slashdot. Sure, we get trolls, etc., but a lot of people are even more deceptive. I personally think that there are spammers & spam programmers who have difficultly getting their mail to us. Therefore, they come here to discuss their issues, knowing that many slashdotters can't resist leaving a problem unsolved.
If a spammer can't do action #1, then he'll probably post something like, "All that we have to do to stop spam is do action #1.".
Most slashdotters would then be quick to jump in & say, "Actually, all that we have to do is action #2 to get around action #1.". Thus, the problem is solved. I guess that you could say that it is a free form of consulting.
Thanks for your comments. I especially appreciate the smbfs-ssh idea. Right now, we're running MS SFU, so we aren't really needing smbfs. However, I always want to know more options, because I tend to get into the habit of doing things only 1 way.
I had a similar situation. A long time ago, I went from about 12 to 25, then to under 100, then over 100. I then used spam filters @ the server. My spam went down to 12-18. Now I'm getting about 18-30.
Slashdot Mirror
I say that because I'm a ninja, & I'm trying to bring this martial art into the 21st century. Throwing stars are just so last millenium. ;^)
I'd like to say that these people are insane. They want to hate everyone, even though they are not conscious of it. They want everyone to love them, even though they are not conscious of it. They don't even realize that they are alienating themselves from the world. All that they know is that everybody is out to get them.
It's too bad that these people are allowed to roam around freely in society. Such incoherant people ought to be locked up so that the rest of us can get on with our lives. But what do I know? After all, I'm posting on slashdot.
Actually, although using a clothes line is best overall, people can still dry some clothes indoors. I usually dry some items by laying them over my bed. When I'm about to dry on my bed, I make sure that my bed is made & keep that part clean so that I can lay out clean clothes. @ night, if they aren't dry, you just gather them up & dump them in a pile on a clean surface. Another option is to just go to sleep & leave them there. I don't think there ever was a time when the bed was so wet that I couldn't use it. I'm not even sure that it was damp.
Warning: it all depends on how thick your clothes are, how thick your bed spreads are, & how well your machine spin dries the clothes.
As for slacks & dress shirts, I usually dry them by putting them on hangers & leaving them out in the open. Other shirts & pants go in the dryer, because they tend to get difficult to dry indoors.
I think that drying dress shirts on clothes hangers is the best because for many of them, you won't need to iron them later on.
I tried drying a pair of jeans on a hanger, & it worked out pretty well.
All of you might be surprised @ how much time you save. All the stuff that needs to go on hangers are going to have to go on hangers, so you might as well hang them to dry, & skip the ironing altogether.
Thanks for clarifying the punch-card-butterfly-ballot issue. Even those who argued against the butterfly ballots never even brought up the binding problem. Maybe I wasn't paying attention. :^/
Regarding time, I'm not worried about that. After all, there are ways around that. People could set up more polling stations. I'm not saying that it has to be that way. I'm just saying that there are options.
Well, I'm not saying that they must used chads. I'm just saying that a variety of tests is important. This way, they don't discriminate against 1 type of person, but against all types.
People should be encouraged to tell their friends what to do before the actual voting. This will encourage people to work together.
If they do use chads, then maybe they could instruct the voter to remove all of them, but to remove them 1 @ a time in a non-consecutive order. This way, if the voter leaves a chad which gets removed anyways, then it will work in his favour. Again, I'm not saying that we must have chads. I just think that it would be best if we had variations of tests. I have nothing against ruling in favour of the voter because I'm not trying to make life misrable. I'm trying to eliminate the worse possible cases. In the Florida votes the cases that bothered me were the 1s that involved voting who couldn't read the cards in a different angle or straight on.
That being said, where the actual vote counts, I wouldn't mind making it simpler. Only the test needs to be "hard". To simpify things, maybe we could instruct voters to put a mark in the scantron bubble @ the left of the name, and/or circle the name. In the Florida voting, if I recall correctly, they had chads in the middle, & names surrounding the chads. As far as following the instructions, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I would be flexible enough to allow the community to use another layout such as chads/boxes/bubbles/whatever on the left & candidates on the right.
Also, I wouldn't mind letting people vote in a different language or use Braille, etc. That's something that needs to be hammered out in a case by case basis. Monolingual countries may not want more languages. Bilingual countries might want them. It's all up to everybody.
In short, I still stand my ideas, but I gladly accept your comment about the chads accidentally getting knocked out. I wasn't aware that chads were like that.
I agree. I think that they should make voting more complex. If you can't even punch out a chad because it's @ a wrong angle, then how are you going to decide who to vote for? The candidates are way more complex than voting. The issues require way more attention.
Make it more difficult to do. Give instructions which aren't complex in & of themselves, but add up to quite a lot. For example:
1.) Punch out chads 1, 2, 7, & 12.
2.) Draw an "X" without quotes in the bottom left corner.
3.) Circle the candidate of your choice.
See? Pretty simple. Chads won't make a difference in the actual voting. They do test for comprehension, however. You don't even need a grade 8 education. Grade 7 should be more than enough.
I went & took a look, hoping to take you up on your offer, but I couldn't find it. Maybe I deleted it instead of commenting. That's not my normal tendency for things like system scripts.
Maybe it was actually something else. I just remember a message about modules & calculating something like module dependencies
I appreciate your comments & explanations. Thanks for your time.
For once, I like seeing GNU in front of something. I would call it "GNU Image", though. The extra space might make it more readable. "OpenImage" sounds good too. Once again, I would recommend a space, but this time it isn't as relevant. I like "GNU Image" more than "OpenImage".
Your suggestions are all very clean & simple. They don't raise any questions, like "GIMP".
Good thinking.
I've never heard of this before.
PS. I did follow the link. I still don't understand.
You are right in that there is that usual tone. It's almost rather amusing to watch 2 people, who probably actually agree on something, argue because they didn't bother to hear what the other person was saying. It'd be like you saying that you like oranges & me saying that I like apples. We could argue & argue, but did we bother to ask questions:
- do we both like the other fruit as well as the other fruit or do we just like 1 of the fruits?
- are we arguing about which is best or what we like or what?
These are pretty stupid questions & the list could go on, but they need to be asked if we are to engage in a discussion about Linux vs. BSD or whatever the topic may be.:^)
Hey, I'm just being honest. I'm tired of reading source code, man pages, etc., & still having my system break on me.
I can assure you that anything that stops spam & improves communications between employees & customers will almost always pay off under normal circumstances.
I don't know what I mean. I'm confused too. I honestly thought that a module is a module, & that if the hardware doesn't change, then the driver itself shouldn't need to be probed. Since I never add new hardware, I thought that relevant information could be kept in a safe place. I honestly don't know what I'm talking about. Even though I searched pretty hard for any clues, I couldn't find anything. That's why I never asked anybody about it.
That is, until I suggested this idea of mounting root as read-only on that ROX file manager mailing list. I also mentioned the problem of waiting for modprobe, & a fellow said that we don't need to modprobe each time. This seems to be verified by the fact that I managed to comment out the part of the boot up scripts that run modprobe. I've been booting up without it for some time.
On an unrelated note, I mentioned this to that mailing list, because Gentoo doesn't seem too open to the idea of a read-only root system. I based that opinion of the results of searches for read-only root.
Like I said, I honestly don't know what I'm talking about. I just know that my system has been running quite well without modprobe, & I did do a search on modprobing. I don't recall any manual explaining in layman's terms whether or not it was needed for every reboot, whether or not you have new hardware. From what little I understand, kudzu, udev & hotplug are supposed to take care of new stuff in their respective contexts.
I never tried asking about modprobe in the forums because it never occurred to me. I haven't the foggiest idea why it never occurred to me. As for start up scripts, I disabled as many as I could. I even modified some of them. There is 1 script [I can't remember which], which appears to run modprobe no matter what. Even if you don't have any modules, you'll still run it.
That's a good point. I never even considered that. Thanks!
Yeah, but who says that I'm loading any modules? If I'm not, then there should be a way to specify that.
I haven't seen any manuals that tell us how to disable the modprobing each time. I haven't really seen any documentation that explains it either.
I recommend using -a instead of -p so that the user can quickly verify the changes, & then type Enter or Yes, or whatever, to continue. It saves having to recalculate the dependencies.
I read through http://packages.gentoo.org/ 6 days a week. I'm pretty sure that there is nothing there that requires updating every week. Many of the changes are on hardware that you may not have. For example, if you have x86 then you won't need the Sparc upgrades. I think that you're wasting bandwidth, because the changes that are on your system tend to be very minor. If I understand correctly, the changes tend to be install-related, which means that if you installed already, then you won't see any benefits. It would only benefit people who haven't been able to install.
Could someone verify or correct me on this?
I also agree that the installation process is user friendly. User friendly isn't necessarily the same as automated. Sometimes you need to have certain options, but if the installer automatically installs without the option, then it could be considered user unfriendly. I consider the install documentation user friendly, because it tries to explain what you need to do, as well as give reasonable defaults.This is not true. It installs some things that I definitely don't need. I don't use my CD drive, so it shouldn't be installing things like "eject". There were a couple of other programs that I definitely didn't want, also. These programs weren't huge so it didn't really matter, but still.
Another complaint that I have is the modprobing every time you boot up. I turn my workstation off each night to save electricity, & wear 'n tear. To have to go through the modprobe each time is wasteful. Modprobbing is supposed to be done during kernel install.
It's still a wonderful OS, though.
Why does the sender have to get on HotMail's global white list? Why can't the receiver put the sender on his own private white list? The story submitter said that the mail goes to the spam box, which means that it gets through, but it gets through & causes inconvenience. Once the recepient adds the sender to the address book, the mail should end up in the inbox. I could be wrong, though.
If these people want jobs, then they have to start being competitive. Learning to use email is a good start. It's important to use problem solving skills here.
This is just a thought off the top of my head. Maybe the spammers sign up for a mailing list manually, & then direct all incoming email to an address harvestor.
Do you give out your phone number to everyone, just in case they want to phone you, & don't have Internet access? Quit acting like this is the 1990s. It's not as if someone is obligated to sift through 100s of spam a day, just in case a complete stranger wants to contact him. If he has questions, then it should be directed to the list or to people who want to give out email addresses.
I like using 1 "thing" to do as much as possible. So, when I found out that our customers could give us some data through ssh, I implemented it right away. I'm not sure if that's the best method, but I like the idea that we are supposed to be using ssh anyways, so we may as well use it as much as possible.
If I understand your use of the word, "dirty", then I would argue that it's dirtier to design each tool for such a specific task, that it becomes obsolete in a short amount of time.
I'm glad that you pointed that out.
That reminds me of my hunch that people aren't always what they seem; here on slashdot. Sure, we get trolls, etc., but a lot of people are even more deceptive. I personally think that there are spammers & spam programmers who have difficultly getting their mail to us. Therefore, they come here to discuss their issues, knowing that many slashdotters can't resist leaving a problem unsolved.
If a spammer can't do action #1, then he'll probably post something like, "All that we have to do to stop spam is do action #1.".
Most slashdotters would then be quick to jump in & say, "Actually, all that we have to do is action #2 to get around action #1.". Thus, the problem is solved. I guess that you could say that it is a free form of consulting.
Thanks for your comments. I especially appreciate the smbfs-ssh idea. Right now, we're running MS SFU, so we aren't really needing smbfs. However, I always want to know more options, because I tend to get into the habit of doing things only 1 way.
I had a similar situation. A long time ago, I went from about 12 to 25, then to under 100, then over 100. I then used spam filters @ the server. My spam went down to 12-18. Now I'm getting about 18-30.
It irritates me to no end.