Typically, "pig in a poke" implies unforseen trouble or concealed problems that reveal themselves later, kinda like a used car. The term "poke" usually refers to a brown paper bag, like a grocery or shopping bag (back in the days before they all turned plastic), which lends to the image of the problem being just barely contained, and liable to escape at any moment.
When you buy a pig in a poke, you had better head straight home with it, and have a sturdy pen ready for the pig.
Nope, sorry, the reason to be careful when buying a pig in a poke is that you may open the bag later and find out you didn't buy a pig at all - that you were cheated by the seller. It has nothing to do with the squirmy and rambunctious nature of piglets.
hence why you don't see the 'compress' tool in Linux, or *BSD either, I think
It's included in FreeBSD. I just spent 5 minutes trying to massage a pasted-in uname and 'which compress' but was stymied by the lameness filter at every turn. If nothing else, the lameness filter definitely leads by example when it comes to lameness.
Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with.
Uh? The moral position of this aside, the English is appalling for an official statement. Surely it should be
"Contracts are what you use against parties with which you have relationships."?
Thank you for the definitive illustration of why that ficticious turd of prescriptive snobbery is such a foolish waste of time.
The first sentence, as written by SCO, is clearly easier to read and to make sense of (oh, sorry, "easier to read and of which to make sense").
There is no reason not to end English sentences with prepositions, and never has been. Nor is there any such "rule" except as invented and enforced for a dark stretch of the 19th and early 20th centuries by bitter, sex-starved schoolmarms (of which the evidence suggests you are one).
But there could be language in the contract that states that Novell must enforce copyright voliations. If SCO can't rely on Novell to pursue copyright infringments, then Novell may be in breach of contract.
In such a case, Novell could choose to enforce copyright by negotiating with whoever they consider responsible for Linux, to remove code in dispute. No requirement that they have to go about it by papering corporate GC offices with FUD.
Re:This is actually the best kind of security
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
It is like at work, we have a public network, that most things run over. We also have some private networks that are either no different switches or use non-routable address space. Those then get connected to the public network with a firewall. Well while those are more secure than system on a public network, there is still a weakpoint. If someone can hack the firewall, or computer assoicated with it (for SSH access) then they can get in the private network.
If the private network machines can surf the web, then no firewall hacking is necessary. They just need to put sufficiently good porn online to tempt a private network user to visit a web site which exploits the MS bug-of-the-week (or the "dumb user clicks OK" wetware bug). This can install a remotely-controllable trojan that speaks application-proxy-valid HTTP.
Now, as I understand it, the physical limit of wealth is somewhere around a hundred million dollars. That's literally the breaking point where, short of creating orbiting death platforms or underwater citites, you cannot spend more money and see a difference in your lifestyle.
I beg to differ.
Once I hit the $200,000,000 mark, I was able to replace my legions of minimum-wage henchmen with properly-trained death merchants who could actually shoot and hit targets, and who don't stand in a big circle around the hero attacking him one at a time. I can't tell you how much that has improved my quality (and duration) of life.
Web-design has evolved into its own art form. More and more webpages are popping up with elaborate layering schemes and graphical widgets. Toss in some php scripts and you've created a beautiful mess that one could never code by hand.
Not to be insulting, but the only people I know who don't code by hand are hacks who don't have to or aren't able to create complex, long-term maintainable sites.
Doing it with the GUI just doesn't scale, once you get past the Photoshop/Imageready stage.
There are many occasions where I've received a MS Office doc file containing one or two sentences of simple text. "Here is the price that you asked for. We currently have 300 in inventory."
And the most annoying thing about that (okay, the second most annoying, after having to fire up another application just to read two sentences) is that the attachment will be 150K, despite containing about 60 bytes of actual information.
Re:client filtering is just wrong approach
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
That is a good example of filtering at the SERVER which the article shows that many people are against. filtering at the server leads to the spammers NOT using the ADV tags, forging return addresses, etc.
Sorry, good point. I've run my own home server for so many years that I've conflated it with the client in my head.
So I offer an alternative: With some extensions to the POP or IMAP protocols clients could provide servers with rules for messages to drop.
Re:client filtering is just wrong approach
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Because most of the actual monetary cost of sending the spam has already been incurred by the time you filter at the client.
% telnet example.com smtp Trying 192.168.3.48...
Connected to example.com
Escape character is '^]'
220 welcome
helo spammer.com 250 hello spammer.com
mail from: <makemoneyfast@spammer.com> 250 ok
rcpt to: <user@example.com> 250 ok
data 354 ok
Subject: [ADV] grow three more penises Connection closed by foreign host.
%
The post office has a monopoly?
They do have a massive infrastructure, and laws to back them up, but I don't agree. You can send regular letters by UPS or Fedex no problem. Now they can't accept stamps (as far as I know), so if you want to say they have a monopoly on that.. sure.
My understanding is that there is a minimum per-piece fee that UPS etc. are allowed to charge for letter-size items. Therefore they focus on the speedy-delivery business because otherwise nobody would bother using them instead of USPS. So it's a de facto monopoly.
Re:My experiences with Linux
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The main reason that open source software, and Linux in particular, is failing
It's not failing. It's gaining marketshare. It's winning people contracts in larger and larger organizations for larger and larger installations.
the newest version of Linux, version 9.0
There's no such thing.
I felt that I was up to the job to convert the entire server pool to the Linux technology. I had several years experience programming VB, C#, ASP, and.NET Framework at the kernel level.
Put another way... I felt that I was up to the job to perform a heart-and-lung transplant. I had several experiences applying band-aids to minor scrapes and recommending chicken soup to people with the sniffles.
Furthermore, he found out that the 'x' in Linux was a tribute to the former Communist philosopher, Carl Marx, whose name also ends in 'x'.
You got the wrong memo. It's in honor of Richard Nixon, who also (unlike Karl) has an 'i', an 'n', and an 'x' in the same name.
Needless to say, I will not be recommending Linux to any of my Fortune 500 clients.
Ought to be easy, as you clearly don't have any.
Re:ESR just couldn't resist...
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
Before its meaning got distorted, the majority of people who said or heard "hacker" thought it meant something more like what ESR says. By your reasoning, no bad press, law enforcement, etc. would have changed that. But you're wrong. Word meanings change. They can change back. Deal with it.
The other possibility is that spakka believes in Ordination Linguistics, a school of thought that holds that every morpheme combination has an ultimate meaning consequent to the basic structures of organic matter and the physical universe, and that the observed meanings are slowly converging toward this predetermined state. When this happens, thousands of years from now, language will stop evolving and communication will be a zero-friction exercise. Perhaps he believes that "hacker" meaning "computer criminal" is what they call an "early complete", meaning a word that has achieved convergence with its universal meaning ahead of the bulk of the lexicon.
Okay, I just made all that up. But it's either that, or he was trained by the French language board, the group that has determined that French as of circa 1990 is the archetypical perfect language and no new words shall be allowed to enter, despite the fact that French evolved over the centuries through the absorbtion of words from other language groups.
Re:Saw this on Google News a while back
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
Err well making money is arguably morally good.
That's an argument I'd be fascinated to see you make.
Making money is as morally ambiguous as wearing a blue shirt or having an apple for breakfast. It's how you make it, what you do with it, what impact all that has on others, and what you understand about that impact that determines the morality.
There are those who would like to see the ITU take over from ICANN. I'm not sure that the ITU is the perfect organisation to do it. It is bureaucratic and is a group of telcos rather than including wider Internet interests. However, I do agree that it would be a lot better than what we have at the moment.
I for one could not imagine anything worse.
The ITU takes every available opportunity to put itself between enabling technologies and the people who could benefit from them.
Here's what the internet would look like under ITU:
Standards documents are copyrighted, redistribution is forbidden, and cost $1,000 and up from the ITU Publications office (go ahead, try to get a protocol definition off their site).
No individuals or companies have any representation or even a right to comment except at the request of their government.
Decisions are made by a collection of national telecom monopolies who have a strong vested interest in stifling any development that cannibalizes their core revenues (i.e., overpriced landline phone service).
Arbitrary complexity will be added to all communications protocols in order to ensure difficulty of reverse-engineering.
Absolutely everything will be regulated to death and beyond.
New technology adoption will languish several years behind competing environments. In fact, for this reason, I speculate that if the ITU does manage to gain any appreciable control over internet infrastructure, interesting activity on the internet will quietly migrate to a "same but different" network free of their stifling control.
Frustrated by the growth of the internet at the expense of the centralized data network they had been advocating, and livid at the way that techologies like VOIP have decreased the relevance of their constituent monopolies, for the last few years all the ITU has really done is schemed for a hostile takeover of the internet. It's as dangerous as dealing with a herd of angry dinosaurs: While they are rapidly growing technologically irrelevant, their bureaucratic and political skills are well-honed and they are both rich and ruthless.
In sum: ITU = enemy of the people, enemy of the internet, enemy of affordable communications, enemy of democracy. And I say this as a touchy-feely left wing one-worlder. If you're anywhere to the right of me you should be outside their gates with a torch and pitchfork.
Notice how in the 20-something crowd, regulating everyone else to bicycles sounds so easy? How do my 70 year old neighbors get to the hospital?
Notice how much younger we cyclists seem?
I've been commuting daily by bike for almost 30 years. My grandfather did until a few months before he died. My retired parents still do get around that way (though in their town they can easily walk pretty much everywhere they need to go).
You've never tried to walk anywhere when the windchill was so low that expose skin becomes frostbitten in 5 minutes have you?
Yes, I have, but that's not the typical case. I am not arguing that people in the arctic or who have no legs or who fight fires or who deliver giant loads of goods should have to walk or ride a bicycle. If I'm arguing anything, it's that normal people in typical urban environments could get by without driving if they wanted to.
And you've never had to walk on an icy sidewalk over a moderately steep hill before either, have you?
Yep, I had to bike up one every day this winter. Put on the knobby tires and took care not to spin out or take the corners too fast.
and you probably never leave the urban center unless you fly to another town right? You don't go camping, or kayaking or venture into the rural areas at all do you?
It's cheaper to rent a car 25 weekends a year than to own one.
OK lets see you want people to go on a bike to the grocery store. Lets see I get on average a full shopping cart of groceries per trip that generaly weight a couple hundred pounds. Where on a bike would this fit? A trailer perhaps. If your like me you go shopping one every couple weeks.
First of all, you do not buy 200 pounds of groceries every two weeks. That would be 15 pounds of food a day (or 2.5 tons a year). This is what a zoo would feed a medium-sized grizzly bear.
I bike from Adams Morgan in DC to Alexandria, Virginia to buy my groceries. It's about a 15-mile round trip, and the project takes me 90 minutes (most of which is pure exercise and fresh air, riding in a nice park along the river). I can easily tote 2 weeks worth - 2 bags in a large backpack, 2 bags in a milk crate. I could also walk 10 minutes to the store in my neighborhood but I prefer the selection in Alexandria.
Now lets look at the bad side of this concept. Cars provide needed transport for bulk goods making things more affordable. Public transportation in general is inconvient, unsanitary and potentialy dangerious (subway muggings anybody)
Go ahead, find me any reputable statistic that says riding public transportation is more dangerous than riding in a car. Just go ahead. I dare you.
If it's inconvenient, it's because the funds that should be used for providing adequate public transportation have instead been diverted to all the car subsidies (road construction, real estate used for car infrastructure, general insurance costs to government, emergency services, wars to secure access to fuel, etc.).
a carpender needs to get some heavy equipment to your residence he obvious cant take it on a train. Will getting a rotoruter guy out require a special pass? In reality you cant realy get away from having vehicular access if for nothing but emergency traffic like firetrucks and maitnece / delivery.
Obviously, and I don't think anyone's argued against it. While you're on the strawman kick, you might as well try refuting the argument that cars are made of potatoes. That oughta score some points.
Without the cars, my little sister will be much safer as she walks that 3/4 mile in the dark from the subway to her house, instead of driving directly to her door.
Without the cars, there would be plenty of people on the sidewalk and it would be safer.
And the "fun" neighborhoods will be great, since going to a different neighborhood, or a different city will be too difficult, so youll just have to enjoy the higer prices and lower quality of your neighborhod market. Or maybe youll be lucky and have all the variety of shops within your area that you want. You wont have a choice anyway, so suck it up.
I truly pity people so lazy as you. What an awful thing life must be, feeling so dependent on a machine to do anything or go anywhere. I don't have a car, I've never had a car, and I have never felt any difficulty in getting to the "fun" neighborhoods wherever I've lived. Actually I usually get there faster than my car-owning friends since the bike is always faster and the subway often is.
ANd as for the health bennifits, yeah, its great. Why last january, i would have loved to have had to walk everywhere theough the snow and sleet, much better than taking my heated automobile. THe colds I would catch would definetly help my immune system, and the average health of the nation would go up as all the old people died from longer walks in bad weather.
People get sick from exposure to germs, not from being outside. Aside from the seriously infirm, you won't find a doctor alive who would tell you that it's unhealthy to go for reasonable walks in cold weather.
Hell, I bike all winter ever year, through snow and all, and I can't remember the last time I had a cold.
Subways are good, but there's not enough options. Perhaps a good solution would be several layers of monorails that went through the town, each with various stops.
Hm? The subways in New York go basically everywhere in Manhattan, with decent coverage in Brooklyn and the Bronx, and even in Queens they cover more than you'd get in any other city.
There are express and local trains so you can bypass stops that aren't of interest.
I doubt there's anything in the real world that works better (and I've used pretty much all of the world's major subways, from London to Calcutta).
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, sorry, the reason to be careful when buying a pig in a poke is that you may open the bag later and find out you didn't buy a pig at all - that you were cheated by the seller. It has nothing to do with the squirmy and rambunctious nature of piglets.
P.S. it's "Keyser Söze"
It's included in FreeBSD. I just spent 5 minutes trying to massage a pasted-in uname and 'which compress' but was stymied by the lameness filter at every turn. If nothing else, the lameness filter definitely leads by example when it comes to lameness.
Thank you for the definitive illustration of why that ficticious turd of prescriptive snobbery is such a foolish waste of time.
The first sentence, as written by SCO, is clearly easier to read and to make sense of (oh, sorry, "easier to read and of which to make sense").
There is no reason not to end English sentences with prepositions, and never has been. Nor is there any such "rule" except as invented and enforced for a dark stretch of the 19th and early 20th centuries by bitter, sex-starved schoolmarms (of which the evidence suggests you are one).
May seem that way to you, but in fact it indicates a registered trademark.
In such a case, Novell could choose to enforce copyright by negotiating with whoever they consider responsible for Linux, to remove code in dispute. No requirement that they have to go about it by papering corporate GC offices with FUD.
If the private network machines can surf the web, then no firewall hacking is necessary. They just need to put sufficiently good porn online to tempt a private network user to visit a web site which exploits the MS bug-of-the-week (or the "dumb user clicks OK" wetware bug). This can install a remotely-controllable trojan that speaks application-proxy-valid HTTP.
I beg to differ.
Once I hit the $200,000,000 mark, I was able to replace my legions of minimum-wage henchmen with properly-trained death merchants who could actually shoot and hit targets, and who don't stand in a big circle around the hero attacking him one at a time. I can't tell you how much that has improved my quality (and duration) of life.
Not to be insulting, but the only people I know who don't code by hand are hacks who don't have to or aren't able to create complex, long-term maintainable sites.
Doing it with the GUI just doesn't scale, once you get past the Photoshop/Imageready stage.
And the most annoying thing about that (okay, the second most annoying, after having to fire up another application just to read two sentences) is that the attachment will be 150K, despite containing about 60 bytes of actual information.
Sorry, good point. I've run my own home server for so many years that I've conflated it with the client in my head.
So I offer an alternative: With some extensions to the POP or IMAP protocols clients could provide servers with rules for messages to drop.
% telnet example.com smtp
Trying 192.168.3.48...
Connected to example.com
Escape character is '^]'
220 welcome
helo spammer.com
250 hello spammer.com
mail from: <makemoneyfast@spammer.com>
250 ok
rcpt to: <user@example.com>
250 ok
data
354 ok
Subject: [ADV] grow three more penises
Connection closed by foreign host.
%
My understanding is that there is a minimum per-piece fee that UPS etc. are allowed to charge for letter-size items. Therefore they focus on the speedy-delivery business because otherwise nobody would bother using them instead of USPS. So it's a de facto monopoly.
It's not failing. It's gaining marketshare. It's winning people contracts in larger and larger organizations for larger and larger installations.
There's no such thing.
Put another way... I felt that I was up to the job to perform a heart-and-lung transplant. I had several experiences applying band-aids to minor scrapes and recommending chicken soup to people with the sniffles.
You got the wrong memo. It's in honor of Richard Nixon, who also (unlike Karl) has an 'i', an 'n', and an 'x' in the same name.
Ought to be easy, as you clearly don't have any.
The other possibility is that spakka believes in Ordination Linguistics, a school of thought that holds that every morpheme combination has an ultimate meaning consequent to the basic structures of organic matter and the physical universe, and that the observed meanings are slowly converging toward this predetermined state. When this happens, thousands of years from now, language will stop evolving and communication will be a zero-friction exercise. Perhaps he believes that "hacker" meaning "computer criminal" is what they call an "early complete", meaning a word that has achieved convergence with its universal meaning ahead of the bulk of the lexicon.
Okay, I just made all that up. But it's either that, or he was trained by the French language board, the group that has determined that French as of circa 1990 is the archetypical perfect language and no new words shall be allowed to enter, despite the fact that French evolved over the centuries through the absorbtion of words from other language groups.
That's an argument I'd be fascinated to see you make.
Making money is as morally ambiguous as wearing a blue shirt or having an apple for breakfast. It's how you make it, what you do with it, what impact all that has on others, and what you understand about that impact that determines the morality.
I for one could not imagine anything worse.
The ITU takes every available opportunity to put itself between enabling technologies and the people who could benefit from them.
Here's what the internet would look like under ITU:
Standards documents are copyrighted, redistribution is forbidden, and cost $1,000 and up from the ITU Publications office (go ahead, try to get a protocol definition off their site).
No individuals or companies have any representation or even a right to comment except at the request of their government.
Decisions are made by a collection of national telecom monopolies who have a strong vested interest in stifling any development that cannibalizes their core revenues (i.e., overpriced landline phone service).
Arbitrary complexity will be added to all communications protocols in order to ensure difficulty of reverse-engineering.
Absolutely everything will be regulated to death and beyond.
New technology adoption will languish several years behind competing environments. In fact, for this reason, I speculate that if the ITU does manage to gain any appreciable control over internet infrastructure, interesting activity on the internet will quietly migrate to a "same but different" network free of their stifling control.
Frustrated by the growth of the internet at the expense of the centralized data network they had been advocating, and livid at the way that techologies like VOIP have decreased the relevance of their constituent monopolies, for the last few years all the ITU has really done is schemed for a hostile takeover of the internet. It's as dangerous as dealing with a herd of angry dinosaurs: While they are rapidly growing technologically irrelevant, their bureaucratic and political skills are well-honed and they are both rich and ruthless.
In sum: ITU = enemy of the people, enemy of the internet, enemy of affordable communications, enemy of democracy. And I say this as a touchy-feely left wing one-worlder. If you're anywhere to the right of me you should be outside their gates with a torch and pitchfork.
Notice how much younger we cyclists seem?
I've been commuting daily by bike for almost 30 years. My grandfather did until a few months before he died. My retired parents still do get around that way (though in their town they can easily walk pretty much everywhere they need to go).
P.S. it's "relegating."
Yes, I have, but that's not the typical case. I am not arguing that people in the arctic or who have no legs or who fight fires or who deliver giant loads of goods should have to walk or ride a bicycle. If I'm arguing anything, it's that normal people in typical urban environments could get by without driving if they wanted to.
Yep, I had to bike up one every day this winter. Put on the knobby tires and took care not to spin out or take the corners too fast.
It's cheaper to rent a car 25 weekends a year than to own one.
First of all, you do not buy 200 pounds of groceries every two weeks. That would be 15 pounds of food a day (or 2.5 tons a year). This is what a zoo would feed a medium-sized grizzly bear.
I bike from Adams Morgan in DC to Alexandria, Virginia to buy my groceries. It's about a 15-mile round trip, and the project takes me 90 minutes (most of which is pure exercise and fresh air, riding in a nice park along the river). I can easily tote 2 weeks worth - 2 bags in a large backpack, 2 bags in a milk crate. I could also walk 10 minutes to the store in my neighborhood but I prefer the selection in Alexandria.
Go ahead, find me any reputable statistic that says riding public transportation is more dangerous than riding in a car. Just go ahead. I dare you.
If it's inconvenient, it's because the funds that should be used for providing adequate public transportation have instead been diverted to all the car subsidies (road construction, real estate used for car infrastructure, general insurance costs to government, emergency services, wars to secure access to fuel, etc.).
Obviously, and I don't think anyone's argued against it. While you're on the strawman kick, you might as well try refuting the argument that cars are made of potatoes. That oughta score some points.
That's bad news for you, since he already made a complete fool of you.
Without the cars, there would be plenty of people on the sidewalk and it would be safer.
I truly pity people so lazy as you. What an awful thing life must be, feeling so dependent on a machine to do anything or go anywhere. I don't have a car, I've never had a car, and I have never felt any difficulty in getting to the "fun" neighborhoods wherever I've lived. Actually I usually get there faster than my car-owning friends since the bike is always faster and the subway often is.
People get sick from exposure to germs, not from being outside. Aside from the seriously infirm, you won't find a doctor alive who would tell you that it's unhealthy to go for reasonable walks in cold weather.
Hell, I bike all winter ever year, through snow and all, and I can't remember the last time I had a cold.
Hm? The subways in New York go basically everywhere in Manhattan, with decent coverage in Brooklyn and the Bronx, and even in Queens they cover more than you'd get in any other city.
There are express and local trains so you can bypass stops that aren't of interest.
I doubt there's anything in the real world that works better (and I've used pretty much all of the world's major subways, from London to Calcutta).
Spain doesn't use AZERTY. Only France and Francophone countries do.