If, however, it should turn out that he has won Ohio, for example, when all the ballots are counted, then he will still gain Ohio's electoral votes and, presumably, the presidency, in spite of the fact that he has conceded defeat.
That reminds me of a time that a friend of mine and his brother were playing poker and the brother missed something in the community cards and said to his brother that he lost and was out, when in fact that the brother had the better hand.
In both this poker example and the Kerry one above, both lost their power and the game by concession. Power, like intellect, good looks, and everything else in this world have very little overlap with other things else in this world. The only way to have power is to be powerful. Regardless of concession being a legally binding construct or not, concession is not something that a true leader does, and as much as I dislike Bush being reelected, I'm glad I didn't waste my vote on a wimp like Kerry.
Regardless of Kerry's stance on the "issues", I simply never saw Kerry as a leader, and this is clear to me now.
The only real relief that I have is that if there are no viable candidates for the office of the President of the US, then that must say that we really don't need one. Things do not happen by accident.
Solaris 10 has (since build 36) a version of/usr/bin/rm (/bin is a sym-link to/usr/bin on Solaris) and/usr/xpg4/bin/rm which behaves thus: [28]/bin/rm -rf / rm of / is not allowed [29]"
What ever happened to KISS? Instead of making a whole new binary that does one simple form of protection, why didn't they add something to rm that checked the existance of a special file or a configuration file that would protect certain configurable directories from recursive deletes?
I would be just as screwed with a rm -rf/home or a rm -rf/database or a rm -rf/websites than with a rm -rf/.
That's because the problem isn't the dude in the suit, the problem is the fact of the president. And when it's the system I oppose, not the person, I reserve full rights to a) refuse to lend my consent to the system by voting; and b) bitch all I want about it....
Another de-voted anarchist refusing to vote.
I'm trying and trying to think of a historical example of reform and/or revolution by inaction.
most smokers smoke because Nicotine is an adictive depressant
Nicotine is a wierd drug that is in some respects like a depressant, but in other respects it acts like a stimulant. Apparently its been found recently in animal models that nicotine acts as an anti-depressant. In my experience, many, if not most, psychiatrically ill people smoke.
A better solution would be to force the tobacco companies to sell Nicotine free cigarettes.
Better than what? Also, I don't like the government forcing an industry to produce certain products. There are already low nicotine cigarettes. Even if there were nicotine free cigarattes, I doubt they would sell very well. Alcohol free beer does not sell that well. Virgin "girly drinks" do not sell that well. Decafeinated coffee and softdrinks don't sell that well, but the best of any of my other examples.
It's a computer that happens to run an alternate OS and have a good marketing department, which is nice if you don't like windows or you are a drone consumer who cares about what is 'cool'.
Maybe I'm just in the minority of Mac users, but I don't consider OS X an "alternate" operating system. Alternate to what? Linux, Solaris, Windows, or FeeBSD, or insert OS here?
I use a Mac because it is a great computer in terms of its hardware and software. Its not perfect, but there is no other computer that I could buy at any price that I would want on my lap right now. I'm a computer professional, and have spent years working with a number of operating systems and hardware platforms in development and administration, and its refreshing to have a personal machine "that just works" so I can do my work.
I require an OS that has a nice windowing system and a functional command line interface. My Mac with OS X, in my opinion, is the only system that even comes close to my expectations. The screen is high quality. The keys are backlit. USB and Firewire peripherals work fine with it. Multiple displays work good. Safari is an excellent web browser, and with PithHelmet I don't see any web ads, no popups, or any of the stuff that was common years ago. The Terminal appication is the best of its kind that I have ever used. Expose is a very uniqe and useful feature. I can dump anything to a PDF file. I can use the same dotfiles from my cvs repository that I use on Linux and Solaris. I can take my laptop and easily drop it into my many environments in terms of networking and printers with no problem, and putting it into a new network is simple. Installing and uninstalling software is excellent either from the GUI or from the commandline via fink or even from source for many standard OSS packages. I still find new things that I like about my Mac. I rarely find things that I don't like, and I'm picky. I could go on, but its not some laundry list of features, its simply a pleasant computing experience. I could not imagine having to settle for anything less at this time. Maybe another vendor will surpass what Apple has achieved at this time, but right now, I simply believe that its the best thing that I have ever used in my lifetime, and from what I see its only going to get better.
Why be the best when you can spend that money to force their way into more markets?
Best vs more. I'd pick best anyday.
Re:Americans talk about freedom
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 1
Your new here, so I'll be civil:)
Of the richest 3 million people in the country, about 400 of them did not inherit their wealth from parents in the richest 3 million. Does that seem like a fair system to you? It is just like feudal Europe, you are born rich or poor, and that is how you will stay.
Thats just how it is, its not a "system" thing. I would bet that a majority of the richest 3 million would be wealthy if they inherited little to nothing. Its what you are used to and your contacts, where you grew up, where you went to school, etc. Donald Trump was personally in debt to the tune of 100 mil about 10 years ago. He's not in the red anymore. I challenge you to even try to get that much in debt.
People are ignorant, uneducated, and unskilled, because our educational system has failed them, utterly. That is probably because it is weighted towards helping the wealthy and middle class, and largely ignores the poor.
BS. The wealthy and the middle class kids go home and their parents who went to college ask them about their day and their schoolwork and how much homework they have and let them use the computer to do their homework and stuff, whereas the kid in the getto does'nt know where his dad is, his mom is at work, and the kid gets bored and sells/does crack for a while.
Keep in mind they came from the same school. Duh, who's going to get better grades? And you blame the school? All of this is assuming the same mental and physical abilities of the kids.
So you're saying because men are treated badly by one aspect of our legal system, women should be punished by another, to make them equally miserable? My brother is a single parent with two little girls, his wife pays him child support most months, when she can afford it. The system often does discriminate against people in his situation, but not always, and it is getting better. How about if we solve both problems rather than keep them both.
Thats a nice ideal, but men traditionally "get the shaft" in the divorce thing because they can. Women simply cannot do it on their own, otherwise they would, and the tradition would be different. It may seem cold, and anti-women, but face it, they are monthly unstable, they have to take time from "normal life" to have kids. Rember my teets & piss & shit thing? Who is going to want something like that to work? Even if they could. If there was something special about a woman that she would be welcomed back after a pregnancy and not replaceable during the year or two or three she is off (while paying her). Well, lets say I'd hire her and marry her. However, I just don't know a man or woman like that.
Linux is lucky in that it doesn't have a development budget that it needs to keep to, and doesn't have a release schedule that it needs to keep either.
I don't work in a commercial environment, and don't plan to in some time unless its my company. I cannot fathom going back and having to write code based on budgets and release schedules. That whats so cool about startups and OSS. Money is not the goal, its a byproduct.
Hmm, isn't their a saying in a book somewher about the love of money and evil and stuff? Gotta check that out...
me: I believe that all domains, even those in the US, should end in.us.
Moby Cock: What would be the point in that? Are you suggesting that domains in Canada and France (for example) should end with.us? I hope you mean that only sites in the US should be using.us
Maybe american sites should adopt.us and we can get rid of all amibiguity. There will be amazon.com.us, amazon.ca, amazon.co.uk. Then everybody will know where the heck they are looking.
I agree. I believe that all domains, even those in the US, should end in.us.
Only on/. can a poster who clearly didn't RTFA be modded +5 "Insightful" within 1 minute...
Yes, I must be new here...
Get an account, people rarely comment to the Anonymous Coward.
I personally believe that there should be a delay between when an article is posted and when ppl can start flooding posts. What I see is that there are about 10 or so threads at the top of each post. garcia is usually the first or second:) and there are semi-related threads under those threads from the people that posted early, got modded early, yet didn't think about what they wrote and usually didn't read the article (they didn't have time).
And then there are many small threads below the "hot" ones.
Maybe we need a checkbox when submitting a post "Yes, I RTFA" or "No, I didn't RTFA", and a comment modifyer for those (not) reading the articles, and a mod -1 didn't RTFA because the content is obviously there.
How many does somone or a comany need to buy to "avoid" ambiguity. I mean every slashdot is taken except slashdot.name, and it kills me that slashdot.com gets any hits for the website slashdot.org. Slashdot used to not even redirect or give you a bozo message for accessing slashdot.com, it just threw the contents of slahdot.org at you.
What are the points of TLDs? I thought they were to avoid ambiguity, yet they promote it. Remember the whitehouse.com vs. whitehouse.gov thing? How about the current suprnova.org vs. suprnova.com and suprnova.net? The USPS can't figure out if they are a.gov or a.com. Same with the US Marines. Are they a.mil or a.com. Keep in mind that.com is supposed to be for commercial stuff. I guess the military is the biggest business in the US, but thats another post.
How many "normal" people know more than the.com domain?
I go on these rants from time to time, and I feel as though I'm in the vast minority of people that see no purpose of TLDs, but can anyone give one example of their utility? I have found one guy on the net that agrees with me and the/.er that pointed me out to that page, but otherwise they keep making more of them and making them longer and more silly.
Now, the only useful thing for TLDs is to separate countries. Why? Because countries have different languages and currencies. I get pissed when I do a google search for something and end up at a brittish site. I have nothing against the brits, but its stupid for me to look at buying a $10 trinket from there. Its not too common, but I've ended up at UK.com sites and was not happy./rant
Maybe people are now accessing sex-related sites via links in spams, why seek when it comes to you?
Yeah, I get almost everything I need from spam. Sex, drugs, drugs for sex, real fake rolex watches, mortgages, free TVs, iPods, Xboxes, cures for SARS and AIDS, college degrees (up to PhD!), free money, cheap software and computers. All that from scanning my spam inbox.
OK, when I first saw this article, everyone knows that you cannot search for sex or porn on the net. It simply does not work. It does not work for MP3s either. Wayyyy too much corruption and bs here.
Porn is done through the tgp sites, and they are fine. If anyone needs more than what they can find from a good tgp site, they are already paying for porn in some way or another.
At the moment there are too many noises when searching for real sex-related sites, most of them are full of pop-up and nothing useful, but a e-commerce search may return more desirable results, thus people keep on searching them.
I guess we agree.
What I really want from google is for them to completely separate froogle from google. I hate doing a search for information and I get a bunch of results for selling me crap, and I don't know if I want to buy it or not. That is why I'm googling around. I've heard tips like putting '-order' or '-shipping' with searches, but thats too complex for "normal folk". I have no problem with google making $$$ from searches, but when its appropriate.
BTW, google has done a great job of eliminating blatently self-googlebombed sites. There was a time when retailers would buy a bunch of domains and have them all point to each other with the same crap on each page. That sucked.
It seems like they think that if they say Windows is more secure enough times it will become a reality.
That only works if you say the same thing over and over again.
They should put more focus on developing secure software, than simply paying lip service to secure software.
Well, its in the article, and I immediately stopped reading after the quote:
He claimed that Windows was a better choice than Linux in terms of security
Please bear with me, I have had all of the microsoft related stuff filtered off of my homepage for years, but that nolonger seems to work, so here I am being a troll (see I said it now you have to mod me up).
Windows simply is not designed for security and where I work when we have "major problems" its from the microsoft side of the house, not the UNIX side.
Windows will run anything with the proper couple of letters appended to the end of the filename. UNIX has to have the executable bit set to it, regardless of the name, and no mailer that I know of will dump an executable file so that some luser can just click on it and wreck the LAN and up to a good part of the internet as a whole.
Windows comes with bunches of stuff turned on by default, and an unpatched system directly exposed to the internet is likely to be compromised in I believe 20 minutes now.
Windows uses the nebulously defined "current working directory" as the first search path for executables and libraries. Everyone else in the world knows the problem with this.
Windows must be used from a GUI that is tied to the OS (including a browser) which has caused a couple of problems in the past.
Windows still does not get multiuser/administrator stuff right.
Windows service packs/patches frequently break stuff, and take a considerable amount of time to test within an organization before being deployed.
I mean, windows is OK for my dad to use AOL to do whatever he does online. It doesn't crash too often on him, and its ok to run at home or on someone's desk where nothing really important is done with the machine or the data on it. I wouldn't suggest Linux for this kind of work at all. Using Macs would simply put too many IT people out of business. But when it comes to important stuff, people tend to look for more robust solutions. I don't see any microsoft based machines on the top 500 list. I don't know of any instance where important database kind of stuff is run off of windows. I'm sure there are some, because Oracle and whatnot "works" on windows, but I don't think its any accident that windows is the minority when it comes to server room kind of stuff, nor do I think its any kind of accident that windows is vastly the majority when it comes to desktop stuff.
Why can't MS figure out what they are good at and do that, instead of talking a bunch of shit and doing things half way? They are already the largest software company in the world, why don't they use these resources to be the best?
Re:Americans talk about freedom
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Contrast this to many European countries, where if you get into an accident, you walk into a hospital, and they fix it. Bume. You don't pay anything.
Every ER in the US that I've been to has a big sign that says something to the effect:
"We will treat you regardless if you have insurance or lack of funds"
I knew someone that died recently from diabetes and had over $30,000 in medical bill debt, and she would just pay a dollar or two or throw them away. She did not loose her house, she was not taken to court, nothing. Americans are just as stupid about paying for their medical care as they are about their phones. They will pay just about anything that is charged to them. They are just that dumb.
Do you know how much money we give people on welfare? Not enough to survive, that's for sure. I know that in middle class America the popular steryotype of a welfare mama is a fat black woman doing nothing all day but having kids for the extra money, but reality is rather far from this. Most women on welfare are working two full time jobs and still can't make ends meet. Who's taking care of their kids while they work? Usually no one, because babysitters cost money. So you end up with latch-key kids.
If I were given enough money to survive off of welfare, why did I wast my time going to college and grad school and go to this work thing every day? The problem with welfare is not the amount of money given, its the amount of time that it is given to people. They get stuck and can never get any kind of nest egg or break to get out of the welfare cycle.
Now with the 2 full time job thing and cannot make ends meat. Something is very, very wrong with that. I know plenty of people at or around the "poverty level", aka annual incomes around $20,000. And they only have one part time job, and goof around alot and complain that they don't have money. But they eat, have cable, have a place to live, have a car, and aren't that bad off being that they don't even work 40 hours a week.
You see, we Americans don't feel that raising children is work that deserves compensation.
There is a difference between raising children and watching them. I don't consider day care and babysitters as raising children. I don't feel that raising children deserves compensation either. I'm not going to pay someone to raise their kid. Not even if I care greatly for both of them, I'm not just going to up and write a check and say "keep up the good work!" Does anybody do this?
It's really easy for women to end up on welfare, you know.
Unfortunately, its really easy for ignorant and uneducated and unskilled people to end up on welfare. And guess what? They are simply weaker people, and no matter what you give them they will always sink to the bottom. I've been homeless and without a job because of just how things went in my life, and with a mental disorder to boot, and I never went on welfare, nor borrowed a cent from anyone. I did collect unemployment for 6 months, but I would have been OK without that, although I appreciated having it.
The US is also really bad about protecting maternity leave rights. So what happens is, a woman gets pregnant and takes time off to have her child, and while she's gone, she loses her job. Libertarians everywhere applaud. Anyone who's ever had a child knows how much work they are. So what do you do? Hand your kid over to your parents, and get another job, quickly, before the industry moves on and you're not elligible for much more than waiting tables?
OK, fine. the US may be really bad about protecting maternity leave rights, but ask any male thats been divorced how his rights were preserved. The guy is expected to give up his house and his kids and a good part of his income to someone that basically is not able to take care of themselves and thier kids (otherwise why would they need all of this charity?). That makes tons of sense. A never married mother, as tragic and dramatic a
Does anyone see this as anything other than stupid? I mean, he's blocking all overseas absentee voters, and he's not exactly making himself look good to the rest of the world. Of course, come to think about it, he really hasn't done that in the past either.;^)
No. Most all overseas absentee voters are in the military and they already are almost 100% Bush supporters.
As far as the rest of the world goes, I think Bush has done many more overt actions to piss plenty of people off, and I would bet that banning access to his website is about bottom on their list.
Plus, I just don't see the big deal. I have acl's on some of the information on my webserver, and if I really wanted to know infomation on Bush from outside of the US, I think georgewbush.com would be the last place I would go for information.
I believe what is being referred to is a ridiculously slow "Fast Forward" function.
Yeah, and the article comment:
Gotta wonder how these things get missed at the beta stage.
Made me chuckle. Its pretty much been established that at least in the electronic/computer/gadget field that beta testing has been outsourced to those willing to _pay_ to beta test products instead of companies paying to do it inhouse.
This whole copyright thing needs to be reexamined. I have no problem whatsoever with copyright with current information where all or most of the people involved with the copyright are still alive, but the seemingly randomly applied copyright violations based on old information that is noncommercially transmitted and legally paid for the transmittion by the end user and others, and this somehow is a copyright violation is insane.
The news a few weeks ago or maybe a month about the NY city guy selling concert recordings and got around the copyright violation issue because the judge said that copyright was meant to have a limited scope in terms of the length of time that the copyright is valid.
To me this case is very landmark, and I hope that other older material gets put in the public domain as well. In the case of GWTW, the movie came out in 1939 and Clark Gable died in 1960, Thomas Mitchell in 1962, and Vivien Leigh in 1967. The author of the novel, Margaret Mitchell, died in 1949.
Now the "estate" of someone who has been dead over 50 years is suing people for noncomercially distributing something that their mother or grandmother did over 60 years ago. What do they want to gain from this? How many of you get checks for what your grandparents did over 60 years ago?
And this is over an ASCII text file. This is not even a copy of the movie or the real manuscript that the book was written, but a text file.
I say everyone borrow a copy of the book from their friends or the library and quickly read a copy of it, and enjoy it, but not give a cent or even recognition to the nameless heirs of the original author.
I guess your not too familiar with the 80/20 rule or the 90/10 rule which goes something to the effect in most situations that 90% of whatever is caused by 10% of the people, etc. Its that way with who pays taxes, who has money, who does drugs, which users on my system bitch to me, etc, etc, etc.
I meant to have brought that up when I posted the mail saying that 6/66 is actually low, and not that bad, and in fact interesting. I guess its because doctors are not that random of a sample of people.
This terrorism thing is obviously completly BS, because here is a pretty servere arrest right here in the USofA and it barely gets headlines. I mean for the most part there is _nothing_ one can really do to scare or deter someone who is willing to die via suicide and meet religious goals from said death in the process of taking a few others out. Nothing, nope, nada.
I'm not that big of a guy and know no self defense, I do not carry a gun or any other weapon, and I could get the living shit kicked out of me at any time walking down the street.
Am I scared? Under very rare and specific circumstances, yes, but in general no, I figure I'll be OK.
Slashdot Mirror
If, however, it should turn out that he has won Ohio, for example, when all the ballots are counted, then he will still gain Ohio's electoral votes and, presumably, the presidency, in spite of the fact that he has conceded defeat.
That reminds me of a time that a friend of mine and his brother were playing poker and the brother missed something in the community cards and said to his brother that he lost and was out, when in fact that the brother had the better hand.
In both this poker example and the Kerry one above, both lost their power and the game by concession. Power, like intellect, good looks, and everything else in this world have very little overlap with other things else in this world. The only way to have power is to be powerful. Regardless of concession being a legally binding construct or not, concession is not something that a true leader does, and as much as I dislike Bush being reelected, I'm glad I didn't waste my vote on a wimp like Kerry.
Regardless of Kerry's stance on the "issues", I simply never saw Kerry as a leader, and this is clear to me now.
The only real relief that I have is that if there are no viable candidates for the office of the President of the US, then that must say that we really don't need one. Things do not happen by accident.
Solaris 10 has (since build 36) a version of /usr/bin/rm (/bin is a sym-link to /usr/bin on Solaris) and /usr/xpg4/bin/rm which behaves thus: [28] /bin/rm -rf / rm of / is not allowed [29]"
/home or a rm -rf /database or a rm -rf /websites than with a rm -rf /.
What ever happened to KISS? Instead of making a whole new binary that does one simple form of protection, why didn't they add something to rm that checked the existance of a special file or a configuration file that would protect certain configurable directories from recursive deletes?
I would be just as screwed with a rm -rf
That's because the problem isn't the dude in the suit, the problem is the fact of the president. And when it's the system I oppose, not the person, I reserve full rights to a) refuse to lend my consent to the system by voting; and b) bitch all I want about it. ...
Another de-voted anarchist refusing to vote.
I'm trying and trying to think of a historical example of reform and/or revolution by inaction.
Business owners in those countries do realize that smoking affects the business, and don't allow smokers.
That is a rarity, because businesses in this country seldom swing towards any one section of the populace.
You must not go drinking at bars much.
most smokers smoke because Nicotine is an adictive depressant
Nicotine is a wierd drug that is in some respects like a depressant, but in other respects it acts like a stimulant. Apparently its been found recently in animal models that nicotine acts as an anti-depressant. In my experience, many, if not most, psychiatrically ill people smoke.
A better solution would be to force the tobacco companies to sell Nicotine free cigarettes.
Better than what? Also, I don't like the government forcing an industry to produce certain products. There are already low nicotine cigarettes. Even if there were nicotine free cigarattes, I doubt they would sell very well. Alcohol free beer does not sell that well. Virgin "girly drinks" do not sell that well. Decafeinated coffee and softdrinks don't sell that well, but the best of any of my other examples.
The real question is - where does the Internet go from here?
duh
Back when Saturns were new and Macs used OS 8 or 9, I noticed a big overlap between Mac owners and Saturn owners, and I thought they were both wierd
Today I like Macs, I have never seen anything special about a Saturn.
It's a computer that happens to run an alternate OS and have a good marketing department, which is nice if you don't like windows or you are a drone consumer who cares about what is 'cool'.
Maybe I'm just in the minority of Mac users, but I don't consider OS X an "alternate" operating system. Alternate to what? Linux, Solaris, Windows, or FeeBSD, or insert OS here?
I use a Mac because it is a great computer in terms of its hardware and software. Its not perfect, but there is no other computer that I could buy at any price that I would want on my lap right now. I'm a computer professional, and have spent years working with a number of operating systems and hardware platforms in development and administration, and its refreshing to have a personal machine "that just works" so I can do my work.
I require an OS that has a nice windowing system and a functional command line interface. My Mac with OS X, in my opinion, is the only system that even comes close to my expectations. The screen is high quality. The keys are backlit. USB and Firewire peripherals work fine with it. Multiple displays work good. Safari is an excellent web browser, and with PithHelmet I don't see any web ads, no popups, or any of the stuff that was common years ago. The Terminal appication is the best of its kind that I have ever used. Expose is a very uniqe and useful feature. I can dump anything to a PDF file. I can use the same dotfiles from my cvs repository that I use on Linux and Solaris. I can take my laptop and easily drop it into my many environments in terms of networking and printers with no problem, and putting it into a new network is simple. Installing and uninstalling software is excellent either from the GUI or from the commandline via fink or even from source for many standard OSS packages. I still find new things that I like about my Mac. I rarely find things that I don't like, and I'm picky. I could go on, but its not some laundry list of features, its simply a pleasant computing experience. I could not imagine having to settle for anything less at this time. Maybe another vendor will surpass what Apple has achieved at this time, but right now, I simply believe that its the best thing that I have ever used in my lifetime, and from what I see its only going to get better.
Why be the best when you can spend that money to force their way into more markets?
Best vs more. I'd pick best anyday.
Your new here, so I'll be civil :)
Of the richest 3 million people in the country, about 400 of them did not inherit their wealth from parents in the richest 3 million. Does that seem like a fair system to you? It is just like feudal Europe, you are born rich or poor, and that is how you will stay.
Thats just how it is, its not a "system" thing. I would bet that a majority of the richest 3 million would be wealthy if they inherited little to nothing. Its what you are used to and your contacts, where you grew up, where you went to school, etc. Donald Trump was personally in debt to the tune of 100 mil about 10 years ago. He's not in the red anymore. I challenge you to even try to get that much in debt.
People are ignorant, uneducated, and unskilled, because our educational system has failed them, utterly. That is probably because it is weighted towards helping the wealthy and middle class, and largely ignores the poor.
BS. The wealthy and the middle class kids go home and their parents who went to college ask them about their day and their schoolwork and how much homework they have and let them use the computer to do their homework and stuff, whereas the kid in the getto does'nt know where his dad is, his mom is at work, and the kid gets bored and sells/does crack for a while.
Keep in mind they came from the same school. Duh, who's going to get better grades? And you blame the school? All of this is assuming the same mental and physical abilities of the kids.
So you're saying because men are treated badly by one aspect of our legal system, women should be punished by another, to make them equally miserable? My brother is a single parent with two little girls, his wife pays him child support most months, when she can afford it. The system often does discriminate against people in his situation, but not always, and it is getting better. How about if we solve both problems rather than keep them both.
Thats a nice ideal, but men traditionally "get the shaft" in the divorce thing because they can. Women simply cannot do it on their own, otherwise they would, and the tradition would be different. It may seem cold, and anti-women, but face it, they are monthly unstable, they have to take time from "normal life" to have kids. Rember my teets & piss & shit thing? Who is going to want something like that to work? Even if they could. If there was something special about a woman that she would be welcomed back after a pregnancy and not replaceable during the year or two or three she is off (while paying her). Well, lets say I'd hire her and marry her. However, I just don't know a man or woman like that.
Why doesn't the movie industry get ".mov" approved for movie web sites? Some of the domainnames they're using for movies these days are just stupid.
.tv domain.
All of the people close to the issue are busy converting all of the television stuff over to the
Be patient. One TLD at a time.
If you were registering a new domain foo, and foo.com were taken, what exactly do you get for yourself by registering it as foo.biz?
.biz thing is funny. SpamAssassin has a rule to give points towards a mail being spam if it meantions a .biz domain.
The
I havn't seen a false positive yet.
Linux is lucky in that it doesn't have a development budget that it needs to keep to, and doesn't have a release schedule that it needs to keep either.
I don't work in a commercial environment, and don't plan to in some time unless its my company. I cannot fathom going back and having to write code based on budgets and release schedules. That whats so cool about startups and OSS. Money is not the goal, its a byproduct.
Hmm, isn't their a saying in a book somewher about the love of money and evil and stuff? Gotta check that out...
me: I believe that all domains, even those in the US, should end in .us.
.us? I hope you mean that only sites in the US should be using .us
Moby Cock: What would be the point in that? Are you suggesting that domains in Canada and France (for example) should end with
Oops. Thats what I meant.
Maybe american sites should adopt .us and we can get rid of all amibiguity. There will be amazon.com.us, amazon.ca, amazon.co.uk. Then everybody will know where the heck they are looking.
.us.
I agree. I believe that all domains, even those in the US, should end in
Only on /. can a poster who clearly didn't RTFA be modded +5 "Insightful" within 1 minute...
:) and there are semi-related threads under those threads from the people that posted early, got modded early, yet didn't think about what they wrote and usually didn't read the article (they didn't have time).
Yes, I must be new here...
Get an account, people rarely comment to the Anonymous Coward.
I personally believe that there should be a delay between when an article is posted and when ppl can start flooding posts. What I see is that there are about 10 or so threads at the top of each post. garcia is usually the first or second
And then there are many small threads below the "hot" ones.
Maybe we need a checkbox when submitting a post "Yes, I RTFA" or "No, I didn't RTFA", and a comment modifyer for those (not) reading the articles, and a mod -1 didn't RTFA because the content is obviously there.
Just my thoughts.
How many does somone or a comany need to buy to "avoid" ambiguity. I mean every slashdot is taken except slashdot.name, and it kills me that slashdot.com gets any hits for the website slashdot.org. Slashdot used to not even redirect or give you a bozo message for accessing slashdot.com, it just threw the contents of slahdot.org at you.
.gov or a .com. Same with the US Marines. Are they a .mil or a .com. Keep in mind that .com is supposed to be for commercial stuff. I guess the military is the biggest business in the US, but thats another post.
.com domain?
/.er that pointed me out to that page, but otherwise they keep making more of them and making them longer and more silly.
.com sites and was not happy. /rant
What are the points of TLDs? I thought they were to avoid ambiguity, yet they promote it. Remember the whitehouse.com vs. whitehouse.gov thing? How about the current suprnova.org vs. suprnova.com and suprnova.net? The USPS can't figure out if they are a
How many "normal" people know more than the
I go on these rants from time to time, and I feel as though I'm in the vast minority of people that see no purpose of TLDs, but can anyone give one example of their utility? I have found one guy on the net that agrees with me and the
Now, the only useful thing for TLDs is to separate countries. Why? Because countries have different languages and currencies. I get pissed when I do a google search for something and end up at a brittish site. I have nothing against the brits, but its stupid for me to look at buying a $10 trinket from there. Its not too common, but I've ended up at UK
Maybe people are now accessing sex-related sites via links in spams, why seek when it comes to you?
Yeah, I get almost everything I need from spam. Sex, drugs, drugs for sex, real fake rolex watches, mortgages, free TVs, iPods, Xboxes, cures for SARS and AIDS, college degrees (up to PhD!), free money, cheap software and computers. All that from scanning my spam inbox.
OK, when I first saw this article, everyone knows that you cannot search for sex or porn on the net. It simply does not work. It does not work for MP3s either. Wayyyy too much corruption and bs here.
Porn is done through the tgp sites, and they are fine. If anyone needs more than what they can find from a good tgp site, they are already paying for porn in some way or another.
At the moment there are too many noises when searching for real sex-related sites, most of them are full of pop-up and nothing useful, but a e-commerce search may return more desirable results, thus people keep on searching them.
I guess we agree.
What I really want from google is for them to completely separate froogle from google. I hate doing a search for information and I get a bunch of results for selling me crap, and I don't know if I want to buy it or not. That is why I'm googling around. I've heard tips like putting '-order' or '-shipping' with searches, but thats too complex for "normal folk". I have no problem with google making $$$ from searches, but when its appropriate.
BTW, google has done a great job of eliminating blatently self-googlebombed sites. There was a time when retailers would buy a bunch of domains and have them all point to each other with the same crap on each page. That sucked.
Peace out.
It seems like they think that if they say Windows is more secure enough times it will become a reality.
That only works if you say the same thing over and over again.
They should put more focus on developing secure software, than simply paying lip service to secure software.
Well, its in the article, and I immediately stopped reading after the quote:
He claimed that Windows was a better choice than Linux in terms of security
Please bear with me, I have had all of the microsoft related stuff filtered off of my homepage for years, but that nolonger seems to work, so here I am being a troll (see I said it now you have to mod me up).
Windows simply is not designed for security and where I work when we have "major problems" its from the microsoft side of the house, not the UNIX side.
Windows will run anything with the proper couple of letters appended to the end of the filename. UNIX has to have the executable bit set to it, regardless of the name, and no mailer that I know of will dump an executable file so that some luser can just click on it and wreck the LAN and up to a good part of the internet as a whole.
Windows comes with bunches of stuff turned on by default, and an unpatched system directly exposed to the internet is likely to be compromised in I believe 20 minutes now.
Windows uses the nebulously defined "current working directory" as the first search path for executables and libraries. Everyone else in the world knows the problem with this.
Windows must be used from a GUI that is tied to the OS (including a browser) which has caused a couple of problems in the past.
Windows still does not get multiuser/administrator stuff right.
Windows service packs/patches frequently break stuff, and take a considerable amount of time to test within an organization before being deployed.
I mean, windows is OK for my dad to use AOL to do whatever he does online. It doesn't crash too often on him, and its ok to run at home or on someone's desk where nothing really important is done with the machine or the data on it. I wouldn't suggest Linux for this kind of work at all. Using Macs would simply put too many IT people out of business. But when it comes to important stuff, people tend to look for more robust solutions. I don't see any microsoft based machines on the top 500 list. I don't know of any instance where important database kind of stuff is run off of windows. I'm sure there are some, because Oracle and whatnot "works" on windows, but I don't think its any accident that windows is the minority when it comes to server room kind of stuff, nor do I think its any kind of accident that windows is vastly the majority when it comes to desktop stuff.
Why can't MS figure out what they are good at and do that, instead of talking a bunch of shit and doing things half way? They are already the largest software company in the world, why don't they use these resources to be the best?
Contrast this to many European countries, where if you get into an accident, you walk into a hospital, and they fix it. Bume. You don't pay anything.
Every ER in the US that I've been to has a big sign that says something to the effect:
"We will treat you regardless if you have insurance or lack of funds"
I knew someone that died recently from diabetes and had over $30,000 in medical bill debt, and she would just pay a dollar or two or throw them away. She did not loose her house, she was not taken to court, nothing. Americans are just as stupid about paying for their medical care as they are about their phones. They will pay just about anything that is charged to them. They are just that dumb.
Do you know how much money we give people on welfare? Not enough to survive, that's for sure. I know that in middle class America the popular steryotype of a welfare mama is a fat black woman doing nothing all day but having kids for the extra money, but reality is rather far from this. Most women on welfare are working two full time jobs and still can't make ends meet. Who's taking care of their kids while they work? Usually no one, because babysitters cost money. So you end up with latch-key kids.
If I were given enough money to survive off of welfare, why did I wast my time going to college and grad school and go to this work thing every day? The problem with welfare is not the amount of money given, its the amount of time that it is given to people. They get stuck and can never get any kind of nest egg or break to get out of the welfare cycle.
Now with the 2 full time job thing and cannot make ends meat. Something is very, very wrong with that. I know plenty of people at or around the "poverty level", aka annual incomes around $20,000. And they only have one part time job, and goof around alot and complain that they don't have money. But they eat, have cable, have a place to live, have a car, and aren't that bad off being that they don't even work 40 hours a week.
You see, we Americans don't feel that raising children is work that deserves compensation.
There is a difference between raising children and watching them. I don't consider day care and babysitters as raising children. I don't feel that raising children deserves compensation either. I'm not going to pay someone to raise their kid. Not even if I care greatly for both of them, I'm not just going to up and write a check and say "keep up the good work!" Does anybody do this?
It's really easy for women to end up on welfare, you know.
Unfortunately, its really easy for ignorant and uneducated and unskilled people to end up on welfare. And guess what? They are simply weaker people, and no matter what you give them they will always sink to the bottom. I've been homeless and without a job because of just how things went in my life, and with a mental disorder to boot, and I never went on welfare, nor borrowed a cent from anyone. I did collect unemployment for 6 months, but I would have been OK without that, although I appreciated having it.
The US is also really bad about protecting maternity leave rights. So what happens is, a woman gets pregnant and takes time off to have her child, and while she's gone, she loses her job. Libertarians everywhere applaud. Anyone who's ever had a child knows how much work they are. So what do you do? Hand your kid over to your parents, and get another job, quickly, before the industry moves on and you're not elligible for much more than waiting tables?
OK, fine. the US may be really bad about protecting maternity leave rights, but ask any male thats been divorced how his rights were preserved. The guy is expected to give up his house and his kids and a good part of his income to someone that basically is not able to take care of themselves and thier kids (otherwise why would they need all of this charity?). That makes tons of sense. A never married mother, as tragic and dramatic a
Does anyone see this as anything other than stupid? I mean, he's blocking all overseas absentee voters, and he's not exactly making himself look good to the rest of the world. Of course, come to think about it, he really hasn't done that in the past either. ;^)
No. Most all overseas absentee voters are in the military and they already are almost 100% Bush supporters.
As far as the rest of the world goes, I think Bush has done many more overt actions to piss plenty of people off, and I would bet that banning access to his website is about bottom on their list.
Plus, I just don't see the big deal. I have acl's on some of the information on my webserver, and if I really wanted to know infomation on Bush from outside of the US, I think georgewbush.com would be the last place I would go for information.
Move along, nothing to see here.
I believe what is being referred to is a ridiculously slow "Fast Forward" function.
Yeah, and the article comment:
Gotta wonder how these things get missed at the beta stage.
Made me chuckle. Its pretty much been established that at least in the electronic/computer/gadget field that beta testing has been outsourced to those willing to _pay_ to beta test products instead of companies paying to do it inhouse.
This whole copyright thing needs to be reexamined. I have no problem whatsoever with copyright with current information where all or most of the people involved with the copyright are still alive, but the seemingly randomly applied copyright violations based on old information that is noncommercially transmitted and legally paid for the transmittion by the end user and others, and this somehow is a copyright violation is insane.
The news a few weeks ago or maybe a month about the NY city guy selling concert recordings and got around the copyright violation issue because the judge said that copyright was meant to have a limited scope in terms of the length of time that the copyright is valid.
To me this case is very landmark, and I hope that other older material gets put in the public domain as well. In the case of GWTW, the movie came out in 1939 and Clark Gable died in 1960, Thomas Mitchell in 1962, and Vivien Leigh in 1967. The author of the novel, Margaret Mitchell, died in 1949.
Now the "estate" of someone who has been dead over 50 years is suing people for noncomercially distributing something that their mother or grandmother did over 60 years ago. What do they want to gain from this? How many of you get checks for what your grandparents did over 60 years ago?
And this is over an ASCII text file. This is not even a copy of the movie or the real manuscript that the book was written, but a text file.
I say everyone borrow a copy of the book from their friends or the library and quickly read a copy of it, and enjoy it, but not give a cent or even recognition to the nameless heirs of the original author.
I guess your not too familiar with the 80/20 rule or the 90/10 rule which goes something to the effect in most situations that 90% of whatever is caused by 10% of the people, etc. Its that way with who pays taxes, who has money, who does drugs, which users on my system bitch to me, etc, etc, etc.
I meant to have brought that up when I posted the mail saying that 6/66 is actually low, and not that bad, and in fact interesting. I guess its because doctors are not that random of a sample of people.
Gotta go.
Do their leaders do everything in their power to reinforce the culture of fear?
a p/index.html Also, check out a quick google news search on the subject. (Hint, few results, especially considering its an Asociated Press news release).
Bingo. And someone modded this as troll.
In similar news check out this http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/26/weapons.arrest.
This terrorism thing is obviously completly BS, because here is a pretty servere arrest right here in the USofA and it barely gets headlines. I mean for the most part there is _nothing_ one can really do to scare or deter someone who is willing to die via suicide and meet religious goals from said death in the process of taking a few others out. Nothing, nope, nada.
I'm not that big of a guy and know no self defense, I do not carry a gun or any other weapon, and I could get the living shit kicked out of me at any time walking down the street.
Am I scared? Under very rare and specific circumstances, yes, but in general no, I figure I'll be OK.