The grandparent poster covered your conflating some random Christian news site with Southern Baptists specifically (I couldn't find a denominational id on agapewhatever, and damn you for making me look at that bilge, btw, you insensitive clod). What puzzles me is why you make this noise about "THIS is what your people believe, THIS" and then quoted some perfectly unremarkable wire copy on California Assemblyman Leland Yee, who doesn't seem to have any publicly professed religious affiliation.
Buzz, thank you for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.
I'm registered "non/DTS", I walked in and signed myself in the book, the volunteer called out "non" to the next volunteer down the line, and I was handed a non-partisan ballot. I said, "excuse me, I can choose to vote in the Democratic primary, right?" She said, "You can indeed", took back the ballot, and handed me another one clearly marked "Democratic ballot for non/DTS voter". See, the ballot was printed up for the express purpose of doing what you just claimed I'm not allowed to do.
Of course, that was to learn the basics of either five or ten different dances, which isn't really what you needed for one wedding. Let's say for the sake of argument that four hours would suffice to teach you enough foxtrot to get through that first dance or two. Most instructors I know charge around US$60/hr. Is $240 too much for a wedding accessory? Maybe. Is it too much for a professional to teach you how to do something that isn't easy? I don't think so, which probably explains all those lessons I've taken.
A basic ballroom series is surely overkill for your wedding; seen as the foundation for your new hobby, it's probably more reasonable. Depends on what you want out of it.
Bind8 is in the ports. Bind4 is in the base system. There's a reason. If you'd paid any attention to the misc mailing list, where the question comes up with monotonous regularity, you'd know why: the team doesn't trust (and wouldn't audit) bind8 because it's a hideous mess.
As to timely updates, there was a patch for bind4 yesterday, even though it looks like the buffer overruns were defanged back in 1997 in a general sweep for sprintf()s.
Firstly, OpenBSD achieves most of its security becausethe majority of daemons don't run by default. Remember, OpenBSD has gone 3 years without a hole in the default install - this is only because the default install is more or less too crippled for practical use.
*cough* Speaking of utter bullshit.
As soon as you start turning daemons on, it has the same level of security as any other Unix.
Okay, provide exploits. Go on, we'll wait.
Personally, I'm not going to be upgrading my OpenBSD 2.7 box, because in my case the old phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" seems like a good idea. And no, I'm not going to buy a CD anyway.
Uh. It's broke. Fix it. There was this small matter of format string vulnerabilities and the resulting jumbo patch. If you've been patching right along, great, but if you're running stock 2.7 release I would really get with the times, and if rebuilding the system would be as big a pain for you as it would for me, the efficient way to do that is install the new release.
I gave up on finding RPMs for anything a long time ago because nobody ever made them relocatable. Time after time, I'd suck down the RPM, rpm -qlp, oh gee, another tool that thinks it goes in/usr. Sorry, if I didn't find you on the distribution media, you go in/usr/local. Then I'd suck down the tarball, fix up the spec file, and do it right. Eventually I gave up on the lengthy and useless first round. I think of it this way: an RPM is a binary, the spec file is the source. I'll take the source, thanks. (:
What, the world of people with names who know what they're talking about?
Zurk: OpenBSD had a root exploit Smart person: no it didn't Zurk: OpenSSH had a root exploit Smart person: no it didn't Zurk: RSAREF had a root exploit
I will use short words to get this through to you: RSAREF is not part of OpenSSH. RSAREF is not part of OpenBSD. RSA is a code that men own. You must pay these men to use RSA. You can use RSA and not pay if you use RSAREF. RSAREF is a code that has a bug that we can not fix. The bug that is in RSAREF is not our bug! It is the bug of the men who own RSA! Those men will not fix it since no one pays for RSAREF. This bug is with us till late this fall. Then we can use RSA that is not RSAREF and still not pay.
Now, now. You're bagging on the install but you're only really talking about one part of it. disklabel is harrowing, particularly for those used to DOS/linux-style fdisk. Once you're past disklabel, the install is like settling into a big pile of fluffy pillows.
Okay, there are one or two other tiny things, such as that just before the very first prompt, you get the spurious non-error:
sh:/etc/rc: No such file or directory
which you probably won't know isn't a problem unless you have INSTALL.i386 right in front of you and are following along.
So that's how installation should be done, at least until you're used to it: print out INSTALL.i386 and log26.txt and if something looks weird, don't panic until you've read them both.
Ok, I'm writing this in M14 under NT4 after an hour or so of casual browsing. I haven't run previous Ms so I can't comment on relative merits.
It looks neat, it feels neat. Couple things missing, though:
- Alt-cursor key navigation for back and forward. I use this a lot in normal browsing.
- You can't turn off image autoloading. I consider this basic browser functionality so I'm startled at its absence. (: Someday when this gets fixed I'll consider M# for bulk surfing!
That was what caught my eye too. "Disempowered users"? Fie! Fie I say! The GIMP; any MOD tracker; lord, gcc; hell, even vi: all these give me more power than I know what to do with.
wrathful and proud... wrathful and proud... let's see... No, I can't remember when that might have been, unless you're thinking of her final, um, conversation with Bartleby. That, IMHO, was played totally wrong. Much more dramatic impact if she just says something, ideally regretful, ideally in no human language. I look at that as just a lapse in characterization rather than a thematic inconsistency.
I took that semester off, so this is Nth hand. It got written up in Sallyport years later, which might be a somewhat more reliable source for details.
I think this is the first I've heard of "getting away with it twice". I understood that the dress rehearsal, conducted well away from the site, hoisted a Honda belonging to one of the perps.
They came very, very close to getting away clean. The campos made the scene in time to catch the very last guy out of the quad, so he was going to get stuck with the check alone, before the T-shirts bailed him out and then some. Conspiracies being what they are, I'm sure plenty of people know who was involved, but I don't know that any of the other perps were ever publicly exposed.
Slashdot Mirror
The grandparent poster covered your conflating some random Christian news site with Southern Baptists specifically (I couldn't find a denominational id on agapewhatever, and damn you for making me look at that bilge, btw, you insensitive clod). What puzzles me is why you make this noise about "THIS is what your people believe, THIS" and then quoted some perfectly unremarkable wire copy on California Assemblyman Leland Yee, who doesn't seem to have any publicly professed religious affiliation.
Buzz, thank you for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.
I'm registered "non/DTS", I walked in and signed myself in the book, the volunteer called out "non" to the next volunteer down the line, and I was handed a non-partisan ballot. I said, "excuse me, I can choose to vote in the Democratic primary, right?" She said, "You can indeed", took back the ballot, and handed me another one clearly marked "Democratic ballot for non/DTS voter". See, the ballot was printed up for the express purpose of doing what you just claimed I'm not allowed to do.
And of course it will work perfectly, since no one who would disable JavaCrap would also disable image loading or anything.
All the well-taken comments about her being the 2xclick reformer aside...
If the drug czar's job is to win the war on drugs, what do you think they're looking for in a privacy czar?
If you fondly remember Cliffhanger, you might enjoy the movie: The Castle of Cagliostro.
Of course, that was to learn the basics of either five or ten different dances, which isn't really what you needed for one wedding. Let's say for the sake of argument that four hours would suffice to teach you enough foxtrot to get through that first dance or two. Most instructors I know charge around US$60/hr. Is $240 too much for a wedding accessory? Maybe. Is it too much for a professional to teach you how to do something that isn't easy? I don't think so, which probably explains all those lessons I've taken.
A basic ballroom series is surely overkill for your wedding; seen as the foundation for your new hobby, it's probably more reasonable. Depends on what you want out of it.
Super-quiet Barracuda IV, sounds great.
Now can we have it in SCSI?
I got the fax functionality working using Symantec WinFax the next week, so no major harm was done.
Well, except to the extent that the spam server worked as designed.
Bind8 is in the ports. Bind4 is in the base system. There's a reason. If you'd paid any attention to the misc mailing list, where the question comes up with monotonous regularity, you'd know why: the team doesn't trust (and wouldn't audit) bind8 because it's a hideous mess.
As to timely updates, there was a patch for bind4 yesterday, even though it looks like the buffer overruns were defanged back in 1997 in a general sweep for sprintf()s.
Firstly, OpenBSD achieves most of its security becausethe majority of daemons don't run by default. Remember, OpenBSD has gone 3 years without a hole in the default install - this is only because the default install is more or less too crippled for practical use.
*cough* Speaking of utter bullshit.
As soon as you start turning daemons on, it has the same level of security as any other Unix.
Okay, provide exploits. Go on, we'll wait.
Personally, I'm not going to be upgrading my OpenBSD 2.7 box, because in my case the old phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" seems like a good idea. And no, I'm not going to buy a CD anyway.
Uh. It's broke. Fix it. There was this small matter of format string vulnerabilities and the resulting jumbo patch. If you've been patching right along, great, but if you're running stock 2.7 release I would really get with the times, and if rebuilding the system would be as big a pain for you as it would for me, the efficient way to do that is install the new release.
You misspelled,
"What's the big fucking deal, bitch?" -- Eric Cartman
NightParrot
"It's not like it hurts anybody. Fuck, fuckity fuck fuck fuck."
I gave up on finding RPMs for anything a long time ago because nobody ever made them relocatable. Time after time, I'd suck down the RPM, rpm -qlp, oh gee, another tool that thinks it goes in /usr. Sorry, if I didn't find you on the distribution media, you go in /usr/local. Then I'd suck down the tarball, fix up the spec file, and do it right. Eventually I gave up on the lengthy and useless first round. I think of it this way: an RPM is a binary, the spec file is the source. I'll take the source, thanks. (:
What, the world of people with names who know what they're talking about?
Zurk: OpenBSD had a root exploit
Smart person: no it didn't
Zurk: OpenSSH had a root exploit
Smart person: no it didn't
Zurk: RSAREF had a root exploit
I will use short words to get this through to you: RSAREF is not part of OpenSSH. RSAREF is not part of OpenBSD. RSA is a code that men own. You must pay these men to use RSA. You can use RSA and not pay if you use RSAREF. RSAREF is a code that has a bug that we can not fix. The bug that is in RSAREF is not our bug! It is the bug of the men who own RSA! Those men will not fix it since no one pays for RSAREF. This bug is with us till late this fall. Then we can use RSA that is not RSAREF and still not pay.
Clear?
Okay, there are one or two other tiny things, such as that just before the very first prompt, you get the spurious non-error:
which you probably won't know isn't a problem unless you have INSTALL.i386 right in front of you and are following along.
So that's how installation should be done, at least until you're used to it: print out INSTALL.i386 and log26.txt and if something looks weird, don't panic until you've read them both.
You could move the mouse with it, and become as productive as Zimbu!
Ok, I'm writing this in M14 under NT4 after an hour or so of casual browsing. I haven't run previous Ms so I can't comment on relative merits.
It looks neat, it feels neat. Couple things missing, though:
- Alt-cursor key navigation for back and forward. I use this a lot in normal browsing.
- You can't turn off image autoloading. I consider this basic browser functionality so I'm startled at its absence. (: Someday when this gets fixed I'll consider M# for bulk surfing!
Please tell me that's pronounced "jeepers".
That was what caught my eye too. "Disempowered users"? Fie! Fie I say! The GIMP; any MOD tracker; lord, gcc; hell, even vi: all these give me more power than I know what to do with.
ROFL! Where do you live anyway!? Here in the SFBA they're everywhere.
What? Oh come on!
JPEG! JPEG!
wrathful and proud... wrathful and proud... let's see... No, I can't remember when that might have been, unless you're thinking of her final, um, conversation with Bartleby. That, IMHO, was played totally wrong. Much more dramatic impact if she just says something, ideally regretful, ideally in no human language. I look at that as just a lapse in characterization rather than a thematic inconsistency.
Look a little closer at the fishbowl itself.
Disagree. Metadiscussion is always OT. By definition, in fact.
I took that semester off, so this is Nth hand. It got written up in Sallyport years later, which might be a somewhat more reliable source for details.
I think this is the first I've heard of "getting away with it twice". I understood that the dress rehearsal, conducted well away from the site, hoisted a Honda belonging to one of the perps.
They came very, very close to getting away clean. The campos made the scene in time to catch the very last guy out of the quad, so he was going to get stuck with the check alone, before the T-shirts bailed him out and then some. Conspiracies being what they are, I'm sure plenty of people know who was involved, but I don't know that any of the other perps were ever publicly exposed.
Bah. Make that "Socialist exhorted draftees to resist the draft". Must be getting old.