I certainly appreciate the legal insight, but did you actually read the interview? I'm too lazy right now to search that article for posts from you, but I certainly read it.
It was awful.
They may be wonderful, open people in person. They might also be world-renowned legal experts for all I know. However, the answers given in that interview were terse, dismissive, and generally not well targeted to their intended audience. I thank them for their contributions to our knowledge pool, but I don't think you can honestly read the article you cited and use it as an example of an ungrateful readership.
Yeah, I'd hire you for a tech job. Sure, that's just the attitude that we like.
I volunteered to die for the poster, as did all my brothers and sisters that I served with, and his response was to dismiss us all as "gun toting meat heads". While I don't expect a thank you, I don't appreciate blatant disrespect such as the implication that I'm somehow lesser for having done so.
And how many of those toy were made to "detect" , "kill" and/or "maim" a potential enemy/target ?
I was an OR tech. If you have ever had surgery, then I or one of my fellow techs stood next to the surgeon to help them keep you alive.
And how many of those toy were made for peace keeping (read : not bluntly killing) and rebuild, diplomacy ?
My unit didn't interact directly with "regular" people very much, except for the numerous Civilian Aide Programs where we provided free medical treatment to Kenyan tribespeople based out of huts in their villages.
In other words, pretty much all of them.
So much for your bizarrely inaccurate concept of the modern military. Do you really fail to understand why veterans are unsympathetic to our depiction as "gun wielding meat heads"?
Your aggressive attitude just goes to prove my point.
If you've been pussified to the point that you can't understand people reacting angrily to blatant insults, then you're not qualified to have an opinion on either military or diplomatic matters.
Maybe we need to start training our boys as diplomats instead of as just gun wielding meat heads.
On behalf of soldiers, sailors, and veterans everywhere: go fuck yourself. I did a much more technical job with cooler toys and better results than anything you've probably seen in your cushy civilian job, then came out and breezed through college. For every 1 stereotypical jackass I knew in the military, there were at least 5 experts in difficult tech fields.
Screw you and your misperceptions. The military hasn't been the way you described it in decades.
I'm asking here because it sounds like you'd know. I just upgraded from Kubuntu/Dapper to Edgy, and installed Amarok 1.4.4 (downloaded from amarok.kde.org), but I can't play back MP3s. Any idea how to enable that?
And someday, if they try really hard, OS X will be nearly as self-consistent as KDE is today. When the Mac equivalents of KIO slaves are universally supported, for example, I' d actually consider switching to OS X. Until then, it's too flaky and ad-hoc for me to take it seriously
Yes, but just like with any operating system, the safest thing to do is a clean install.
I ask this seriously: what OSes have you been using that makes you think a clean install is the only "safe" upgrade? I've never done a reinstall-upgrade on a Debian or FreeBSD box, for example. Not once.
Source of code matters more than source code in Linux, and Red Hat is the predominant source.
Um, what? I have no idea who wrote the individual drivers and algorithms on my Ubuntu desktop, so why exactly should it matter if it was IBM, Red Hat, or even Microsoft?
We're just not the same anymore. I don't have time for linux. have a job. I have money to buy a new pc when my old one breaks. I just don't agree with 90% of what you say anymore.
OK, I can understand most of your sentiment except for the above. You changed, not Slashdot. I still have time for Linux because it earns me a lot of money. I still build my own PCs to keep current and because it's fun, even though I could buy any new one I wanted.
It seems that you've lost the properties of youth that made playing and experimenting seem worthwhile. You have my sympathies.
An interesting take is to make the sender responsible for storing mail: suggested by Dan Bernstein (DJB), the qmail guy.
As per typical DJB ideas, it's broken and only implements half the functionality of what it intends to replace. I've used this example before, so skip this if it sounds familiar:
A friend of mine hosts a customer that sends weekly newsletters to about 25,000 subscribers. With SMTP, my friend can spool the whole set and then watch as the mail queue flushes over time (measured in a small number of hours). It takes advantage of the fact that if 10,000 of those newsletters are going to @example.com addresses, it can deliver all 10,000 of them at once. In any case, his system delivers mail at the pace it can handle.
Enter DJB's scheme. Now, my friend delivers 25,000 "you've got mail!" notifications. Then, he watches in horror as 9AM EDT rolls around and 5,000 of his customer's customers simultaneously try to fetch unique copies of the newsletter to read with their morning coffee. Repeat at 9AM CDT, MDT, and PDT. His choice is to get out of the newsletter delivery business, or spend $$$$ on vastly increasing his bandwidth.
Basically, it's fundamentally broken. SMTP is more or less optimized for throughput. DJB's plan is more or less pessimized for latency.
That's peculiar because Yahoo! doesn't publish SPF records.
The default is to guess at permitted relays for a domain, so smtp.example.com would be allowed to forward @example.com email. Perhaps it should have read:
Received-SPF: pass (gmail.com: domain of ***@yahoo.com designates 68.142.206.106 as permitted sender, or doesn't designate anything at all but got lucky this time)
why can't it just have the ability to use GTK2 or QT(whatever version is current)?
Because one is written in C and the other in C++, use different object models, (until recently) use different messaging systems, and otherwise have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common except that they both have the same general goal?
The '-L' option to FreeBSD's dump command makes an atomic snapshot of the filesystem to be dumped, then runs against that snapshot instead of the filesystem itself. While that might not be good enough for your purposes, it's nice to know that the backup of database backend file foo was made at the same instant as file bar; that is, they're internally consistent with one another.
What a jackass! What were they supposed to do - arrest him before she was officially declared missing? And although I have no information about the supposed crime, wouldn't an estranged husband almost automatically be the most likely suspect in her disappearance?
I don't have anything against Reiser. However, while this has to be incredibly frustrating for him (assuming he truly is innocent), I don't see what police course of action would have been more justified.
Outside that, the greater mass of humanity doesn't give a flying fuck about me, you, or anyone else.
Speak for yourself, peon. The world shall know and tremble before me, and "Just Some Guy" will be a single great instance, not a nameless class of commonality. Oh yes, 613861, the greater mass will care deeply.
What if I modified python to not use if anymore but use wellmaybeiwillonlyif instead, but released it, called it Python, same version, etc... should I be allowed to do so? Could I then say that python from python.org is not compatible with Python from python.org, which I should then call the unofficial branch?
I agree. Only binaries compiled directly from official sources should be allowed in. Starting immediately, I'll use only "pure" versions of GCC to make sure that I don't accidentally come to rely on any of the Debian bugfixes. I'll also use only the kernel.org kernel instead of the patched one Debian ships. Yep, from now on I'll boycott all fixes not supplied directly by the author, because I want to be justly crippled with the same problems everyone else faces.
Honestly, I don't understand your position. As others have pointed out, major systems besides Firefox seem to work under this arrangement (or do you really think OpenOffice and KDE are less complex?) without major disasters, so what's so special about this one particular web browser?
Slashdot Mirror
I certainly appreciate the legal insight, but did you actually read the interview? I'm too lazy right now to search that article for posts from you, but I certainly read it.
It was awful.
They may be wonderful, open people in person. They might also be world-renowned legal experts for all I know. However, the answers given in that interview were terse, dismissive, and generally not well targeted to their intended audience. I thank them for their contributions to our knowledge pool, but I don't think you can honestly read the article you cited and use it as an example of an ungrateful readership.
I volunteered to die for the poster, as did all my brothers and sisters that I served with, and his response was to dismiss us all as "gun toting meat heads". While I don't expect a thank you, I don't appreciate blatant disrespect such as the implication that I'm somehow lesser for having done so.
I was in the Navy, but spent a lot of time hanging around Marines (which is pretty common for a corpsman aboard a gator freighter).
Ever gone to jail for showing up late to work or skipping a class at school? Didn't think so.
I was an OR tech. If you have ever had surgery, then I or one of my fellow techs stood next to the surgeon to help them keep you alive.
My unit didn't interact directly with "regular" people very much, except for the numerous Civilian Aide Programs where we provided free medical treatment to Kenyan tribespeople based out of huts in their villages.
In other words, pretty much all of them.
So much for your bizarrely inaccurate concept of the modern military. Do you really fail to understand why veterans are unsympathetic to our depiction as "gun wielding meat heads"?
If you've been pussified to the point that you can't understand people reacting angrily to blatant insults, then you're not qualified to have an opinion on either military or diplomatic matters.
On behalf of soldiers, sailors, and veterans everywhere: go fuck yourself. I did a much more technical job with cooler toys and better results than anything you've probably seen in your cushy civilian job, then came out and breezed through college. For every 1 stereotypical jackass I knew in the military, there were at least 5 experts in difficult tech fields.
Screw you and your misperceptions. The military hasn't been the way you described it in decades.
Actually, I realized that I didn't actually have "multiverse" in sources.list. A short apt-get update dist-upgrade later and I had my MP3 playback.
I'm asking here because it sounds like you'd know. I just upgraded from Kubuntu/Dapper to Edgy, and installed Amarok 1.4.4 (downloaded from amarok.kde.org), but I can't play back MP3s. Any idea how to enable that?
I have an entire command: /bin/true
From now on, everyone who complains that editing Unix config files is too hard will be directed to this post. Thank you.
And someday, if they try really hard, OS X will be nearly as self-consistent as KDE is today. When the Mac equivalents of KIO slaves are universally supported, for example, I' d actually consider switching to OS X. Until then, it's too flaky and ad-hoc for me to take it seriously
Just for a the sake of a differing opinion.
I ask this seriously: what OSes have you been using that makes you think a clean install is the only "safe" upgrade? I've never done a reinstall-upgrade on a Debian or FreeBSD box, for example. Not once.
Model M keyboard discovered coffee-proof.
Um, what? I have no idea who wrote the individual drivers and algorithms on my Ubuntu desktop, so why exactly should it matter if it was IBM, Red Hat, or even Microsoft?
Exactly! Because if we hide it well enough, it will cease to exist and we can all sit around and sing Kumbaya.
OK, I can understand most of your sentiment except for the above. You changed, not Slashdot. I still have time for Linux because it earns me a lot of money. I still build my own PCs to keep current and because it's fun, even though I could buy any new one I wanted.
It seems that you've lost the properties of youth that made playing and experimenting seem worthwhile. You have my sympathies.
As per typical DJB ideas, it's broken and only implements half the functionality of what it intends to replace. I've used this example before, so skip this if it sounds familiar:
A friend of mine hosts a customer that sends weekly newsletters to about 25,000 subscribers. With SMTP, my friend can spool the whole set and then watch as the mail queue flushes over time (measured in a small number of hours). It takes advantage of the fact that if 10,000 of those newsletters are going to @example.com addresses, it can deliver all 10,000 of them at once. In any case, his system delivers mail at the pace it can handle.
Enter DJB's scheme. Now, my friend delivers 25,000 "you've got mail!" notifications. Then, he watches in horror as 9AM EDT rolls around and 5,000 of his customer's customers simultaneously try to fetch unique copies of the newsletter to read with their morning coffee. Repeat at 9AM CDT, MDT, and PDT. His choice is to get out of the newsletter delivery business, or spend $$$$ on vastly increasing his bandwidth.
Basically, it's fundamentally broken. SMTP is more or less optimized for throughput. DJB's plan is more or less pessimized for latency.
The default is to guess at permitted relays for a domain, so smtp.example.com would be allowed to forward @example.com email. Perhaps it should have read:
but that's a bit more verbose.
Get a room.
Because one is written in C and the other in C++, use different object models, (until recently) use different messaging systems, and otherwise have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common except that they both have the same general goal?
The '-L' option to FreeBSD's dump command makes an atomic snapshot of the filesystem to be dumped, then runs against that snapshot instead of the filesystem itself. While that might not be good enough for your purposes, it's nice to know that the backup of database backend file foo was made at the same instant as file bar; that is, they're internally consistent with one another.
What a jackass! What were they supposed to do - arrest him before she was officially declared missing? And although I have no information about the supposed crime, wouldn't an estranged husband almost automatically be the most likely suspect in her disappearance?
I don't have anything against Reiser. However, while this has to be incredibly frustrating for him (assuming he truly is innocent), I don't see what police course of action would have been more justified.
Speak for yourself, peon. The world shall know and tremble before me, and "Just Some Guy" will be a single great instance, not a nameless class of commonality. Oh yes, 613861, the greater mass will care deeply.
I agree. Only binaries compiled directly from official sources should be allowed in. Starting immediately, I'll use only "pure" versions of GCC to make sure that I don't accidentally come to rely on any of the Debian bugfixes. I'll also use only the kernel.org kernel instead of the patched one Debian ships. Yep, from now on I'll boycott all fixes not supplied directly by the author, because I want to be justly crippled with the same problems everyone else faces.
Honestly, I don't understand your position. As others have pointed out, major systems besides Firefox seem to work under this arrangement (or do you really think OpenOffice and KDE are less complex?) without major disasters, so what's so special about this one particular web browser?