I've got to ask, how many people downloaded to the doc file and read it? How many downloaded it to/dev/null just to eat a little M$ bandwidth?:-) 'nough said.
I had a brilliant idea, in wake of the/.ing of Banjo. Could you consider adding a way to randomly send a message to registered users, similar to the random way you're picked for moderating and what not. It could be text at the top like the moderating text with a link to Banjo. It could be a pop-up, although I don't think that would go over well. It could possibly be a small graphic in a sidebar too. Having the ability to control how many users get to see it overall as well as deciding it the user must be logged in or AC would be excellent as well. A feature like that could quite possibly help with things such as beta testing new/. code. My $.02 worth of ideas for the day.
What really gets me is that many people (read: Admins) still don't know about this worm. With all the publicity it's gotten they still don't know. Never mind the fact that the problem is known to the point that a patch has been officially released (for about a month and a half now) and that these people still haven't gotten around to installing it yet. That's incompetent if you ask me. IMHO every person should be accountable for any machine they put on the Internet. They should be responsible for at lesat the basic security practices. I had a friend who had his car stolen a few years back. The insurance company wouldn't honor his claim because in the police report he told the cops that he didn't lock the doors. The insurance company had a clause that stated that the owner was responsible for the basic security precautions and they gave a short list of no brainers. Locking the doors was one of them. Not leaving the keys in the ignition or in plain site through a window was another. I think similar things should be applied to publicly accessible machines. I just don't know how something like this would be enforced. Any ideas?
I have to point everyone to an paper written by Brett Glass for this one. In the paper Stopping Spam and Trojan Horses with BSD Brett discusses many SPAM filtering options, from an administrator viewpoint. He also has some excellent ideas for mailto's on webpages. In this section he suggests replacing various pieces of the email address with their ASCII code. For example he replaced the "m" in mailto, the colon, the @ symbol, the period before com, and the "c" in com with their ACSII codes. This method would work just fine since most web crawlers look at the HTML code rather than the page that would be displayed to the user (generated by the browser). What the user sees and interacts with shouldn't break. I've tried it and have had great luck. My $.02.
I haven't set up my RR account (kscable) either. I don't even use their DNS. After the last bad case of router flap I almost dropped their sorry asses. Now if they blocked my outbound tcp/25 connections and forced me to use their SMTP *and* forced me to only use a rr.com address, I'd tell them to -- ---- ---------- and tunnel from my firewall to my server (I should probably do that anyways, tell them off and tunnel).
Honestly I've always liked LinuxPPC. Those guys do a great job and deserve a great deal of credit for getting Linux to the PPCs. I didn't have luck with YellowDog the first time I tried it. I didn't run desktops off of LPPC. I ran servers. I ran a very large mirror server for a number of years and had great luck with LPPC. I'm curious as to what problems the original poster had with LinuxPPC. Sound and X wasn't much of a concern to me as it would be for a person setting up a desktop machine. Perhaps that was it. It made an excellent server OS I thought. Ironically I mirroed YD and LPPC.:-)
I sent my form letter discussing my disappointment with Adobe's actions to 20 or so adobe.com email addresses yesterday. I don't know if it helped but I did it. Did you?
Personally I don't think that whois should be privatized to the point where I can't do a whois on a domain name and find out who it's registered to as long as I don't do it for commercial gain. I also don't believe that it is right to sell whois information as if it were a magazine subscriber list. There are legitimate reasons for an individual to need access to the contact information for domain names, whether it's a company or an individual who owns it the domain. I frequently (read many times a day) use whois to help identify details about domains advertised in spam for reporting purposes. I also frequently use it to report network abuse or attacks on my machines. Perhaps I'd like to purchase the domain ABC.net. The website seems to be abandoned so I elect to do a whois on the domain name to find some contact information for the owner so I can offer to purchase it. That's legit in my eyes. However companies like that damned register.com that address crawls the whois just to get my mailing address to spam me with "here's why we're better than your current provider" isn't legit in my eyes. Most whois providers have statements about not using their whois services for that purpose. It wouldn't stop them provider from selling my info though. I just got all of my domains away from NSI (thank God). It'll be interesting to see how much spam and butchered trees I get for my old contact address. I know damned good and well NSI shared my info. There was a very good post here a year or so back that talked about someone using NSI's online whois page to check up on a domain and then the next day finding it suddenly owned by NSI themselves. The person posting said to lookup a domain 5-10 times on NSI's website, better done from a couple different places. Pick an unused domain but make it one that looks legit. Wait a day or two and come back and your domain will probably be gone. I tried it with a domain that m2minvestment.com or something like that. Gone less that a full business day later and owned by a company that could eventually be traced back to NSI. Bastards. I straying off topic. I don't think whois should be privatized to the point where I can't find an address of someone accountable for a given domain. I do think that commercial use of whois should be strictly forbidden (or at least enforced which would be a major step up from what gets done now). If I get a spamertisement addressed to a person at my company that doesn't exist (but the mail room knows to deliver it to me, like an alias for said purposes) then I know my information has been snarfed. Anyhow, that's my $.02 worth of ramblings.
..after reading the rest of the article I see now that they did actually talking about volcanic possibilities so it looks like my observations aren't unique. Oh well. Maybe next time.
...the "18-story-high towers of stone" boggle my mind to the point where I can't really see how human back then could have built such a thing. I don't know how tall the Pyramids are but still, that's really friggin' tall. It would be really cool if it really was Atlantis or some other great city or structure lost for centuries. The Yahoo article says that the pillars were found near "volcanic fault ridges". Is it possible that these pillars are really volcanic lava vents that once filled with lava and cooled to form a tall columns of igneous rock and that somehow the surounding ocean floor (silt or whatever it might be) was washed from around the columns or a siesmic event left the columns standing but took most of the ocean floor with it? I don't know. It would rock if it was human made but I just do see how it could be. I wonder how tall the Pyramids are...
If I'm "sadly mistaken" then you are fucked in the head. None of those 3 are native to North America. None. This is one of the the great "noted" ironies of our typical early settler movie that portray jack rabbits and coyotes. I don't know where you got your information; obivously you have none.
I'm not one to say that we aren't causing change to our environment. We change our environment everyday. From bacteria we spread or introduce to species we make extinct. We do enact change on our environment whether we mean to or not. Planting a tree changes our environment. The planting of hedge trees (osange orange for you city kids) in the Midwest greatly changed out environment. Those trees aren't native to North America and yet they are now here and very wide spread. Jack rabbits aren't native to North America either. They were introduced as a cheap skinning animal that reproduced and matured quickly. That changed our environment. Coyotes aren't native either. They were introduced to control the jack rabbit population that got out of hand and started detroying crops. That altered our environment. Mange was introduced to infect and kill the coyote population that got out of hand and starting kills farm animals. We still have all 3 today. We are changing our environment. However I still don't believe that there is anyone that has enough knowledge to say that ABC is causing XYZ and 123. We know that something we are doing must be causing something else to have (for every cause there is an effect). We just can't say for certain what. Basically we are in the middle of a scientific study and all we can make is preliminary guesses, hopefully educated ones. This is also called history and life. Until the event (or a very large percentage of it) has passed, we don't know enough to reflect upon what has transpired and make deductions.
I think you're missing the point here. Meteorology, while it has been around for a long time, really hasn't taken off until the last 50-75 years. Before that all that one could really do is make an educated guess at what was going to happen. "Well it was a cold & wet winter, and it sure got hot fast this Spring so I bet there will be twisters". That's really all they could do. Now we can at least look at a satellite image for the planet and see where the jet stream and fronts are heading. We haven't been able to do that very long in the grand scheme of things though. We are still novices in this field. We are at best kindergartners in this school of weather and are pissed at our parents because they would take us to the zoo. There isn't a person alive on this planet that even remotely has the qualifications to say that ABC and XYZ are affecting our planet's climate in 123 way. 30 years from now? Maybe. Not yet though.
It is recognized by many more scientists that global warming is a total crock too! God I wish I could find the name of that Discovery interview that had all that info in it (see my earlier post farther down). Global warming is total bunk. Your short term graphs are worthless for studying the warming of an entire planet. The long term raw data shows that we are in fact getting cooler. Yes that's right. We are cooling off. We are at the beginning of the next Ice Age. It's true. It won't affect you, your kids, or their great great great great great great great great gran-kids but then again that time frame is a drop in the bucket compared to what geologists must use for a time frame. 1000 years is nothing to a geologist. The next Ice Age is thousands of years off but we are at the beginning of it. The planet isn't warming. My 21" monitor is though.
The Earth's climate is not warming. It isn't. It's true. If you study the raw data of recorded temperatures for as long as it's been recorded you'll see that we are actually getting cooler, not warmer. We are in fact at the beginning of the next Ice Age. Ice Ages have occurred on this planet many times and always will continue to happen. Now when I say that we're at the beginning of our next Ice Age, I don't mean that in a year Hell will freeze over or that even our kid's kid's kids will have to deal with it. It will be several thousand years before it happens. It seems like a long time but to a geologist it's just another page in a very large book.
I had this exact conversation with my mother a few weeks back. She told me about a show (on Discovery I believe) that had a number of well known scientists, biologists, and geologists featured on the show. They were asked about global warming and they laughed, citing the information I gave above and even more of their own info. They were asked about the deforestation of the planet (cutting down trees) and again they laughed saying that it was a total crock. They said that for every tree cut down, most lumber companies plant two. They said that the tree coverage of the planet is back to where it was in the early 1900's and that it is spreading rapidly. They said sattelitte photos of the Earth's surface shows this quite vividly. Now they do admit that the cutting of certain forests may destroy medical remedies of animal and plant species yet to be discovered. That is very apparent but the planet isn't loosing its trees. If anything the trees are taking over much of the land. I live iin Kansas (yes it can be boring). I went back home this past weekend (south-east of Wichita on the edge of the Flinthills) and I noticed how much of the pasture land had been taken over by trees since I was last home. Trees are spreading and in many places are going unchecked. We keep saying that we're loosing our trees but has anyone ever asked the question, "What will too many trees do to us?". They were asked about some document or petition that supposedly some large number of scientists, biologists, and geologists type people signed saying that global warming (or was it the trees) was a major major problem and that it would be Man's fate or something like that. I guess it got big press. What the media didn't want to tell you is that something like 6 times as many of those scientist's, biologist's, and geologist's peers and colleagues signed another document stating that it was a crock. Reporting that won't get the media anything. Blood and guts sells. Truth doesn't. I wish I could find a copy of that special. I'd love to see it. If anyone knows what it is, email me.
I don't get why Apple nixed he cube. It was a great little box and sales were actually pretty good. They weren't iMac record sales but they were pretty darn good. Granted the case making process made some people believe that their cube had cracks in it but that wasn't Apple's fault. I still don't get it. I was going to purchase one of these for my mother.:( The cube is the only expandable G4 priced at the average Joe. The towers are great and all that but with the cost of a shitty Windows box going down, it's hard to justify buying a tower now.
and can be summed up in two words. Pressure and politics. Politics is quite similar in comparison to geology. Geology can be summarized as the 'study of pressure and time'. In Politics pressure and time can both build careers and destroy them. You scracth my back now and years down the road when I need campaign money you can scratch mine right back. Bush may not have said "nix the ruling" but you can be certain that one way or another influence from George W. Bush found its way through Washington to those that made this ruling. It's simple politics.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got to ask, how many people downloaded to the doc file and read it? How many downloaded it to /dev/null just to eat a little M$ bandwidth? :-) 'nough said.
I like this idea as well. Allow users on that have reached a certain whoring, I mean karma level. Good idea!
I had a brilliant idea, in wake of the /.ing of Banjo. Could you consider adding a way to randomly send a message to registered users, similar to the random way you're picked for moderating and what not. It could be text at the top like the moderating text with a link to Banjo. It could be a pop-up, although I don't think that would go over well. It could possibly be a small graphic in a sidebar too. Having the ability to control how many users get to see it overall as well as deciding it the user must be logged in or AC would be excellent as well. A feature like that could quite possibly help with things such as beta testing new /. code. My $.02 worth of ideas for the day.
v. commingled, commingling, commingles
v. intr. v. tr.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
I had this exact conversation with my mother a few weeks back. She told me about a show (on Discovery I believe) that had a number of well known scientists, biologists, and geologists featured on the show. They were asked about global warming and they laughed, citing the information I gave above and even more of their own info. They were asked about the deforestation of the planet (cutting down trees) and again they laughed saying that it was a total crock. They said that for every tree cut down, most lumber companies plant two. They said that the tree coverage of the planet is back to where it was in the early 1900's and that it is spreading rapidly. They said sattelitte photos of the Earth's surface shows this quite vividly. Now they do admit that the cutting of certain forests may destroy medical remedies of animal and plant species yet to be discovered. That is very apparent but the planet isn't loosing its trees. If anything the trees are taking over much of the land. I live iin Kansas (yes it can be boring). I went back home this past weekend (south-east of Wichita on the edge of the Flinthills) and I noticed how much of the pasture land had been taken over by trees since I was last home. Trees are spreading and in many places are going unchecked. We keep saying that we're loosing our trees but has anyone ever asked the question, "What will too many trees do to us?". They were asked about some document or petition that supposedly some large number of scientists, biologists, and geologists type people signed saying that global warming (or was it the trees) was a major major problem and that it would be Man's fate or something like that. I guess it got big press. What the media didn't want to tell you is that something like 6 times as many of those scientist's, biologist's, and geologist's peers and colleagues signed another document stating that it was a crock. Reporting that won't get the media anything. Blood and guts sells. Truth doesn't. I wish I could find a copy of that special. I'd love to see it. If anyone knows what it is, email me.
--
--
--