The funniest thing is that this is absolutely correct - false negative statements *are* actionable.
But in the US, the truth is an absolute defense against slander and truthful negative statements are fully protected. Odd how the lawyers who forget to mention this tend to represent the clients who have the most to fear from their truthful critics....
In this case, I'm reminded of Oscar Wilde(?) suing someone for claiming he was a sodomite. So the other person proved it in court as a defense, and since that was a crime at the time Wilde was taken off to prison. Even if some people are exaggerating about their experiences with PayPal, who thinks PayPal would let the case reach court?
The problem isn't that Paypal is an online bank, it's that it's not a bank at all!
Real banks have state charters and are closely supervised, have strict documentation and recording requirements, etc. I don't give a damn about the physical appearance of my bank, I do care about that little sign on the front door saying "FDIC insured." This doesn't mean that I'll never have problems, but it (and the state charter required for that insurance) does guarantee that they keep sufficient records for problems to be resolved, that money in accounts won't go *poof* if the bank goes under, etc.
But Paypal is nothing. If it goes under, the money it holds just disappears. If it says it's never heard of me, I have no way of proving that I have an account with thousands of dollars. If they make a payment, they have no statutory requireemnt to document that it was authoritized or to refund my money.
I'm not totally without rights, but instead of strong local oversight I have to deal with a civil suit in the Federal courts for a contract dispute. If I could prove that we had a contract (did you ever get a signed document from PayPal?). If I could afford the expense. If I could affort the long delays before the case is heard. And all of that assumes that they haven't changed their "terms of service" to require binding arbitration by an arbitrator of their choice.
During the early days, this may have been justifiable. Not just because it costs money and time to do it right, but because the regulatory agencies wouldn't have known what to do with something like PayPal. I know, because I actually checked local laws and discovered requirements for things like a physical location open to the public, cash reserves, etc.
But not now - even if PayPal is completely honorable (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), the lack of oversight limits how much confidence we can have in them. If they are acting like a bank and being perceived as a bank, it's long past time for them to BE a bank. Until then, they're no different than trusting "my buddy Bob" to deliver you the cash promised the next time he's in town.
Any index that tries to reduce a multidimensional variable to a single number is going to reflect the biases of the observer more than the "truth."
What are some of the variables? How about state religion? On the extremes you have a country such as Saudi Arabia (where non-Islamic services are illegal) and the free-for-all of the US. On this axis, the UK and Germany are far from free (the UK has an official state religion with the monarch as secular head, but has dropped the civil service requirements; Germany (as I understand it) collects taxes for contribution to the church unless you explicitly document that you're a non-Christian) even if they current policies are far freer than at any other point in their respective histories.
What about freedom of speech? The US is pretty free, DMCA and similar crap notwithstanding. The UK is scary because of its libel laws.
What about freedom to peacefully possess firearms? (Nobody defends the right of violent criminals to be armed.) And don't forget that gun rights usually mirror all other questions around self-defense, e.g., whether you have an obligation to retreat.
For that matter, what about the right to march down the street in a Nazi uniform shouting "Seig Heil!"? Isn't neo-Nazism a crime in Germany? It's not exactly popular here either, but the state will issue parade permits and even provide police protection to the dregs of the gene pool.
I'm not saying that the US is perfect, far from it, but it's silly to reduce these complex issues to a single dimension.
According to an issue of "Ask Marilyn" that I really wish I had kept, violence is acceptable because "everyone knows it was faked," while sex is not because it's real.
I initially thought she was refering to penetration, which is a bit hard to fake in quality porn, then I remembered that this was a Sunday supplement and she was probably refering to nudity in a mass market movie.
Either way, it begs the question of why anyone would try to equate the reality of violence with sex. Call me crazy, but I actively seek to get laid (the "most extreme" sexual act) most days, but I can't think of the last time I tried to get punched (one of the "least extreme" violent acts). It really makes me wonder about her... yet that's a common perception out in Middle America.
What does that make the drawing on the insert in the package of condoms? Definitely an image (line drawing) of fully aroused male genitals.
(Trying to imagine the insert with a drawing showing how to put a condom on a banana, to avoid violating porn laws when a minor gets lucky, and the pregnancies that result while the hausfrau is trying to figure out the shrinkwrapped fruit in the kitchen....)
I know you're probably not a native English speaker, but I had to laugh at your phrasing. "Proposal to require portals to only link to pr0n sites during the hours specified" means the opposite of what you intended.
"Only" modifies what follows it. So "only link" implies that portals can do something besides providing hyperlinks, e.g., providing the pr0n directly on their pages. Only now they have clean up the pages from 11-6, replacing the images with hyperlinks to the images!
If we move the "only" to the first place it really makes sense, "require portals to link to only pr0n sites during the hours specified," the results are even more bizarre. "It is 11pm, now we will look at pr0n!"
Ditto "... link to pr0n-only sites...."
What you undoubtably meant was "require portals to link to pr0n sites only during the hours specified."
I'm not trying to be the grammar police, but laws are one place where everyone really does need to be careful. As these examples show, misplacing a single word (especially "only") can easily reverse the meaning of the sentence! Unfortunately, this is something many legislators overlook... it's almost worth letting them pass the bill (if they made such a mistake) just to see their face when you point out that it is now compulsory to view pr0n in the evening.
The thing about the latest generation of intellectual property laws is that they could still prevent people from using that information.
Prime example: CSS and the ways to break it. According to some interpretations of the law, if you can write the code yourself you can use it, but you can't provide a library for others to use or use a library written by others.
This is completely contrary to the reason why IP laws were created in the first place, of course, but IP laws haven't served the public interest for some time now.
Don't forget to run the conduit vertically
on
Wiring A New House?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
One other point is that conduit pipes should be run vertically. Running a 2" pipe through all of your wall studs is a Bad Idea, but running such a pipe vertically is another matter entirely. It also makes it easier to install the insulation. (You want insulation on interior walls for the sound proofing. A little money now will save a lot of headaches when your kids are teenagers.)
You also want a large pipe that's a straight shot from attic to basement/crawlspace.
The idea is that you have good access in attic and basement/crawlspace, so they don't need special treatments. But walls are a real pain once they're sealed, so you want to keep it as simple as possible. And nothing is simplier than a large vertical pipe with no bends in it. Even if the pipe is completely empty (e.g., you sealed in a few extra pipes "just in case"), you can pull a line with nothing but a string and a lead weight.
Next we'll hear that trinary computer research is being firebombed because the new trit contains aspects of both "0" and "1", and is thus an abomination.
(Or maybe we could really jack up the funding, no pun intended, by setting up a trit porn site.)
I don't know the name of that book, but it actually echoes human sexuality in many earth cultures. Young men have wild sex at the drop of a hat... with other young men, taking both roles. When they go through the final rite of passage to join the tribe as an adult, they take a wife and never (publicly) sleep with another guy.
The benefits to the tribe are strong emotional bonds between the men, and a low (or nonexistent) teen pregnancy problem. It also totally freaks out our culture where even "teenage experimentation" is considered codeword for "flaming homosexuals in our midsts!" by a lot of people.
The point to all of this? No matter how weird an alien culture seems, there's probably an analogue somewhere on on Earth. Unfortunately most people dismiss these cultures as "primitive" (and worse), but science fiction settings can remove that stigma. Winter is one of the few exceptions where there is no terrestial analogue.
It's a quote from the planet's scripture, and an indirect reference to common duality here (male = right = strong = bright = yin, female = left = weak = dark = yang.)
Actually, that McDonald's case you're so quick to dismiss is exactly like this. McDonald's *knew* that their coffee was far hotter than any competitor's, it knew that it had seriously harmed others, and it knew that the plantiff had originally only asked for her medical expenses to be covered. She was sitting in a car, sure, but it was stationary and she was a passenger, and I think others who were scalded were sitting at tables inside the restaurant.
It was the jury that decided that McDonald's needed to get a strong signal that its ongoing indifference to the harm caused by its actions would no longer be tolerated, and that huge punitive award (which was automatically capped by law, and further reduced on appeal) was an estimate of McDonald's profit on coffee sales for two days. That is hardly a burdensome amount - enough to get your attention, but probably something like $20-$50 for us. On appeal, the award was comparable to the change we can find in our seat cushions.
As for the DoI case, the court is pissed because one of the primary responsibilities of the court and its agents (which include every member of the bar, specifically including the Secretary of the Interior and her legal team) is to preserve evidence. You might get away with hiding evidence, but the fastest way for a lawyer to get disbarred is to get caught disposing of evidence. The government has clearly deliberately destroyed pertinent records in the past, but they've been claiming that's all ancient history that no current employee was involved with. Now we see strong evidence that the government, is indifferent at best, and deliberately trying to facilitate at worst, the destruction of additional records *today* which are required to determine the correct distribution of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in royalty payments. Of course the judge is pissed -- and if the DoI drags their feet I would expect to see some of the lawyers hauled before disciplinary boards.
As an author of several documents, with several more in the pipeline, I find myself remarkably unmoved by this self-inflicted crisis even though I use Debian myself.
The problem is that Debian is quickly becoming just as bad as Microsoft in terms of insisting that everyone play the games by their rules, freezing out everyone else. Wanting to keep the core distribution "pure" is one thing, but the zealots are clearly driving out the pragmatists. I'm getting *real* tired of reinventing tools to get around artifical constraints, and if it weren't for apt I would have switched distros long ago.
Now they suddenly announce that since 2/3 of LDP does not satisfy their definition of "free," they're going to drop them. Not move them into "non-free," drop them outright. The only way to avoid this is for authors to drop everything else in their life to make these changes.
And, rubbing salt in this wound, this question was clearly written by one of the persons responsible for dropping these documents. Yet he doesn't feel the need to actually provide a link to a list of the documents in question. We're clearly supposed to waste even more time trying to track down that list on the Debian site because this guy can't be bothered to provide the link in his message.
The message is clear: the volunteer authors are stupid (choosing the 'wrong' license, even though it was the best available at the time, and then not rushing to change it immediately once the Debian gods spoke from on high), and we don't even deserve the courtesy of having a list prepared that we can quickly check.
I'm real motivated to check my licenses now. Let me pencil it in - 2PM, December 5, 2184. Unless it's really urgent, in which case I'll just add a quick clause prohibiting its distribution within a Debian package and force this into a moot issue.
With true multihoming, you'll have your own IP address and each ISP will either consider you a "peer" or one of its own subnets. Your packets would not be dropped by this policy since it would be considered legitimate traffic.
With cheap-ass multihoming, you trade off this expense and inconvenience for reduced functionality. For you individually the cheap-ass approach may be cheaper, but the cost to the rest of the network is DDOS attacks which are difficult to fight because it's hard extremely difficult to identify the compromised hosts. One DDOS attack may easily cost more (in salary, downtime, etc.) than the money saved by every company using cheap-ass multihoming for years.
If it helps, many "extroverts" are actually pretty insecure. Their extroversion is really a plea for constant ego strokes that they're cool. Yes, you're cool for drinking that beer, so am I. Yes, you're cool for watching the game on TV, so am I. Other insecure extroverts have no problem with this - they get their ego strokes in return - but it's draining for people who don't need the ego strokes.
Not all extroverts are insecure, of course, and the ones you're comfortable with are the ones who are outgoing but not insecure. They don't demand the ego strokes so you don't end up feeling drained.
Once you realize this, it's a *lot* easier to deal with the insecure extroverts. Think of it as just another form of primate grooming behavior. When I meet another geek, I don't discuss Linux distros because I can't think of anything better to do, I do it because it's the "grooming behavior" we use to establish a rapport. Once that's done we can move on to other things.
The insecure extroverts are no different, they just need to spend more time in the initial grooming behaviors, and those grooming behaviors might involve burping games instead of a discussion of the merits of vi vs. emacs. That's not a problem when you're dealing with them one-on-one, but in a herd they tend to reinforce each other and you never get past the initial stages. So you avoid the herd and only deal with them as individuals. There's nothing wrong with you, and there's nothing wrong with them individually. But put them together and it's a room fully of clingy first-graders....
Unfortunately, a forced party situation is the one situation where you can't always walk away. A good planner will realize this and not force everyone together, but managers in search of "team building" are not known for their good common sense.
I agree. Their concern is usually directed towards the companies that are using things like the MIPP without proper supervision[*], but the same thing is true of even the pop-babble tests when people assume that the terms have their common meaning. The damage is just as real when some idiot looks at this test and decides to not hire you (or not promote you) because he thinks "introverted" means that you're shy and have poor social skills.
[*] The use of the MIPP in employee screening is a nightmare. I took it in a clinical setting (to ensure that my obvious bipolar disorder wasn't masking something else), and I was able to discuss my concerns that many of the questions were incredibly stupid. I am not a farmer in 1930s Minnesota with an 8th grade education and a perfect attendence record at the local Lutheran church, I'm a well-educated urban dweller more comfortable with pagans than the local bible thumpers, and all of the religious questions meant something very different to me. But where she could easily see the influence of intelligence and curiosity someone else who just saw the numbers might see a delusional psychopath who has no fear of Hell. Needless to say I was not happy to hear that some companies are using it to screen their professional staff
I think you're confused. RSA claimed, in their Scientific American article at least, that their 100-bit key would take millions of years to break. In fact, advances in factoring algorithms (and to a far less extent, raw computing power) lead to it being broken in less than 20 years. Now the minimal recommended key size is 400 bits longer, amd most of us use keys 900 bits longer.
DES was never expected to have a lifetime longer than 25 years or so. The cryptanalysts who designed DES never heard of Moore's law, and wouldn't have cared about it if they had. They knew that the most important factor was algorithm efficiency, not the raw computing power.
In fact, a study in Programming Pearls a while back compared the effects of improved algorithms vs. improved hardware speed for several historically hard problems. The results were clear - hardware is getting faster, but you could still run circles around the latest supercomputer running 1960s era algorithms with your PDA running current algorithms. (Okay, the original article compared Crays to TRS-80s, but kids today may not know what a trash-80 is.)
The only reason computers seem slower is that they're used to solve far bigger problems. People tend to be willing to spend the same amount of time solving problems, and for a given time O(nlg(n)) has a far larger value of 'n' than O(n^3).
Oops, all of those exponents should be bumped by three. I'm from an alternate reality where all of this was rationalized years ago..., yeah, that's it!
While there are two different approaches (the US "billion" is a British "millard"), they both follow the convention of the Latin (or is it Greek?) "combining form" for a number followed by "illion." So 1, 2, 3, 4 -- "mil-, bi-, tri-, quad-" -- becomes "million," "billion," "trillion" and quadrillion.
If we use our familiar SI prefixes:
deca: decillion: 1e30
hecto: hectillion: 1e300
kilo: kilillion: 1e3000
mega: megillion: 1e3000000
giga: gigillion: 1e3000000000
tera: terillion: 1e3000000000000
exa: exillion: 1e3000000000000000
and so forth. (In other words, what comes after exa-?)
This question is a classic example of why many people strongly oppose letting the general public have access to psychological tests!
Being an "introvert" or "extrovert" on Briggs-Meyers indicates something very different than you seem to think. It does not mean that an "introvert" is shy, has poor social skills, can't get laid, whatever. Nor does it mean that an "extrovert" means is a slope-headed moron who can only bond with friends and coworkers with a beer in one hand and a football game on the TV.
Instead, it refers to the way the person relates to the world. IIRC, extroverts tend to look towards outside authority - the boss says we should we name tags and introduce ourselves to three strangers, so This Is Good. Extroverts tend to be uncomfortable in totally unstructured environments, so they "plan parties," etc. Sound familiar?
Introverts tend to look towards inside authority - the boss says we're too dumb to remember our own name and lack the social skills to say hello to strangers outside of this highly artificial environment. He thinks we're a bunch of losers, gee aren't we having fun here! I'm glad he forced us to come to this damn party... on the bright side, he's probably too dumb to realize that our animated conversations are discussions of writing effective resumes to get out of this Hellhole. This Is Bad. Introverts are comfortable in unstructured environments.
If your office is mostly introverts, respect that. Make some plans for the extroverts (who are less comfortable in totally unstructured environments), but leave the introverts alone. If you try to force them to participate, you'll just breed resentment. If you just provide food, alcohol and space the party will be considered a success because they'll all do whatever they think is fun.
Answering everyone at once, when I do "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade" I still get (open)ssh 1.2.3.
Installing "unstable" is *not* an option at many (most?) sites. You install an unstable package on a live server, you die. Or at least you lose all root access on the live servers. The problem isn't any single unstable package, it's their tendency to pull in other unstable packages. This can get out of control real fast.
Even installing from pool is problematic, but usually acceptable since you're compiling it locally and can avoid creeping dependencies... but some Debian tools require Perl 5.5 which breaks stable systems. If you're willing to devote a system to unstable, you might be able to create an installable package... but this is not something Joe User is going to be able to do.
So I stand by my point. If you require SSH protocol 2 (supported by OpenSSH 2.x and 3.x), you will knock out most Debian users until either Woody is released or somebody takes a honking big clue-stick at the appropriate Debian maintainers and openssh 2.x is released as a Potato security bug-fix.
I'm running my own DNS server, and haven't had any problems since nuking the old 'forwarder' entries in my/etc/bind/named.conf file. This means I'm now always hitting the root name servers myself... a bit rude, but I don't see a lot of choices right now given the problems others are reporting.
Some other people are reporting similar problems. It seems to be caused by bad DNS servers being listed in the DHCP response - you can try each one separately, then put the good ones into/etc/resolv.conf yourself.
It depends on when you got your service. I was a very early adapter and probably more than a little intimidating, so I was given a static IP address just so they could close the ticket.
I think you're the one who's off in left field here. When I was taking some graduate classes a few years ago, I had a school account... filled with incredible amounts of spam because of email harvesters. It didn't take long for me to abandon it and always give the professor an off-site address when the issue came up.
It's far easier to believe that you were doing something similar than that there's a college out there that isn't providing email accounts as a matter of course, even if they're not used.
Slashdot Mirror
The funniest thing is that this is absolutely correct - false negative statements *are* actionable.
But in the US, the truth is an absolute defense against slander and truthful negative statements are fully protected. Odd how the lawyers who forget to mention this tend to represent the clients who have the most to fear from their truthful critics....
In this case, I'm reminded of Oscar Wilde(?) suing someone for claiming he was a sodomite. So the other person proved it in court as a defense, and since that was a crime at the time Wilde was taken off to prison. Even if some people are exaggerating about their experiences with PayPal, who thinks PayPal would let the case reach court?
The problem isn't that Paypal is an online bank, it's that it's not a bank at all!
Real banks have state charters and are closely supervised, have strict documentation and recording requirements, etc. I don't give a damn about the physical appearance of my bank, I do care about that little sign on the front door saying "FDIC insured." This doesn't mean that I'll never have problems, but it (and the state charter required for that insurance) does guarantee that they keep sufficient records for problems to be resolved, that money in accounts won't go *poof* if the bank goes under, etc.
But Paypal is nothing. If it goes under, the money it holds just disappears. If it says it's never heard of me, I have no way of proving that I have an account with thousands of dollars. If they make a payment, they have no statutory requireemnt to document that it was authoritized or to refund my money.
I'm not totally without rights, but instead of strong local oversight I have to deal with a civil suit in the Federal courts for a contract dispute. If I could prove that we had a contract (did you ever get a signed document from PayPal?). If I could afford the expense. If I could affort the long delays before the case is heard. And all of that assumes that they haven't changed their "terms of service" to require binding arbitration by an arbitrator of their choice.
During the early days, this may have been justifiable. Not just because it costs money and time to do it right, but because the regulatory agencies wouldn't have known what to do with something like PayPal. I know, because I actually checked local laws and discovered requirements for things like a physical location open to the public, cash reserves, etc.
But not now - even if PayPal is completely honorable (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), the lack of oversight limits how much confidence we can have in them. If they are acting like a bank and being perceived as a bank, it's long past time for them to BE a bank. Until then, they're no different than trusting "my buddy Bob" to deliver you the cash promised the next time he's in town.
Any index that tries to reduce a multidimensional variable to a single number is going to reflect the biases of the observer more than the "truth."
What are some of the variables? How about state religion? On the extremes you have a country such as Saudi Arabia (where non-Islamic services are illegal) and the free-for-all of the US. On this axis, the UK and Germany are far from free (the UK has an official state religion with the monarch as secular head, but has dropped the civil service requirements; Germany (as I understand it) collects taxes for contribution to the church unless you explicitly document that you're a non-Christian) even if they current policies are far freer than at any other point in their respective histories.
What about freedom of speech? The US is pretty free, DMCA and similar crap notwithstanding. The UK is scary because of its libel laws.
What about freedom to peacefully possess firearms? (Nobody defends the right of violent criminals to be armed.) And don't forget that gun rights usually mirror all other questions around self-defense, e.g., whether you have an obligation to retreat.
For that matter, what about the right to march down the street in a Nazi uniform shouting "Seig Heil!"? Isn't neo-Nazism a crime in Germany? It's not exactly popular here either, but the state will issue parade permits and even provide police protection to the dregs of the gene pool.
I'm not saying that the US is perfect, far from it, but it's silly to reduce these complex issues to a single dimension.
According to an issue of "Ask Marilyn" that I really wish I had kept, violence is acceptable because "everyone knows it was faked," while sex is not because it's real.
I initially thought she was refering to penetration, which is a bit hard to fake in quality porn, then I remembered that this was a Sunday supplement and she was probably refering to nudity in a mass market movie.
Either way, it begs the question of why anyone would try to equate the reality of violence with sex. Call me crazy, but I actively seek to get laid (the "most extreme" sexual act) most days, but I can't think of the last time I tried to get punched (one of the "least extreme" violent acts). It really makes me wonder about her... yet that's a common perception out in Middle America.
What does that make the drawing on the insert in the package of condoms? Definitely an image (line drawing) of fully aroused male genitals.
(Trying to imagine the insert with a drawing showing how to put a condom on a banana, to avoid violating porn laws when a minor gets lucky, and the pregnancies that result while the hausfrau is trying to figure out the shrinkwrapped fruit in the kitchen....)
I know you're probably not a native English speaker, but I had to laugh at your phrasing. "Proposal to require portals to only link to pr0n sites during the hours specified" means the opposite of what you intended.
"Only" modifies what follows it. So "only link" implies that portals can do something besides providing hyperlinks, e.g., providing the pr0n directly on their pages. Only now they have clean up the pages from 11-6, replacing the images with hyperlinks to the images!
If we move the "only" to the first place it really makes sense, "require portals to link to only pr0n sites during the hours specified," the results are even more bizarre. "It is 11pm, now we will look at pr0n!"
Ditto "... link to pr0n-only sites...."
What you undoubtably meant was "require portals to link to pr0n sites only during the hours specified."
I'm not trying to be the grammar police, but laws are one place where everyone really does need to be careful. As these examples show, misplacing a single word (especially "only") can easily reverse the meaning of the sentence! Unfortunately, this is something many legislators overlook... it's almost worth letting them pass the bill (if they made such a mistake) just to see their face when you point out that it is now compulsory to view pr0n in the evening.
Two parts, actually....
(Now THAT brought to mind an image I didn't need...)
The thing about the latest generation of intellectual property laws is that they could still prevent people from using that information.
Prime example: CSS and the ways to break it. According to some interpretations of the law, if you can write the code yourself you can use it, but you can't provide a library for others to use or use a library written by others.
This is completely contrary to the reason why IP laws were created in the first place, of course, but IP laws haven't served the public interest for some time now.
One other point is that conduit pipes should be run vertically. Running a 2" pipe through all of your wall studs is a Bad Idea, but running such a pipe vertically is another matter entirely. It also makes it easier to install the insulation. (You want insulation on interior walls for the sound proofing. A little money now will save a lot of headaches when your kids are teenagers.)
You also want a large pipe that's a straight shot from attic to basement/crawlspace.
The idea is that you have good access in attic and basement/crawlspace, so they don't need special treatments. But walls are a real pain once they're sealed, so you want to keep it as simple as possible. And nothing is simplier than a large vertical pipe with no bends in it. Even if the pipe is completely empty (e.g., you sealed in a few extra pipes "just in case"), you can pull a line with nothing but a string and a lead weight.
Next we'll hear that trinary computer research is being firebombed because the new trit contains aspects of both "0" and "1", and is thus an abomination.
(Or maybe we could really jack up the funding, no pun intended, by setting up a trit porn site.)
I don't know the name of that book, but it actually echoes human sexuality in many earth cultures. Young men have wild sex at the drop of a hat... with other young men, taking both roles. When they go through the final rite of passage to join the tribe as an adult, they take a wife and never (publicly) sleep with another guy.
The benefits to the tribe are strong emotional bonds between the men, and a low (or nonexistent) teen pregnancy problem. It also totally freaks out our culture where even "teenage experimentation" is considered codeword for "flaming homosexuals in our midsts!" by a lot of people.
The point to all of this? No matter how weird an alien culture seems, there's probably an analogue somewhere on on Earth. Unfortunately most people dismiss these cultures as "primitive" (and worse), but science fiction settings can remove that stigma. Winter is one of the few exceptions where there is no terrestial analogue.
It's a quote from the planet's scripture, and an indirect reference to common duality here (male = right = strong = bright = yin, female = left = weak = dark = yang.)
Actually, that McDonald's case you're so quick to dismiss is exactly like this. McDonald's *knew* that their coffee was far hotter than any competitor's, it knew that it had seriously harmed others, and it knew that the plantiff had originally only asked for her medical expenses to be covered. She was sitting in a car, sure, but it was stationary and she was a passenger, and I think others who were scalded were sitting at tables inside the restaurant.
It was the jury that decided that McDonald's needed to get a strong signal that its ongoing indifference to the harm caused by its actions would no longer be tolerated, and that huge punitive award (which was automatically capped by law, and further reduced on appeal) was an estimate of McDonald's profit on coffee sales for two days. That is hardly a burdensome amount - enough to get your attention, but probably something like $20-$50 for us. On appeal, the award was comparable to the change we can find in our seat cushions.
As for the DoI case, the court is pissed because one of the primary responsibilities of the court and its agents (which include every member of the bar, specifically including the Secretary of the Interior and her legal team) is to preserve evidence. You might get away with hiding evidence, but the fastest way for a lawyer to get disbarred is to get caught disposing of evidence. The government has clearly deliberately destroyed pertinent records in the past, but they've been claiming that's all ancient history that no current employee was involved with. Now we see strong evidence that the government, is indifferent at best, and deliberately trying to facilitate at worst, the destruction of additional records *today* which are required to determine the correct distribution of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in royalty payments. Of course the judge is pissed -- and if the DoI drags their feet I would expect to see some of the lawyers hauled before disciplinary boards.
As an author of several documents, with several more in the pipeline, I find myself remarkably unmoved by this self-inflicted crisis even though I use Debian myself.
The problem is that Debian is quickly becoming just as bad as Microsoft in terms of insisting that everyone play the games by their rules, freezing out everyone else. Wanting to keep the core distribution "pure" is one thing, but the zealots are clearly driving out the pragmatists. I'm getting *real* tired of reinventing tools to get around artifical constraints, and if it weren't for apt I would have switched distros long ago.
Now they suddenly announce that since 2/3 of LDP does not satisfy their definition of "free," they're going to drop them. Not move them into "non-free," drop them outright. The only way to avoid this is for authors to drop everything else in their life to make these changes.
And, rubbing salt in this wound, this question was clearly written by one of the persons responsible for dropping these documents. Yet he doesn't feel the need to actually provide a link to a list of the documents in question. We're clearly supposed to waste even more time trying to track down that list on the Debian site because this guy can't be bothered to provide the link in his message.
The message is clear: the volunteer authors are stupid (choosing the 'wrong' license, even though it was the best available at the time, and then not rushing to change it immediately once the Debian gods spoke from on high), and we don't even deserve the courtesy of having a list prepared that we can quickly check.
I'm real motivated to check my licenses now. Let me pencil it in - 2PM, December 5, 2184. Unless it's really urgent, in which case I'll just add a quick clause prohibiting its distribution within a Debian package and force this into a moot issue.
With true multihoming, you'll have your own IP address and each ISP will either consider you a "peer" or one of its own subnets. Your packets would not be dropped by this policy since it would be considered legitimate traffic.
With cheap-ass multihoming, you trade off this expense and inconvenience for reduced functionality. For you individually the cheap-ass approach may be cheaper, but the cost to the rest of the network is DDOS attacks which are difficult to fight because it's hard extremely difficult to identify the compromised hosts. One DDOS attack may easily cost more (in salary, downtime, etc.) than the money saved by every company using cheap-ass multihoming for years.
If it helps, many "extroverts" are actually pretty insecure. Their extroversion is really a plea for constant ego strokes that they're cool. Yes, you're cool for drinking that beer, so am I. Yes, you're cool for watching the game on TV, so am I. Other insecure extroverts have no problem with this - they get their ego strokes in return - but it's draining for people who don't need the ego strokes.
Not all extroverts are insecure, of course, and the ones you're comfortable with are the ones who are outgoing but not insecure. They don't demand the ego strokes so you don't end up feeling drained.
Once you realize this, it's a *lot* easier to deal with the insecure extroverts. Think of it as just another form of primate grooming behavior. When I meet another geek, I don't discuss Linux distros because I can't think of anything better to do, I do it because it's the "grooming behavior" we use to establish a rapport. Once that's done we can move on to other things.
The insecure extroverts are no different, they just need to spend more time in the initial grooming behaviors, and those grooming behaviors might involve burping games instead of a discussion of the merits of vi vs. emacs. That's not a problem when you're dealing with them one-on-one, but in a herd they tend to reinforce each other and you never get past the initial stages. So you avoid the herd and only deal with them as individuals. There's nothing wrong with you, and there's nothing wrong with them individually. But put them together and it's a room fully of clingy first-graders....
Unfortunately, a forced party situation is the one situation where you can't always walk away. A good planner will realize this and not force everyone together, but managers in search of "team building" are not known for their good common sense.
I agree. Their concern is usually directed towards the companies that are using things like the MIPP without proper supervision[*], but the same thing is true of even the pop-babble tests when people assume that the terms have their common meaning. The damage is just as real when some idiot looks at this test and decides to not hire you (or not promote you) because he thinks "introverted" means that you're shy and have poor social skills.
[*] The use of the MIPP in employee screening is a nightmare. I took it in a clinical setting (to ensure that my obvious bipolar disorder wasn't masking something else), and I was able to discuss my concerns that many of the questions were incredibly stupid. I am not a farmer in 1930s Minnesota with an 8th grade education and a perfect attendence record at the local Lutheran church, I'm a well-educated urban dweller more comfortable with pagans than the local bible thumpers, and all of the religious questions meant something very different to me. But where she could easily see the influence of intelligence and curiosity someone else who just saw the numbers might see a delusional psychopath who has no fear of Hell. Needless to say I was not happy to hear that some companies are using it to screen their professional staff
I think you're confused. RSA claimed, in their Scientific American article at least, that their 100-bit key would take millions of years to break. In fact, advances in factoring algorithms (and to a far less extent, raw computing power) lead to it being broken in less than 20 years. Now the minimal recommended key size is 400 bits longer, amd most of us use keys 900 bits longer.
DES was never expected to have a lifetime longer than 25 years or so. The cryptanalysts who designed DES never heard of Moore's law, and wouldn't have cared about it if they had. They knew that the most important factor was algorithm efficiency, not the raw computing power.
In fact, a study in Programming Pearls a while back compared the effects of improved algorithms vs. improved hardware speed for several historically hard problems. The results were clear - hardware is getting faster, but you could still run circles around the latest supercomputer running 1960s era algorithms with your PDA running current algorithms. (Okay, the original article compared Crays to TRS-80s, but kids today may not know what a trash-80 is.)
The only reason computers seem slower is that they're used to solve far bigger problems. People tend to be willing to spend the same amount of time solving problems, and for a given time O(nlg(n)) has a far larger value of 'n' than O(n^3).
Oops, all of those exponents should be bumped by three. I'm from an alternate reality where all of this was rationalized years ago..., yeah, that's it!
So a gigillion is 1e3000000003, etc.
While there are two different approaches (the US "billion" is a British "millard"), they both follow the convention of the Latin (or is it Greek?) "combining form" for a number followed by "illion." So 1, 2, 3, 4 -- "mil-, bi-, tri-, quad-" -- becomes "million," "billion," "trillion" and quadrillion.
If we use our familiar SI prefixes:
deca: decillion: 1e30
hecto: hectillion: 1e300
kilo: kilillion: 1e3000
mega: megillion: 1e3000000
giga: gigillion: 1e3000000000
tera: terillion: 1e3000000000000
exa: exillion: 1e3000000000000000
and so forth. (In other words, what comes after exa-?)
And never forget
triskadillion: 1e39
This question is a classic example of why many people strongly oppose letting the general public have access to psychological tests!
Being an "introvert" or "extrovert" on Briggs-Meyers indicates something very different than you seem to think. It does not mean that an "introvert" is shy, has poor social skills, can't get laid, whatever. Nor does it mean that an "extrovert" means is a slope-headed moron who can only bond with friends and coworkers with a beer in one hand and a football game on the TV.
Instead, it refers to the way the person relates to the world. IIRC, extroverts tend to look towards outside authority - the boss says we should we name tags and introduce ourselves to three strangers, so This Is Good. Extroverts tend to be uncomfortable in totally unstructured environments, so they "plan parties," etc. Sound familiar?
Introverts tend to look towards inside authority - the boss says we're too dumb to remember our own name and lack the social skills to say hello to strangers outside of this highly artificial environment. He thinks we're a bunch of losers, gee aren't we having fun here! I'm glad he forced us to come to this damn party... on the bright side, he's probably too dumb to realize that our animated conversations are discussions of writing effective resumes to get out of this Hellhole. This Is Bad. Introverts are comfortable in unstructured environments.
If your office is mostly introverts, respect that. Make some plans for the extroverts (who are less comfortable in totally unstructured environments), but leave the introverts alone. If you try to force them to participate, you'll just breed resentment. If you just provide food, alcohol and space the party will be considered a success because they'll all do whatever they think is fun.
Answering everyone at once, when I do "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade" I still get (open)ssh 1.2.3.
Installing "unstable" is *not* an option at many (most?) sites. You install an unstable package on a live server, you die. Or at least you lose all root access on the live servers. The problem isn't any single unstable package, it's their tendency to pull in other unstable packages. This can get out of control real fast.
Even installing from pool is problematic, but usually acceptable since you're compiling it locally and can avoid creeping dependencies... but some Debian tools require Perl 5.5 which breaks stable systems. If you're willing to devote a system to unstable, you might be able to create an installable package... but this is not something Joe User is going to be able to do.
So I stand by my point. If you require SSH protocol 2 (supported by OpenSSH 2.x and 3.x), you will knock out most Debian users until either Woody is released or somebody takes a honking big clue-stick at the appropriate Debian maintainers and openssh 2.x is released as a Potato security bug-fix.
I'm running my own DNS server, and haven't had any problems since nuking the old 'forwarder' entries in my /etc/bind/named.conf file. This means I'm now always hitting the root name servers myself... a bit rude, but I don't see a lot of choices right now given the problems others are reporting.
/etc/resolv.conf yourself.
Some other people are reporting similar problems. It seems to be caused by bad DNS servers being listed in the DHCP response - you can try each one separately, then put the good ones into
It depends on when you got your service. I was a very early adapter and probably more than a little intimidating, so I was given a static IP address just so they could close the ticket.
I think you're the one who's off in left field here. When I was taking some graduate classes a few years ago, I had a school account... filled with incredible amounts of spam because of email harvesters. It didn't take long for me to abandon it and always give the professor an off-site address when the issue came up.
It's far easier to believe that you were doing something similar than that there's a college out there that isn't providing email accounts as a matter of course, even if they're not used.