My "listen to every episode ASAP" list: Opening Arguments Scathing Atheist God Awful Movies Skepticrat Cognative Dissonance Skeptics with a K Be Reasonable Inkredulous
My backup list: Dogma Debate Naked Mormonism What's the Point Monster Talk
I have this habit of wanting to hear people talk about truth and evidence, and exploring how that goes wrong...
I can recommend Foundation Beyond Belief, at https://foundationbeyondbelief... . It is a humanist organization, so they are explicitly trying to just do good without promoting a religion.
They forward your money on to other causes (and it is clearly identified what they take as overhead, and you can reduce/increase that as you wish). They vet those causes for effectiveness. Every quarter they change who they donate money to, and you can adjust where your money goes within those groups.
They have an easy system to setup monthly payments, as well as giving you your end of year tax form, so it's painless to spread out your donation over time.
A life saver for me. Their very first podcast was on this exact topic (and, for that matter, every subsequent podcast). I can't recommend them highly enough.
I actually thought that the fact that you forget it is 3D was a big plus.... they don't make it in your face, but it is a nice addition to the film. Eventually you just don't notice it anymore, but it still makes a difference.
I just went through a similiar exercise at work, to determine if TCP was a good enough protocol for a slow point to point wireless connection with a high bit error rate.
We ended up using DummyNet on FreeBSD, mostly because we happened to have a high-end FreeBSD box handy...
It's not just GCC. The bug is actually in the kernel... you can propose that GCC be extra careful not to trigger this bug, but if someone wants to make a binary that triggers it, they don't need GCC to do that.
It's a potential security hole, and an almost certain memory corruption-waiting-to-happen, and needs to get fixed in the kernel. GCC reverting to the old behaviour will, at best, prevent people from accidentally finding this.
"It wasn't spying, Commander Vimes told himself. Spying was when you crept around peeking in windows. It wasn't spying when you had to stand back a bit so you weren't deafened."
-- Jingo, Terry Pratchett
While I agree I don't want cops wasting time searching these sites to find crimes, investigating crimes already reported to them this way seems fair to me. The time wasted is low, investigators will get a feel for how useful it really is, and it's all in the public.
I had a real hassle when I bought my house. I told the mortgage about a bunch, but not all, of my accounts. When I went to pay the down-payment, I took the money out of somewhere else. It became a major hassle; they insisted I had to take the money from an account I had previously told them about.
I ended up taking an early-withdrawl penalty on a CD so I could do that.
His concern appears to be with a clause that would require publically releasing the keys that were used to sign-off sections of the code.
I'd have to look into it in more detail to figure out what keys he is referring to. Does anybody know? I could see the logic of GPLv3 requiring this, and I can also see Linus' objection.
In other words, this isn't a knee-jerk reaction.... there is logic to it. Now maybe what Linus should be doing is commenting on GPLv3 so that it gets changed, and for all we know he has.
I already posted that I don't think eHarmony is right for this particular person, but perhaps it'll work for someone else. So here's my experience with it, so far.
First, you fill out a *very* long questionare. Once that was done ( over an hour ), it came back and said it had no matches for me. That's pretty depressing. I gradually expanded the search parameters (there are a few things, such as location, that you can control)... before long I had eHarmony telling me there was no one anywhere in the world for me! I had always suspected it, but you hate to have a computer confirm it.
About three or four days later, it got a hit. The next day, it got four more hits. I've yet to figure out the algorithm.... it's not rate limiting, but the hits seem to come in batches. Some people just signed up, but others seem to have been there for awhile.
Anyway, I've been a member since June, and have gotten over 50 hits with it. Of those 50, only 5 have I dismissed right away. Most of the rest never respond to me (if you take the questionaire, you show up as a match, but can't communicate unless you pay the money. No doubt a lot of the never-responders are people who aren't interested enough to pay).
I've actually communicated with only four people from the system, and only gone on any dates with one of them. It's too early to say how that's going...:)
For me, it works. I'm not the sort of person who wants to date casually... I'm not going to go out with someone just to have a date on Saturday night. If I'm going out with someone, it's because I'm really interested in them, or at least interested in becoming more interested.
I'm not sure I agree with all the tenants of eHarmony... I think they are more interested in creating "stable" relationships then they are in "good" relationships. Their argument would probably be that they can do the "stable" with statistics, and it's up to the people to decide on the "good". Maybe that's fair.
If you're looking for "casual" dating, eHarmony is out. Even they will tell you that. Match.com is probably the best known, and so it's probably also your best bet.
Yes, it is run by a guy who follows a religion. No, he doesn't push that on you at all. Supposidly, the people rejected are because they are not looking for relationships, just dates. That's a very different thing.
Of course, the information on how the matching is done is proprietary, so we'll never know for sure.
Still, the site is definitly *not* religiously based.
It was a nice Sony recorder, except for one little flaw... after you put in a scratched-enough CD, it stopped working forever.
Here I was, trying to use cdparanoia to recover some CDs, and my drive stopped working.
It took three RMAs before I finally convinced Sony to stop shipping me back the drive and fix the damn firmware. The next time the firmware was upgraded, and the drive gave several more years of good service (probably still works, wherever it is).
Sure, it's possible. As long as you can telecommute (or break into your Y2K stockpiles), you can pay to get groceries delivered and everything. Hell, if you had the money, you could do that easily w/o e-commerce.
I'm hardly a social person, and I probably could do the same without complaining much. But why would I?
Now if some online grocer was paying me a small fortune for advertising rights...:)
I'm in the same situation... I never got my Extra class license, because when I could listen to Morse that fast I hadn't studied for the exam, and by the time I had studied I hadn't done Morse code for so long that I couldn't do it anymore.
That was a while ago:)
It looks like I'm getting grandfathered in, but I might as well restudy for the Extra class.
Overall I have to agree about Mandrake. It's a pretty slick system (I started using it after it appeared that Redhat was going to charge $70 for their box set).
I wonder if it is a good move to fall out of sync with Redhat version numbers though. One of the things I like about Mandrake is that it was built on top of Redhat. Although that doesn't appear to have changed, the version numbers make things a little harder to remember.
Oh well... it's not a big deal anyway. And it does appear to merit the increase.
It's true that there is certainly some overlap. But I could say that "All Americans are lazy" and there would be some overlap too. Some people might still get offended.
As far as hacker ethics go... I consider myself a hacker (albeit a minor hacker), and I don't have any illegal software or music on my computer. As for software, that is the beauty of Linux for me. There isn't even a temptation to grab other software... I've got all I need.
As far as ethics go, perhaps I just don't have the hackers ethic. If I don't agree with a license agreement, then I don't open/use the software. By opening or using it, I am in effect making a promise. If I am not willing to uphold that promise, then I shouldn't have made it. So I don't. Now I am getting back at the manufactorer by using capatalism to my advantage.
I haven't heard Smoke-off, although I have heard of it. I have recordings of him singing some of his poems, and of course who could ever forget "The Freaker's Ball."
I always liked to bring that one out for people who thought Shel did just kid stuff.
Secure shell can tunnel anything, including FTP connections. You could probably even throw together a wrapper script called sftp or something. It just means that the server has to have secure shell as well as ftp.
Slashdot Mirror
My "listen to every episode ASAP" list:
Opening Arguments
Scathing Atheist
God Awful Movies
Skepticrat
Cognative Dissonance
Skeptics with a K
Be Reasonable
Inkredulous
My backup list:
Dogma Debate
Naked Mormonism
What's the Point
Monster Talk
I have this habit of wanting to hear people talk about truth and evidence, and exploring how that goes wrong...
I can recommend Foundation Beyond Belief, at https://foundationbeyondbelief... . It is a humanist organization, so they are explicitly trying to just do good without promoting a religion.
They forward your money on to other causes (and it is clearly identified what they take as overhead, and you can reduce/increase that as you wish). They vet those causes for effectiveness. Every quarter they change who they donate money to, and you can adjust where your money goes within those groups.
They have an easy system to setup monthly payments, as well as giving you your end of year tax form, so it's painless to spread out your donation over time.
Line Replaceable Unit, meaning it's an unit that can be swapped out quickly.
Somehow I don't think that term really applies here...
Http://www.manager-tools.com
A life saver for me. Their very first podcast was on this exact topic (and, for that matter, every subsequent podcast). I can't recommend them highly enough.
Historical achievement, the glory of the grind. Much as my lower UID implies this comment should be more valuable than your high UID comment.
Wow... 69,642 is a low UID?
I *am* a god!
I actually thought that the fact that you forget it is 3D was a big plus.... they don't make it in your face, but it is a nice addition to the film. Eventually you just don't notice it anymore, but it still makes a difference.
I just went through a similiar exercise at work, to determine if TCP was a good enough protocol for a slow point to point wireless connection with a high bit error rate.
We ended up using DummyNet on FreeBSD, mostly because we happened to have a high-end FreeBSD box handy...
It's not just GCC. The bug is actually in the kernel... you can propose that GCC be extra careful not to trigger this bug, but if someone wants to make a binary that triggers it, they don't need GCC to do that.
It's a potential security hole, and an almost certain memory corruption-waiting-to-happen, and needs to get fixed in the kernel. GCC reverting to the old behaviour will, at best, prevent people from accidentally finding this.
"It wasn't spying, Commander Vimes told himself. Spying was when you crept around peeking in windows. It wasn't spying when you had to stand back a bit so you weren't deafened."
-- Jingo, Terry Pratchett
While I agree I don't want cops wasting time searching these sites to find crimes, investigating crimes already reported to them this way seems fair to me. The time wasted is low, investigators will get a feel for how useful it really is, and it's all in the public.
I had a real hassle when I bought my house. I told the mortgage about a bunch, but not all, of my accounts. When I went to pay the down-payment, I took the money out of somewhere else. It became a major hassle; they insisted I had to take the money from an account I had previously told them about.
I ended up taking an early-withdrawl penalty on a CD so I could do that.
His concern appears to be with a clause that would require publically releasing the keys that were used to sign-off sections of the code.
I'd have to look into it in more detail to figure out what keys he is referring to. Does anybody know? I could see the logic of GPLv3 requiring this, and I can also see Linus' objection.
In other words, this isn't a knee-jerk reaction.... there is logic to it. Now maybe what Linus should be doing is commenting on GPLv3 so that it gets changed, and for all we know he has.
lol. Well, I don't agree with ther tenets or their tenants!
I wonder how long I've been making that mistake...
I already posted that I don't think eHarmony is right for this particular person, but perhaps it'll work for someone else. So here's my experience with it, so far.
:)
First, you fill out a *very* long questionare. Once that was done ( over an hour ), it came back and said it had no matches for me. That's pretty depressing. I gradually expanded the search parameters (there are a few things, such as location, that you can control)... before long I had eHarmony telling me there was no one anywhere in the world for me! I had always suspected it, but you hate to have a computer confirm it.
About three or four days later, it got a hit. The next day, it got four more hits. I've yet to figure out the algorithm.... it's not rate limiting, but the hits seem to come in batches. Some people just signed up, but others seem to have been there for awhile.
Anyway, I've been a member since June, and have gotten over 50 hits with it. Of those 50, only 5 have I dismissed right away. Most of the rest never respond to me (if you take the questionaire, you show up as a match, but can't communicate unless you pay the money. No doubt a lot of the never-responders are people who aren't interested enough to pay).
I've actually communicated with only four people from the system, and only gone on any dates with one of them. It's too early to say how that's going...
For me, it works. I'm not the sort of person who wants to date casually... I'm not going to go out with someone just to have a date on Saturday night. If I'm going out with someone, it's because I'm really interested in them, or at least interested in becoming more interested.
I'm not sure I agree with all the tenants of eHarmony... I think they are more interested in creating "stable" relationships then they are in "good" relationships. Their argument would probably be that they can do the "stable" with statistics, and it's up to the people to decide on the "good". Maybe that's fair.
If you're looking for "casual" dating, eHarmony is out. Even they will tell you that. Match.com is probably the best known, and so it's probably also your best bet.
That's a rather unfair statement.
Yes, it is run by a guy who follows a religion. No, he doesn't push that on you at all. Supposidly, the people rejected are because they are not looking for relationships, just dates. That's a very different thing.
Of course, the information on how the matching is done is proprietary, so we'll never know for sure.
Still, the site is definitly *not* religiously based.
> Call a priest, and if one isn't available, burn it immediately.
Burning a priest just because he isn't available seems a little excessive.
Now, burning a priest just because he is a priest... that sounds much more reasonable.
It was a nice Sony recorder, except for one little flaw... after you put in a scratched-enough CD, it stopped working forever.
Here I was, trying to use cdparanoia to recover some CDs, and my drive stopped working.
It took three RMAs before I finally convinced Sony to stop shipping me back the drive and fix the damn firmware. The next time the firmware was upgraded, and the drive gave several more years of good service (probably still works, wherever it is).
Sure, it's possible. As long as you can telecommute (or break into your Y2K stockpiles), you can pay to get groceries delivered and everything. Hell, if you had the money, you could do that easily w/o e-commerce.
:)
I'm hardly a social person, and I probably could do the same without complaining much. But why would I?
Now if some online grocer was paying me a small fortune for advertising rights...
I'm in the same situation... I never got my Extra class license, because when I could listen to Morse that fast I hadn't studied for the exam, and by the time I had studied I hadn't done Morse code for so long that I couldn't do it anymore.
:)
That was a while ago
It looks like I'm getting grandfathered in, but I might as well restudy for the Extra class.
Overall I have to agree about Mandrake. It's a pretty slick system (I started using it after it appeared that Redhat was going to charge $70 for their box set).
I wonder if it is a good move to fall out of sync with Redhat version numbers though. One of the things I like about Mandrake is that it was built on top of Redhat. Although that doesn't appear to have changed, the version numbers make things a little harder to remember.
Oh well... it's not a big deal anyway. And it does appear to merit the increase.
It's true that there is certainly some overlap. But I could say that "All Americans are lazy" and there would be some overlap too. Some people might still get offended.
As far as hacker ethics go... I consider myself a hacker (albeit a minor hacker), and I don't have any illegal software or music on my computer. As for software, that is the beauty of Linux for me. There isn't even a temptation to grab other software... I've got all I need.
As far as ethics go, perhaps I just don't have the hackers ethic. If I don't agree with a license agreement, then I don't open/use the software. By opening or using it, I am in effect making a promise. If I am not willing to uphold that promise, then I shouldn't have made it. So I don't. Now I am getting back at the manufactorer by using capatalism to my advantage.
Probably a bit less severe than the long term effects of a gun.
I haven't heard Smoke-off, although I have heard of it. I have recordings of him singing some of his poems, and of course who could ever forget "The Freaker's Ball."
I always liked to bring that one out for people who thought Shel did just kid stuff.
Secure shell can tunnel anything, including FTP connections. You could probably even throw together a wrapper script called sftp or something. It just means that the server has to have secure shell as well as ftp.
I'm not sure I would agree. This comment was offtopic and basically a troll. Not worth marking down, but certainly not worth a 4 either.
Otherwise the moderation works well.