Functional, yes, but I *really* don't like the idea of my mail users having SSH access to the system. IMAP and a decent Webmail client will give them a more intuitive UI without requiring you to open up SSH to users who have no business using it. SSH should be default deny, with a whitelist of allowed users, and that whitelist should be kept to a minimum.
So set their shell to alpine instead of bash. There may be other steps you need to take to lock it down, but just because they can authenticate via SSH doesn't mean you have to give them full control over your server.
Programming isn't an end to itself. Programming is a means to an end, and it's a lot of fun to pick an end and find a means to it. Kids need to learn that using their brains is fun, whether that means programming or something else.
Copyright is simply a perversion of a bad idea fashioned out of a method of censorship. It is not compatible with the 21st century.
I respectfully disagree, I think it's a perversion of a good idea. I think if copyright terms were shortened - to say, 14 years from date of first publication plus one optional 14-year renewal, for example - that would solve a lot of problems. Everything older than 1984 would be in the public domain, and all new content would have to compete for audience attention against all that older material which would be freely (legally) available as long as anybody cared to distribute it. You'd still be able to buy movies on DVD or BluRay, because as long as people are willing to pay for the convenience somebody will step up and offer a product for sale, but prices would be dirt cheap because you could legally rip a copy and share it with a million of your closest friends online. And people would still rush to the theaters to watch the latest Hollywood blockbuster, because of the perception that the new movies they're coming out with today are BETTER than the movies they released in the early 80s.
Ah, finally, all those Online-something goodies for chkdsk. I've always wanted to have Windows Activation Wizard popping up before my chkdsk session, just in case I was in doubt was my copy legitimate. (It is btw)
I assume they meant "online" as in "in the background while the rest of the system is operational", rather than "connected to the Internet and phoning home to Microsoft", but I could be wrong.
My company has people in (at least) three different cities who need to access various passwords (and we sometimes work from home, especially when something breaks in the middle of the night). Your solution wouldn't work for us at all.
The boyfriend isn't there to offer opinions. Anyone who can get a girl friend knows the importance of lying when asked about clothes. The boyfriend is taken to serve as a pack-mule.
Of course he's there to offer opinions. Specifically, he's there to offer the correct opinions. Unfortunately he likely has no idea which ones those are...
Prolific spammer Facebook allegedly implements an anti-spam mechanism?
In related news, Exxon has announced that henceforth its offshore drilling platforms will be called "environmental enhancement modules".
Facebook may be many despicable things, but I've never known them to be spammers themselves (they certainly facilitate plenty of unwanted crap I don't want to see, but they also provide mechanisms for blocking that). Is there some particular behavior you had in mind that I'm not thinking of?
When I was on Facebook, I didn't friend anyone unless I actually *knew* the person.
I feel the same way. That's why Facebook is completely useless to me and never appealed to me. Make sense? If I had some unhealthy need for the casual attention of strangers and distant acquaintences then I would have a case for using Facebook.
If I wanted substandard Web hosting or if I wanted to play frivolous mini-games I can do that without the long list of downsides that come with using Facebook.
Yes... Facebook is pretty useless if you don't actually have any friends, and I certainly wouldn't suggest that you should use it. For those of us who do have friends, though, it's a convenient way to stay in touch (particularly for friends I can't see regularly because they don't live nearby).
Why let it go as far as they did? They easily had enough material for a conviction on numerous charges that would have put him away for a long time before they actually went all the way with the "attack". Why actually let the suspect go all the way down to the ceremony, place the "bomb" and let him try to detonate it? The moment he was even in possession of the "explosives" he would have been guilty of a number of major felonies. The fact that they let it play out in a public place was clearly theater meant to induce some sort of reaction in the Portland leadership.
Apparently they weren't sure they could get a conviction unless he actually pressed the button. So, they let him believe there was a bomb, gave him the button, and waited for him to press it. He did, and when nothing happened, he pressed it again. Had they not done so, his lawyer could have argued that he never really intended to go through with it.
Context is important - not just textual context, but historical and cultural context. You have to look beyond the words on the page, and consider how they were meant to be understood. That doesn't mean not taking it literally - you just have to be careful about what you mean by "literally."
Unfortunately this is rather difficult for most of us in the 21st century. How is the casual reader to know and understand the cultural differences between the audiences of these two Gospels? You've obviously studied this, but those who haven't might dismiss the whole thing just because of a misunderstanding.
Maybe you'll show us what you expect by working through examples with some of the religions that *you* reject.
An excellent idea! I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that nobody has taken you up on this.
I won't claim that any of this is scientific, or even particularly logical, but let's start with a few easy ones.
If we begin with the premise that human beings are flawed, imperfect, easily corruptible, and greedy, then it should be pretty obvious that any religion that's founded by one guy is pretty likely to be a load of crap.
Also, one would expect a true religion to be timeless, in the sense that once its tenants have been established, you wouldn't expect to see any significant doctrinal changes. If the church can change its position on an issue, who's to say their current position is the correct one and it won't be superseded by tomorrow's divine revelation? Forks, however, don't necessarily count as doctrinal changes. And I'd be pretty lenient when it comes to misinterpretations, when the core teachings of the religion are silent on a particular issue but a group of believers chooses to adopt some boneheaded stance - that shouldn't invalidate the whole thing.
Finally, any religion that actually encourages people to turn off their brains and stop thinking for themselves isn't for me - but a bunch of Slashdotters claiming that you'd have to do that in order to accept the religion doesn't make this so.
No, when I am voting to reduce the size of government and taxes I am voting my lack of confidence in government to solve problems and to do anything meaningful with my hard earned money.
I appreciate that you don't have confidence in your government, but unfortunately there are two different problems that often get blended together in people's minds: the first is corruption and waste, and the second is a lack of resources. You don't think the government can solve problems, but is that because they're not interested in solving problems, or is it because they don't have the necessary resources to solve problems? Or is your position really that these problems can't be solved by any government due to the nature of the problems themselves?
Can you honestly say that the trillions that have been pissed away have really solved anything? Do you really believe that more money given to incompetent people to expand more incompetence will work? Has it ever worked?
I can honestly say that some of the things the government has done and is continuing to do have been very positive. Government agencies from NOAA and USGS to NHTSA and OSHA to USDA and CDC are literally saving lives with their work. Plenty of other agencies like the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Park Service and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting do cool stuff.
That doesn't mean the Department of Homeland Security isn't spending billions of dollars to line the pockets of their friends while desperately trying to justify their own existence with virtually no benefit to the public. It doesn't excuse the GSA's recent scandal. It doesn't mean the Iraq war wasn't a catastrophic mistake, or that handing a big pile of cash to a bunch of banks with no strings attached was a good idea.
Unfortunately when you try to cut taxes and "reduce the size of government", it's that first group that usually gets cut. Why? Because the people who make those decisions are corrupt and/or incompetent!
You want to put MORE power and money into the hands of armed government agents?
Yes, because I want those armed government agents to help me when I have a problem, and I know that today they don't have the resources to do so.
Now, will they actually use the additional resources to help folks like me when we need their help? Maybe, but maybe not, and that's definitely something we need to look at and address. Of course this varies greatly by location, and perhaps if I lived where you do, I would be less optimistic.
On a less sarcastic note, the police have often refused to get involved even after a police report is filed _and_ the person knows exactly where the cell phone is (hello? They're radio transmitters). Police resources are only used in cases of violence, property damage, or theft of corporate property. Theft of private property is just... not important.
They're right, it's not important, compared to catching murderers and rapists and the like. The problem isn't that the police don't care about less important cases like the theft of an iPhone. The problem is that we as a society have decided that WE don't care enough to properly fund our police departments, so that they can handle these less important cases in addition to the more important ones.
Every time you vote to reduce taxes, and vote for politicians who say the government is too big, this is what you're voting for.
When I was a teenager I used to search female profiles on AOL and send text messages to strangers. No one thought it was creepy...
Back in those days, people expected that the information they entered about themselves in their profile would be accessible and searchable by random strangers, and it was considered acceptable to seek people out in that way. Anyone could enter public chatrooms, see the screen name of everyone else in the room, and send them private messages - this too was acceptable. However, most people don't expect modern social networking sites to work that way. The expectation is that only people you already know will see the things you post to Facebook, regardless of your privacy settings. As someone else pointed out, looking up random people on Facebook is comparable to knocking on random people's front doors.
Why is it creepy to have all the same information you'd have if you asked a friend of hers?
The "creepy" math is simple: woman finds man attractive, then all advances are "romantic"; woman finds man unattractive, then all advances are "creepy". There's no deeper meaning.
Don't they also need to be 'approved' by Microsoft? ( or is this no longer the case?) I was actually half expecting them to do what Apple does and block other browsers. The precedent seems to have been set.
Microsoft has actually been behaving themselves recently. They offered assistance to the Mozilla folks to make sure Firefox would be supported on Windows Vista, they moved Windows Update into the control panel so you no longer need to browse to a web site in IE to update your OS, and Windows 7 gives you the option to remove Internet Explorer (although the rendering engine is still there, since lots of apps rely on it). Each version of IE since IE7 has been less awful, and when they wanted to add an RSS reader (which Firefox already had), they actually flew down to Mozilla headquarters to discuss using Firefox's RSS icon in IE because they figured it would cause less confusion for users if they cooperated. Microsoft refused to participate in WHATWG while HTML5 was being developed, but once W3C officially adopted HTML5, Microsoft got on board.
Does IE still suck? Hell yes, but it sucks a lot less than it used to, and Microsoft is playing by the rules now.
Why do people love Chrome so much? It's proprietary software and comes from a company with shoddy business ethics.
Because it's lightweight and fast, it doesn't pop up with an upgrade notice every two weeks, it has a good standards-compliant rendering engine, and Mozilla desperately needs the competition.
Uhhh... why conservative? The parent post seems to have a more liberal slant than conservative. Other than that I agree with your post.
The comment "Maybe I am just not a bleeding heart anymore" may suggest that he no longer considers himself to be a "bleeding heart liberal", and thus is now more conservative in his political views. In this country many people associate conservative political views with Christianity (thanks in part to the late Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority political group).
Slashdot Mirror
Joking aside, ssh and pine(*) work really well.
Functional, yes, but I *really* don't like the idea of my mail users having SSH access to the system. IMAP and a decent Webmail client will give them a more intuitive UI without requiring you to open up SSH to users who have no business using it. SSH should be default deny, with a whitelist of allowed users, and that whitelist should be kept to a minimum.
So set their shell to alpine instead of bash. There may be other steps you need to take to lock it down, but just because they can authenticate via SSH doesn't mean you have to give them full control over your server.
Yes. This.
Programming isn't an end to itself. Programming is a means to an end, and it's a lot of fun to pick an end and find a means to it. Kids need to learn that using their brains is fun, whether that means programming or something else.
Copyright is simply a perversion of a bad idea fashioned out of a method of censorship. It is not compatible with the 21st century.
I respectfully disagree, I think it's a perversion of a good idea. I think if copyright terms were shortened - to say, 14 years from date of first publication plus one optional 14-year renewal, for example - that would solve a lot of problems. Everything older than 1984 would be in the public domain, and all new content would have to compete for audience attention against all that older material which would be freely (legally) available as long as anybody cared to distribute it. You'd still be able to buy movies on DVD or BluRay, because as long as people are willing to pay for the convenience somebody will step up and offer a product for sale, but prices would be dirt cheap because you could legally rip a copy and share it with a million of your closest friends online. And people would still rush to the theaters to watch the latest Hollywood blockbuster, because of the perception that the new movies they're coming out with today are BETTER than the movies they released in the early 80s.
I know, I know, never gonna happen....
Ah, finally, all those Online-something goodies for chkdsk. I've always wanted to have Windows Activation Wizard popping up before my chkdsk session, just in case I was in doubt was my copy legitimate. (It is btw)
I assume they meant "online" as in "in the background while the rest of the system is operational", rather than "connected to the Internet and phoning home to Microsoft", but I could be wrong.
My company has people in (at least) three different cities who need to access various passwords (and we sometimes work from home, especially when something breaks in the middle of the night). Your solution wouldn't work for us at all.
The boyfriend isn't there to offer opinions. Anyone who can get a girl friend knows the importance of lying when asked about clothes. The boyfriend is taken to serve as a pack-mule.
Of course he's there to offer opinions. Specifically, he's there to offer the correct opinions. Unfortunately he likely has no idea which ones those are...
Prolific spammer Facebook allegedly implements an anti-spam mechanism?
In related news, Exxon has announced that henceforth its offshore drilling platforms will be
called "environmental enhancement modules".
Facebook may be many despicable things, but I've never known them to be spammers themselves (they certainly facilitate plenty of unwanted crap I don't want to see, but they also provide mechanisms for blocking that). Is there some particular behavior you had in mind that I'm not thinking of?
Sounds like it didn't actually go into effect: Missouri Repeals Law Restricting Teacher-Student Internet And Facebook Interaction
it she was aiming to take action against people who criticized her that should be a 1st amendment violation.
The 1st Amendment doesn't mean there are no consequences for the things you say, it just means the government can't prevent you from saying them.
When I was on Facebook, I didn't friend anyone unless I actually *knew* the person.
I feel the same way. That's why Facebook is completely useless to me and never appealed to me. Make sense? If I had some unhealthy need for the casual attention of strangers and distant acquaintences then I would have a case for using Facebook.
If I wanted substandard Web hosting or if I wanted to play frivolous mini-games I can do that without the long list of downsides that come with using Facebook.
Yes... Facebook is pretty useless if you don't actually have any friends, and I certainly wouldn't suggest that you should use it. For those of us who do have friends, though, it's a convenient way to stay in touch (particularly for friends I can't see regularly because they don't live nearby).
Sounds like your only recourse is to file a lawsuit. Sue the person who's doing it, and subpoena Facebook to find out who that is.
Why let it go as far as they did? They easily had enough material for a conviction on numerous charges that would have put him away for a long time before they actually went all the way with the "attack". Why actually let the suspect go all the way down to the ceremony, place the "bomb" and let him try to detonate it? The moment he was even in possession of the "explosives" he would have been guilty of a number of major felonies. The fact that they let it play out in a public place was clearly theater meant to induce some sort of reaction in the Portland leadership.
Apparently they weren't sure they could get a conviction unless he actually pressed the button. So, they let him believe there was a bomb, gave him the button, and waited for him to press it. He did, and when nothing happened, he pressed it again. Had they not done so, his lawyer could have argued that he never really intended to go through with it.
Yep. :-)
Context is important - not just textual context, but historical and cultural context. You have to look beyond the words on the page, and consider how they were meant to be understood. That doesn't mean not taking it literally - you just have to be careful about what you mean by "literally."
Unfortunately this is rather difficult for most of us in the 21st century. How is the casual reader to know and understand the cultural differences between the audiences of these two Gospels? You've obviously studied this, but those who haven't might dismiss the whole thing just because of a misunderstanding.
Maybe you'll show us what you expect by working through examples with some of the religions that *you* reject.
An excellent idea! I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that nobody has taken you up on this.
I won't claim that any of this is scientific, or even particularly logical, but let's start with a few easy ones.
If we begin with the premise that human beings are flawed, imperfect, easily corruptible, and greedy, then it should be pretty obvious that any religion that's founded by one guy is pretty likely to be a load of crap.
Also, one would expect a true religion to be timeless, in the sense that once its tenants have been established, you wouldn't expect to see any significant doctrinal changes. If the church can change its position on an issue, who's to say their current position is the correct one and it won't be superseded by tomorrow's divine revelation? Forks, however, don't necessarily count as doctrinal changes. And I'd be pretty lenient when it comes to misinterpretations, when the core teachings of the religion are silent on a particular issue but a group of believers chooses to adopt some boneheaded stance - that shouldn't invalidate the whole thing.
Finally, any religion that actually encourages people to turn off their brains and stop thinking for themselves isn't for me - but a bunch of Slashdotters claiming that you'd have to do that in order to accept the religion doesn't make this so.
No, when I am voting to reduce the size of government and taxes I am voting my lack of confidence in government to solve problems and to do anything meaningful with my hard earned money.
I appreciate that you don't have confidence in your government, but unfortunately there are two different problems that often get blended together in people's minds: the first is corruption and waste, and the second is a lack of resources. You don't think the government can solve problems, but is that because they're not interested in solving problems, or is it because they don't have the necessary resources to solve problems? Or is your position really that these problems can't be solved by any government due to the nature of the problems themselves?
Can you honestly say that the trillions that have been pissed away have really solved anything? Do you really believe that more money given to incompetent people to expand more incompetence will work? Has it ever worked?
I can honestly say that some of the things the government has done and is continuing to do have been very positive. Government agencies from NOAA and USGS to NHTSA and OSHA to USDA and CDC are literally saving lives with their work. Plenty of other agencies like the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Park Service and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting do cool stuff.
That doesn't mean the Department of Homeland Security isn't spending billions of dollars to line the pockets of their friends while desperately trying to justify their own existence with virtually no benefit to the public. It doesn't excuse the GSA's recent scandal. It doesn't mean the Iraq war wasn't a catastrophic mistake, or that handing a big pile of cash to a bunch of banks with no strings attached was a good idea.
Unfortunately when you try to cut taxes and "reduce the size of government", it's that first group that usually gets cut. Why? Because the people who make those decisions are corrupt and/or incompetent!
You want to put MORE power and money into the hands of armed government agents?
Yes, because I want those armed government agents to help me when I have a problem, and I know that today they don't have the resources to do so.
Now, will they actually use the additional resources to help folks like me when we need their help? Maybe, but maybe not, and that's definitely something we need to look at and address. Of course this varies greatly by location, and perhaps if I lived where you do, I would be less optimistic.
On a less sarcastic note, the police have often refused to get involved even after a police report is filed _and_ the person knows exactly where the cell phone is (hello? They're radio transmitters). Police resources are only used in cases of violence, property damage, or theft of corporate property. Theft of private property is just... not important.
They're right, it's not important, compared to catching murderers and rapists and the like. The problem isn't that the police don't care about less important cases like the theft of an iPhone. The problem is that we as a society have decided that WE don't care enough to properly fund our police departments, so that they can handle these less important cases in addition to the more important ones.
Every time you vote to reduce taxes, and vote for politicians who say the government is too big, this is what you're voting for.
You lose GPS if you unlock, search: iphone unlock gps baseband 06.15.00
I'm pretty sure AT&T's official unlocking method won't involve replacing the firmware to trick your iPhone into thinking it's an iPad.
When I was a teenager I used to search female profiles on AOL and send text messages to strangers. No one thought it was creepy...
Back in those days, people expected that the information they entered about themselves in their profile would be accessible and searchable by random strangers, and it was considered acceptable to seek people out in that way. Anyone could enter public chatrooms, see the screen name of everyone else in the room, and send them private messages - this too was acceptable. However, most people don't expect modern social networking sites to work that way. The expectation is that only people you already know will see the things you post to Facebook, regardless of your privacy settings. As someone else pointed out, looking up random people on Facebook is comparable to knocking on random people's front doors.
My how times have changed.
Why is it creepy to have all the same information you'd have if you asked a friend of hers?
The "creepy" math is simple: woman finds man attractive, then all advances are "romantic"; woman finds man unattractive, then all advances are "creepy". There's no deeper meaning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBVuAGFcGKY
Don't they also need to be 'approved' by Microsoft? ( or is this no longer the case?) I was actually half expecting them to do what Apple does and block other browsers. The precedent seems to have been set.
Microsoft has actually been behaving themselves recently. They offered assistance to the Mozilla folks to make sure Firefox would be supported on Windows Vista, they moved Windows Update into the control panel so you no longer need to browse to a web site in IE to update your OS, and Windows 7 gives you the option to remove Internet Explorer (although the rendering engine is still there, since lots of apps rely on it). Each version of IE since IE7 has been less awful, and when they wanted to add an RSS reader (which Firefox already had), they actually flew down to Mozilla headquarters to discuss using Firefox's RSS icon in IE because they figured it would cause less confusion for users if they cooperated. Microsoft refused to participate in WHATWG while HTML5 was being developed, but once W3C officially adopted HTML5, Microsoft got on board.
Does IE still suck? Hell yes, but it sucks a lot less than it used to, and Microsoft is playing by the rules now.
I'm more concerned that someone under the presumption of innocence is instead being tried in the court of public opinion
I don't feel compelled to presume Zimmerman's innocence before he's been charged with a crime.
Why do people love Chrome so much? It's proprietary software and comes from a company with shoddy business ethics.
Because it's lightweight and fast, it doesn't pop up with an upgrade notice every two weeks, it has a good standards-compliant rendering engine, and Mozilla desperately needs the competition.
I know a guaranteed way to become a millionaire!
Step 1: start with a billion dollars...
Uhhh... why conservative? The parent post seems to have a more liberal slant than conservative. Other than that I agree with your post.
The comment "Maybe I am just not a bleeding heart anymore" may suggest that he no longer considers himself to be a "bleeding heart liberal", and thus is now more conservative in his political views. In this country many people associate conservative political views with Christianity (thanks in part to the late Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority political group).