Problem is, you also need to have an email client that either runs the script automatically, or allows you to run the script just by clicking on the attachment. None of the Unix email clients I've seen do that. So to run the script you actually need to:
1) save it as a file
2) enable execute permission (chmod +x file)
3) run.
So there is no way you can run it inadvertantly (as is the case with Outlook).
A few suits have trouble because they only know "names" like Exchange or Outlook. They also expect to see a calendar in their e-mail software....although they can't explain why it belongs there./
LOL! This is so true, and I've had to deal with these types myself. These are probably the best words of wisdom in this entire thread. Thank you!
Considering that the so-called Liberals are about to pass the Canadian version of DMCA, I'd say the ATA and SSSCA equivalents will make their way to Canada in due time.
Hah! The only problem with this approach is that the *congressmen* are supposed to vote it in. Now think about it: why would a congressman, a corrupt bought-and-paid-for congressman want to vote for something that eliminates, or at least significantly reduces, his ahem... "income"? So far there is, what, one guy even supporting campaign finance reform? (John McCain). I remember seeing it on the news: one rabid republican from Kentucky (forget his name) not only opposed campaign finance reform, but even threatened to sue in the supreme court, in the unlikely event that this matter should ever be approved by congress...
And that's just the first point on your list. Eliminate electoral college? Not a chance! Ban campaign ads on TV? Dream on! Term limits for congressmen? Now how can you make enough "income" with a limited term?? No, I'm afraid the govermnment is too rotten to change itself...
Why is it that everybody jumps up and down thinking that XML is some kind of magic potion? XML is useful in some cases but it solves none of the problems bobm is asking about.
Since when ist Alan the primary maintainer for Linux 2.4?
Traditionally, Linus has been in charge of the development tree while Alan has been in charge of the stable tree. Since the 2.5 tree hasn't been forked yet, Linus is running the 2.4 tree right now.
there's been read-write driver since 2.2.x (at least) but it was marked experimental and could easily cause file system corruption. A lot of work is being done on write support right now. Of course since NTFS is undocumented and Microsoft keeps making subtle changes to it, it's very hard to get a stable read-write support. Read-only works perfectly though. I've used it myself way back when I had NT 4 on my machine.
Ruling aside the obvious objections (changing major subsystems in a so-called "stable" kernel, NIH syndrome) I can only assume Alan's objection is that it was yet another really neat thing developed (or sponsored) by rival Linux company SuSE (like reiserfs, which he also objected to)
That's a very strong allegation, and you'd better have some solid facts to back it up. I don't care for RedHat but I have great respect for Alan Cox. His objections seem valid to me. I'd also be very reluctant to do a major change in the stable release of any software, especially if I was the primary maintainer (like Alan Cox is for Linux). You'd better come up with some concrete evidence to justify your claim, or I'll assume you are just trolling.
Question. Why couldn't someone take a MP Alpha motherboard and plug a bunch of Athlons into it?
Someone did. The old slot Athlons fit in the Alpha boards and work fine. The current socket ones do not. Question is why would you want to do it? If you have an Alpha board you might as well stick Alpha CPUs in it...
It's good to know that at least some people understand the situation well. US's actions towards the middle east is what caused this attack in the first place. So it's not enough to simply catch/kill Osama bin Laden and destroy his organization. US foreign policy towards the middle east must change. If it doesn't, another Osama bin Laden will take his place.
Uhhm, this is just getting silly. Quoting directly from this post:
Secondly, you do not understand the issue. I am not talking about US's current actions. I am talking about what US has done in the past -- what caused these people to revenge in the first place.
Furthermore, revenge has to come as a result of some past injustice. It cannot come as a result of future events. I assumed this was self-explanatory. Apparently not.
My stance is unchanged: US's past actions were wrong. They led to the 9/11 retaliation, which was also wrong. If you condemn the terrorists' actions (which I do) then you must also condemn those of US (which I also do).
End of story.
Oh, I see. You keep confusing the current retaliation with the past US's sins. As I stated two posts ago, I am not talking about US's current actions -- in fact, if anything, I think it's a good idea to bring the perpetrators to justice, but that's a separate discussion altogether. What I was talking about (as I repeatedly sated) is about US *past* actions. The actions that caused the anti-american sentiment throughout the middle east and central asia. The actions that caused these people to retaliate. (cause comes before effect, you know:-)
If you want to be a pacifist then be so, but then you most certainly must condemn the terrorists instead of defending their actions.
I did (as I said previously) condemn the killing of the innocent. And I aslo said that if you condemn the killing of US civilians, then you must also condemn the killing of civilians of other countries, as US has done in the past. You have completely ignored this point.
I do not claim to be a pacifist though. The said reality prevents this idea from flourishing.
huh? what? Your post makes no sense whatsoever.
To claim that you don't support killing innocent people, and then try to equate the killing of guilty people with the killing of innocents is fundamentally flawed logic.
First, would you care to point out when I claimed that? This statement makes your post not only logically flawed, but outright false.
Secondly, it is not contridictory to condemn the killing of innocent and the killing of guilty at the same time. Some people do -- Amish for example. They are pure pacifists. They believe only God can decide who is to live and who is to die. In fact, "Thou shalt not kill" technically applies to both guilty and innocent....
Please think before you post. And do not make false claims -- it does not add any "logic" to your statements.
Uhhm, your entire post is logically flawed. Please read my post agan. I explicitly stated that I do not support the killing of innocent people, therefore to kill someone in revenge cannot be justified.
Secondly, you do not understand the issue. I am not talking about US's current actions. I am talking about what US has done in the past -- what caused these people to revenge in the first place. Things like supporting dictatorial regimes like Iraq, Iran, and Taliban (did you know that Taliban came to power with US help?) when it suits US's interest; training and supporting terrorists like Osama bin Laden (did you know that he was trained and supported by CIA?); bombing and starving millions of innocent civilians in Iraq (after Saddam Husein was officially declared evil).... I suggest you rethink your position before responding.
Apparently you believe these "terrorists" are not that but rather "freedom fighters" and were justified in their attack on 9/11.
Nope. But I do believe that they were driven by revenge. (as if it's not obvious!)
If you believe (as I do) that it is wrong for these people to kill innocent civilians, than surely you must believe it is wrong for US to do the same to people of other countries. Alternatively, if you think US was justified in its actions, then surely you must also think that the "terrorists" were also justified in their revenge. You can't have it both ways.
Does the United States sponser terrorism? Yes. Even without getting into an argument over what terrorism is, we train death squads that are used for right-wing forces in Latin America
You should also mention that US helped bring the "big evil Taliban" to power in the first place.
I think if we could go into afganistan and truely create a fair, just, democratic government it would be worth the sacrifice of American lives.
Thank you for saying it and falling into the trap of propaganda!
In 1979, when the communist government of Afganistan was overthrown and civil war began, USSR tried to liberate Afganistan, kick out the evil religios freaks, and establish a fair and democratic government. Fast forward to the present. US is trying to liberate Afganistan, kick out the evil religios freaks, and establish a fair and democratic government. The only thing that's needed for the situation to become a complete reversal is for Russia to start supplying the mujahedin with weapons (i.e. the very people they were fighting against!).
I urge you to read 1984 if you have not yet done so.
Military action should be seen as the very smallest part of an effort to combat this idea. Making fair, sane foreign policy decisions should have been a priority before 9/11. Making them now is not "appeasement" it's just the right thing to do. I do think it's rather sad that until U.S. lives were at stake that no one in America gave a damn about our foreign policy but it has now become a matter of national security.
Finally the voice of reason! I wish more people would understand this. Sadly, I fear this is very unlikely to happen. If anything, I expect the situation to get worse. Just look at what the media and the government have been doing ever since the attack -- they fully encourage this view of self-righteosness and villify the enemy.
Please read Hacker Cracker's post again. It describes the situation perfectly. The "terrorists" are punching back. US is at step #7 that has gone contrary to its expectations.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, TummyX strikes again. Perhaps you should also mention how Microsoft stole many many many ideas from Mac, Unix, VMS, etc.
Problem is, you also need to have an email client that either runs the script automatically, or allows you to run the script just by clicking on the attachment. None of the Unix email clients I've seen do that. So to run the script you actually need to:
1) save it as a file
2) enable execute permission (chmod +x file)
3) run.
So there is no way you can run it inadvertantly (as is the case with Outlook).
LOL! This is so true, and I've had to deal with these types myself. These are probably the best words of wisdom in this entire thread. Thank you!
There is no mention of prices on the meetingmaker's web site. That's usually not a good sign...
Considering that the so-called Liberals are about to pass the Canadian version of DMCA, I'd say the ATA and SSSCA equivalents will make their way to Canada in due time.
Hah! The only problem with this approach is that the *congressmen* are supposed to vote it in. Now think about it: why would a congressman, a corrupt bought-and-paid-for congressman want to vote for something that eliminates, or at least significantly reduces, his ahem... "income"? So far there is, what, one guy even supporting campaign finance reform? (John McCain). I remember seeing it on the news: one rabid republican from Kentucky (forget his name) not only opposed campaign finance reform, but even threatened to sue in the supreme court, in the unlikely event that this matter should ever be approved by congress...
And that's just the first point on your list. Eliminate electoral college? Not a chance! Ban campaign ads on TV? Dream on! Term limits for congressmen? Now how can you make enough "income" with a limited term?? No, I'm afraid the govermnment is too rotten to change itself...
Why is it that everybody jumps up and down thinking that XML is some kind of magic potion? XML is useful in some cases but it solves none of the problems bobm is asking about.
Traditionally, Linus has been in charge of the development tree while Alan has been in charge of the stable tree. Since the 2.5 tree hasn't been forked yet, Linus is running the 2.4 tree right now.
there's been read-write driver since 2.2.x (at least) but it was marked experimental and could easily cause file system corruption. A lot of work is being done on write support right now. Of course since NTFS is undocumented and Microsoft keeps making subtle changes to it, it's very hard to get a stable read-write support. Read-only works perfectly though. I've used it myself way back when I had NT 4 on my machine.
NTFS has been supported since at least 2.2.x.
That's a very strong allegation, and you'd better have some solid facts to back it up. I don't care for RedHat but I have great respect for Alan Cox. His objections seem valid to me. I'd also be very reluctant to do a major change in the stable release of any software, especially if I was the primary maintainer (like Alan Cox is for Linux). You'd better come up with some concrete evidence to justify your claim, or I'll assume you are just trolling.
Someone did. The old slot Athlons fit in the Alpha boards and work fine. The current socket ones do not. Question is why would you want to do it? If you have an Alpha board you might as well stick Alpha CPUs in it...
I estimate that the probability of heatsink "falling off" is about equal to the probability of the sky "falling off"
huh? Every singe AMD CPU from lowly Duron to the latest Athlon 4/Athlon XP /Athlon Foo supports SMP.
It is this kind of attitude that got US attacked in the first place...
It's good to know that at least some people understand the situation well. US's actions towards the middle east is what caused this attack in the first place. So it's not enough to simply catch/kill Osama bin Laden and destroy his organization. US foreign policy towards the middle east must change. If it doesn't, another Osama bin Laden will take his place.
Secondly, you do not understand the issue. I am not talking about US's current actions. I am talking about what US has done in the past -- what caused these people to revenge in the first place.
Furthermore, revenge has to come as a result of some past injustice. It cannot come as a result of future events. I assumed this was self-explanatory. Apparently not.
My stance is unchanged: US's past actions were wrong. They led to the 9/11 retaliation, which was also wrong. If you condemn the terrorists' actions (which I do) then you must also condemn those of US (which I also do).
End of story.
If you want to be a pacifist then be so, but then you most certainly must condemn the terrorists instead of defending their actions.
I did (as I said previously) condemn the killing of the innocent. And I aslo said that if you condemn the killing of US civilians, then you must also condemn the killing of civilians of other countries, as US has done in the past. You have completely ignored this point.
I do not claim to be a pacifist though. The said reality prevents this idea from flourishing.
First, would you care to point out when I claimed that? This statement makes your post not only logically flawed, but outright false.
Secondly, it is not contridictory to condemn the killing of innocent and the killing of guilty at the same time. Some people do -- Amish for example. They are pure pacifists. They believe only God can decide who is to live and who is to die. In fact, "Thou shalt not kill" technically applies to both guilty and innocent....
Please think before you post. And do not make false claims -- it does not add any "logic" to your statements.
Uhhm, your entire post is logically flawed. Please read my post agan. I explicitly stated that I do not support the killing of innocent people, therefore to kill someone in revenge cannot be justified.
Secondly, you do not understand the issue. I am not talking about US's current actions. I am talking about what US has done in the past -- what caused these people to revenge in the first place. Things like supporting dictatorial regimes like Iraq, Iran, and Taliban (did you know that Taliban came to power with US help?) when it suits US's interest; training and supporting terrorists like Osama bin Laden (did you know that he was trained and supported by CIA?); bombing and starving millions of innocent civilians in Iraq (after Saddam Husein was officially declared evil).... I suggest you rethink your position before responding.
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before. -- Mae West, "Klondike Annie"
Nope. But I do believe that they were driven by revenge. (as if it's not obvious!)
If you believe (as I do) that it is wrong for these people to kill innocent civilians, than surely you must believe it is wrong for US to do the same to people of other countries. Alternatively, if you think US was justified in its actions, then surely you must also think that the "terrorists" were also justified in their revenge. You can't have it both ways.
You should also mention that US helped bring the "big evil Taliban" to power in the first place.
I think if we could go into afganistan and truely create a fair, just, democratic government it would be worth the sacrifice of American lives.
Thank you for saying it and falling into the trap of propaganda!
In 1979, when the communist government of Afganistan was overthrown and civil war began, USSR tried to liberate Afganistan, kick out the evil religios freaks, and establish a fair and democratic government. Fast forward to the present. US is trying to liberate Afganistan, kick out the evil religios freaks, and establish a fair and democratic government. The only thing that's needed for the situation to become a complete reversal is for Russia to start supplying the mujahedin with weapons (i.e. the very people they were fighting against!).
I urge you to read 1984 if you have not yet done so.
Military action should be seen as the very smallest part of an effort to combat this idea. Making fair, sane foreign policy decisions should have been a priority before 9/11. Making them now is not "appeasement" it's just the right thing to do. I do think it's rather sad that until U.S. lives were at stake that no one in America gave a damn about our foreign policy but it has now become a matter of national security.
Finally the voice of reason! I wish more people would understand this. Sadly, I fear this is very unlikely to happen. If anything, I expect the situation to get worse. Just look at what the media and the government have been doing ever since the attack -- they fully encourage this view of self-righteosness and villify the enemy.
Please read Hacker Cracker's post again. It describes the situation perfectly. The "terrorists" are punching back. US is at step #7 that has gone contrary to its expectations.
Neither are those of the "terrorists".