It's not just this article. This article just PROVES that JonKatz can't keep his prejudices from getting in the way of rational judgement and sanity.
He's ALREADY implied, over and over, that he doesn't think Christians and members of other religions are welcome on Slashdot. But by deliberately excluded "religion" from his list of people who should be included, his "gender, age, nationality" list, he's clearly showing that his prejudices are keeping him for speaking fairly in this (he thinks) very important issue.
It's not that JonKatz didn't include Christians in his list of people who should be "included", it's that he WOULDN'T. I know JonKatz would never say that. Because he wants to look "cool," he'd never be caught dead saying anything remotely pro-religion or pro-religious-tolerance in an atheistic society like Slashdot where dangerous ideas like religious tolerance are taboo.
Jon Katz, the young rich white technically-saavy (cough) atheist, who's willing to accept the non-young, the non-rich, the non-white, the non-technically-saavy, but not the non-atheist.
What are you afraid of, Jon Katz? I'm calling you out. Are you a coward, or aren't you?
Yes, I read it. Yes, perhaps atheists are persecuted more than Christians in meatspace, but we're not talking about meatspace, we're talking about the Internet, and on the Internet, situations are clearly reversed.
But there's no such thing as "reverse discrimination", discrimination is ALWAYS discrimination even if it runs counter to "traditional" discrimination.
The article you linked to has no merit in this situation, because it refers to people and events in meatspace, rather than on the Internet, specifically on technology sites like Slashdot, and as should be obvious the cultures and demographics are almost polar opposites.
Katz is using Slashdot as a soapbox to promote a hypocritical views. He writes an article and makes it a "feature" everytime he's ever offended by anything.
Well, JonKatz, life is offensive. Do something more productive with your time, maybe?
I'm not complaining. I'm just pointing out what a hypocrite Katz is being.
Take a deep breath, and read his article again.
You'll see that he's in favour of "including" people based on:
1. Age 2. Gender 3. Nationality
But where is
4. Religion???
IF Katz cared about free speech, he would want ALL people to be "included", regardless of belifs.
Katz's thinking goes like this:
"Women are okay, I guess... as long as they don't disagree with me. So let's include them. Old people are okay... as long as they don't disagree with me. They're in. 'Foreigners' are fine, also, as long as they don't disagree with me. So they get an invitation also. But religious people DON'T agree with me, so I won't mention them. Christians disagree with me... so they don't belong here. Muslims disagree with me... so who cares if they're excluded! Jews tend to disagree with me also... so they're out of luck also. They don't get the benefit from the wonderfully intelligent and influential articles that I spam Slashdot with. *cough*"
So, WHY did Katz include gender, nationality, and age, but not religion?
That's easy. All we have to do is look at a previous article he's written. Remember his terribly insulting "Onward Christian Geeks" piece? I think that's proof enough of his anti-religion bias.
Where are his articles that insult OTHER groups like that. Where is his "Onward Female Geeks" article in which he insults the efforts of women to move into more "geek" areas of interest. Where is his "Onward Jewish Geeks" rant, where he mocks and ridicules the activity of Jews on the Internet? Where is, "Onward, Elderly Geeks", in which he described how old people are the bane of the Internet?
The answer? NOWHERE. That's because it's only "fashionable" and "in-style" on Slashdot to insult Christians and Microsoft employees, i.e. those people who don't agree with the dominant atheist paradigm of Slashdot.
I've read Katz's articles. They're cute. I've read what he said about accountability.
Well, Katz, you'll see my name and e-mail on this post. I am taking accountability for what I say, and what I am saying is "YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE."
I AM CALLING YOU OUT, JON KATZ. I am calling you out. What are you going to do? Write another inane article about it?
It's Jon Katz who's too cowardly to take responsibility to what he writes.
And to whomever moderated my post down as a "troll", I assure you it was not. It came from the heart. I propose two new down-moderation categories to satisfy the atheists on Slashdot:
-1, contains the truth -1, disagrees with the dominant atheistic paradigm
I hope you get busted up in meta-moderation.
Peace out. Have a great day everyone. (Yes, even Katz.)
1. Jon Katz is a subtle twister of words. 2. The Slashdot community has become so accepting of the persecution and exclusion of Christians and anyone else who doesn't buy into the latest atheistic paradigm that most people don't even notice anymore. 3. Most Christians don't put up with reading the comments on Slashdot, or reading JonKatz's articles, because of the hatred, inanity, and mindless self-centeredness that most Slashdot comments/JonKatz articles express. Most people who don't agree with the dominant atheistic paradigm just don't want to put up with the abuse. Funny how Katz wants to include EVERYONE... except people he doesn't like, i.e. anyone how doesn't agree with the dominant atheistic paradigm.
You know FULL WELL that anyone posting to Slashdot who doesn't agree with the dominant atheistic paradigm will be mocked, excluded, and insulted. Showing similar behavior towards women, people of a specific ethnicity, or almost anyone else for that matter, would be regarded as hateful and completely unacceptable, but when the hostility is directed towards people who disagree with the dominant atheistic paradigm, it's suddenly okay. Everyone cheers. "My gosh, that poster doesn't agree with the dominant atheistic paradigm! He/she should be BANNED from Slashdot! Let's make all such people feel unwelcome by calling them nasty names. Doing so will make me popular with all my friends! WE'VE GOT TO DEFEND THE STATUS QUO!!"
Katz seems to be in favour of political correctness for some, and inclusion for some, but not for all.
Katz mentions the exclusion of "women, older people, foreigners, newcomers, and newbies" in favour of "technologically skilled young white men," but he neglects to mention the one group most abused, most insulted, and most excluded on the sites he discusses: (non-liberal) Christians.
What he SHOULD have said, to be accurate, instead of "technologically skilled young white men," was "technologically skilled young white ATHEIST men," with the "atheist" attribute seeming to lead to MUCH more hatred, rudeness, and bigotry than all the "young" and "white" and "men" attributes combined.
It seems that Katz has an agenda here... inclusion for all, regardless of race, sex, or age... as long as their beliefs don't differ from his own. He's talking out one side of his mouth, trying to sound fair and inclusionary, but intentionally leaves out Christians, the most excluded and most persecuted group (other than perhaps MCSE's) on sites like this.
Katz has shown his anti-Christian leanings numerous times in the past. I've been forced several times to write letters to Christian groups and articles for Christian websites about some of Katz's more insulting, distasteful articles, and it looks like that time ago. Sorry, JonKatz, but there *ARE* reasons not to like you, and I've just exposed one of them.
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX/HURD of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HIRD of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HURD of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HIRD of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HURD of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HIRD of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HURD of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HIRD of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HURD of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HIRD of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HURD of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HIRD of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HURD of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HIRD of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HIRD of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
She's most notable for her roles as Claudia on Party of Five and Penny in the recent film Lost in Space. She'll be appearing in two upcoming films, "Tart" and "Christmas with JD" in 2000.
What I'm really tiring of are these zealous self-righteous "the millennium begins in 2000" people. They're so fanatical about it. Their snide self-important comments are so annoying. For one thing by the Gregorian calender in which we live, 2000 is NOT the start of the milleNNium (most of the 2000-heads can't even spell it), and secondly you are exhibiting a very revealing characteristic about your personality, we've all heard it before, it's in every damn TV commercial, and it can be debated all you want... bu there isn't a point to it, we just want to have some fun, but the Cult of 2000 denies us the right to speak and threatens us with physical violence and social ostracism as they continue to paint their ignorance everywhere you care to look. Be careful not to show these people any shiny objects, they're easily distracted by them.
There's a Turning-Redhat-Into-Debian HOWTO out there, but it's really a pretty simple process.
Here's a rough outline:
1. Back up/etc, and temporarily shut off as many init scripts as you can. The transition will leave some cruft on the system, which is tolerable, but you sure don't need to be reminded of it every time you boot.
2. Download the Debian package management tools in a tarball, compile them, and install the base Debian packages, and then any other packages you use.
3. You can download the Cruft package to search your system for files not belonging to any Debian packages, for possible removal.
Poor Aunt Helga, how are you going to explain to her that people all over the world now have full access to her computer? How do you think she's going to take that? How are you going try to explain to her what to do about it? Let's see how she enjoys trying to navigate the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE branch of the system registry, just because Windows 9x's poor security model allowed her to unknowingly install destructive software on her computer.
All it takes to compromise a Windows box is one little e-mail to a naive user saying "The program I've attached is really cool, you should run it." Putting an uneducated user on a Windows machine, come back a few days later, and count the viruses and trojans. Put an uneducated user on a properly configured Linux machine, DO NOT give the person any kind of root access, and come back a few days later. More than likely Aunt Helga will still be bashing on random keys trying to figure out how to exit Emacs, but that's beside the point.
The point is, NO system is really secure when it's operated by an uneducated person. However, while there's a chance that Aunt Helga's Linux box might someday get compromised because of a tiny security hole, on a Windows box she's likely to be trojaned within a week.
You should have considered placing it under a BSD-style license. Microsoft's feelings are going to be hurt over the fact that they can't incorporate it into Windows 2000.
fact: it's impossible for karma to go above ten from meta-moderating or being meta-moderated. Once your karma reaches ten, you can only get higher by actually having posts moderated up. So that means someone has to have AT LEAST +10 karma from posts being moderated up to get the bonus, assuming they already got the first ten karma from meta-moderation.
It's a newsgroup site similar to Deja, but I like the interface better, and there aren't as many advertisements and other unrelated stuff everywhere. I haven't tested the search capabilities very heavily, so I don't know how they stack up against Deja, but you should give it a try.
Re:How to set up multiple mail folders in mutt?
on
Mutt Hits 1.0
·
· Score: 1
When you've got a message selected in mutt, just press the "s" key to save, and it'll prompt you for the mailbox you want to save the message to.
Then when you want to access that mailbox, just run mutt -f
NT and Linux now handle issuing the HLT instruction by default; they basically have software that does the same thing built into the kernel. Windows 95/98 most certainly does NOT. I'm not sure about MacOS, I don't know if the PPC architecture even has a HLT instruction. I think that the inclusion of proper HLT-management in Linux is one of its coolest features. If someone isn't sold on Linux, just tell them that their computer will generate MUCH less heat than in Windows 9x, their processor will last longer because of it, and they'll probably save a few bucks in electricity. Sells 'em every time! And overheats in Windows without Waterfall or CPUIdle are SO annoying -- Linux is a godsend.
Also note that using Waterfall and something like D.net or Seti@home are mutually exclusive. Depending on what priorities the programs are running at, either Waterfall with grab all the idle CPU cycles and turn them into HLTs, grinding the other program to a halt, or D.net or Seti will grab all the idle CPU cycles and keep Waterfall from getting to any.
I wrote this a long time ago, but it still holds true today.
Okay, I'm sure we're all used to seeing glaring inaccuracies with regards to computers and the Internet in the media. I thought it might be funny to make a list of the more absurd things that Hollywood tells us about computing. Here's a few I thought of, to start with. Contribute any more you can think of.
1. NOBODY'S QUITE SURE WHAT COMPUTERS ARE ACTUALLY CAPABLE OF. All computer games are primitive, side-scrolling action games with blocky, pixel-based graphics and sound effects that generally don't go much beyond a "beep." Except that all games include full, high-quality speech, of course, even 5-megabit games on video game consoles. Though game technology hasn't advanced at all in the past 10 years, bandwidth is entirely unlimited. All websites, even websites with sound and large, TV-quality video, load instantly, even over modem lines.
2. ENCRYPTION IS A JOKE. Distributed.net is a joke, why spend years brute-forcing an encrypted message when everyone knows that a 17-year-old kid with a laptop can crack any encrypted message within two days? 4096-bit public key encryption? Not a problem! All the kid needs to do is press random keys on the keyboard for a few seconds, and the encryption will conveniently be broken.
3. ZANY AUTHENTICATION SYSTEMS. Whenever an attempt is made to access a computer in an unauthorized fashion, a large red box containing the words ACCESS DENIED will appear in the exact center of the screen. Sometimes it will flash, or make loud klaxony noises. After the 17-year-old kid presses random keys on the keyboard for a moment, the box will change from red to blue (or sometimes green) and will flash ACCESS GRANTED.
4. "HACKERS". "Hackers" are nerds with godlike powers who are capable of causing any remote system to do anything at all, regardless of whether or not it's possible. All "hackers" are well versed in the use of firearms, capable of using anything from a Saturday Night Special to artillary weapons. Whenever an authority figure attempts to arrest a hacker, upbeat rock music will begin to play, and the authority figure will pursue the hacker down fire escapes, through alleyways, etc. Hackers can run quite fast and show more physical prowess than one would expect. Police officers and government agents are idiots and will be easily fooled by any of the hacker's tricks. If a hacker can get access to a computer connected to a company network, the hacker can immediately shut off power to the entire building, and do anything else for that matter. Actually, screw the company network. The hacker can do that from his laptop, whether or not it actually has any kind of network connection at all. Hackers are quite adept at causing other people's computers to flash "ACCESS GRANTED" in large letters.
5. THE WORLD WIDE WEB IS THE INTERNET. The internet consists of nothing but webpages. Anything is possible using the World Wide Web. All computers have snazzy web-based interfaces that remote users can use to access any information contained on that computer, complete with nifty "ACCESS DENIED" boxes.
5. GOVERNMENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS. All confidential government data is kept in an easy-to-use database on a public server connected to the internet. A web server runs on every computer containing top-secret information. Anyone accessing this web server is presented with the large red flashing "ACCESS DENIED" box. Any 17-year-old kid can press buttons on the keyboard for a moment, calling up the "ACCESS GRANTED" box, and allowing full access to the system. The system has a convenient graphical user interface making it very fast and convenient for the kid to find any information in the database within several keystrokes, and of course, all information on the page will load instantaniously. Much of it will be encrypted, but again, a few keystrokes will remedy that. Full write-permission is available for all information on the server, allowing the kid to change any information he wishes. In the 30 seconds that this has taken so far, the FBI will have arrived at the kid's door. The kid will, of course, have a pistol at hand and a gun battle will ensue, and end with the kid being chased through dark alleys by the FBI agents.
6. OH YEAH. Everyone either uses Microsoft Windows, or some made-up OS that somehow manages to look twice as useless. This made-up OS includes full support for flashing ACCESS DENIED/ACCESS GRANTED screens. The remote administration/security software that comes with this OS by default allows any remote user to access the computer in any way, assuming that person is a hacker and can press a few random buttons when the ACCESS DENIED screen pops up and begins flashing. Not only is this the default security setting, it's the ONLY security setting.
Hehe, that's just what I was going to append.
7. Computer viruses can infect ANYTHING: not just computers, they can completely control cars, toasters, elevators, etc. Not only can they infect anything, they can DO anything on the infected systems. They can talk, cause the machine to explode, etc. Computer virus infection isn't just limited to "running infected programs" or "booting from infected disks." Anyone can infect anyone else's computer with a virus, via the internet. No access to the computer is required, the virus is just pointed at the target computer and manages to take over the entire system just by "coming in contact with it" in some weird virtual way. Computer viruses aren't programs, and aren't constrained by the limits of what software can do. Oh yeah, and anyone can code a virus in under a day that will take down any computer system, even alien ones.
>Debian may be a better alternative, maybe you can enlighten me.
I've only been using Debian for maybe 4 months now, but I'll see what I can do.
>I am new to the actual systems cosmetic portion and I find it very difficult to configure my system with RedHat.
The Debian "Control Panel": ls/etc:)
I've never had any trouble configuring Debian. I've hacked up the look of things quite a bit, Debian includes a number of packages to help with aesthetics, (including very cute Debianized version of the Linux Logo, though use slink one, the new one in potato ain't so hot), svgatextmode, every window manager you might want to try, themes for every window manager, etc. It also includes the linuxconf utility, but it doesn't seem to do much overly useful at the current time.
Debian makes it very easy to configure things without understanding them intimately, because it installs fully-functional (usually well-commented) default configuration files for everything, so you don't have to puzzle over dozens of options you don't understand. Want to run an ssh sever, but don't really know a lot about ssh servers? (Probably not the best idea to run servers you don't know much about, but hey, your system), one simple apt-get, and it's installed, configured, and running. Many of the configuration files have good manpages as well, between them and the comments you shouldn't have any trouble figuring out config files.
>I know it can be done but I would rather have a stripped down version and build my way up, rather than a bloated version and work my way down. Does Debian have more of this approach?
Debian seems to me to be the most modular of the distros. The Debian base system, including just the package management tools, basic utilities, and telnet so you can MUD while packages are downloading, is just a few MB. Above that, there are the set of "required" packages; you'll get yelled at if you don't have all of them installed. There are a few that most people will never use, but nothing that'll get in your way. I wouldn't call it bloat. Above the base filesystem and the required packages, everything is simple to install or uninstall in seconds. The packages tend to not be psychotic with dependencies, create impossible sets of dependencies, or depend on packages that don't exist (there are exceptions, of course). The package management software can have some interesting quirks from time to time, and it's hard to override dependencies in dselect and APT (though you can download the package yourself and force it with dpkg), but I'm very, very pleased with the package system. Though you're likely to find almost anything you want either in the main distribution or on some apt-friendly server, local packages are supported nicely as well, and alien seems to do a very good job of converting RPMs -- 18 of the 20 packages I've converted with it worked flawlessly, though source RPMs seem to be a bit flaky.
>BTW: I realize there are options in the installation process, and I have tried different configurations. But it always seems that my changes to certain files always get overwritten by some script at the next boot-up.
I've never seen anything like this with Debian. When upgrading packages, you'll be asked whether you want to keep your current config file(s) or upgrade to the default config files included with the new version. (Unless they're the same -- isn't it clever?)
Oh yeah, if you're looking for a very good very lightweight window manager that's good for systems with low memory, try icewm. It's quite cool, probably includes all the features you need, and is very small. And of course, it comes with Debian.
There are several explanations for that, first I've seen them post comments more than a few weeks ago that got moderated up quite a bit, also, since meta-moderating does tend to raise karma sometimes, and I imagine they had to test the meta-moderation quite a bit, that might explain it also, or perhaps they did some fair moderation of their own and got their karma up when those moderations got meta-moderated.
Gawd, anyone else think this thread contains WAY too many instances of the word moderat*? Say it out loud over and over. "Moderate, moderate, moderate, moderate, mod-er-ate." It sounds silly after a while.
Thanks, I had never used a customized set of Slashboxes before today, so I'd never seen the little arrows before, and I didn't have time to fiddle with them today.
I'm glad there's SOME way to re-arrange Slashboxes. Nice to have the fun stuff back at the top, and "Perhaps you're seeking Jon Katz's series of articles...." a bit further down.
Slashdot Mirror
I am dead serious about this, and anybody who thinks otherwise is lying. E-mail me if you don't believe me.
It's not just this article. This article just PROVES that JonKatz can't keep his prejudices from getting in the way of rational judgement and sanity.
He's ALREADY implied, over and over, that he doesn't think Christians and members of other religions are welcome on Slashdot. But by deliberately excluded "religion" from his list of people who should be included, his "gender, age, nationality" list, he's clearly showing that his prejudices are keeping him for speaking fairly in this (he thinks) very important issue.
It's not that JonKatz didn't include Christians in his list of people who should be "included", it's that he WOULDN'T. I know JonKatz would never say that. Because he wants to look "cool," he'd never be caught dead saying anything remotely pro-religion or pro-religious-tolerance in an atheistic society like Slashdot where dangerous ideas like religious tolerance are taboo.
Jon Katz, the young rich white technically-saavy (cough) atheist, who's willing to accept the non-young, the non-rich, the non-white, the non-technically-saavy, but not the non-atheist.
What are you afraid of, Jon Katz? I'm calling you out. Are you a coward, or aren't you?
Yes, I read it. Yes, perhaps atheists are persecuted more than Christians in meatspace, but we're not talking about meatspace, we're talking about the Internet, and on the Internet, situations are clearly reversed.
But there's no such thing as "reverse discrimination", discrimination is ALWAYS discrimination even if it runs counter to "traditional" discrimination.
The article you linked to has no merit in this situation, because it refers to people and events in meatspace, rather than on the Internet, specifically on technology sites like Slashdot, and as should be obvious the cultures and demographics are almost polar opposites.
Katz is using Slashdot as a soapbox to promote a hypocritical views. He writes an article and makes it a "feature" everytime he's ever offended by anything.
Well, JonKatz, life is offensive. Do something more productive with your time, maybe?
I'm not complaining. I'm just pointing out what a hypocrite Katz is being.
Take a deep breath, and read his article again.
You'll see that he's in favour of "including" people based on:
1. Age
2. Gender
3. Nationality
But where is
4. Religion???
IF Katz cared about free speech, he would want ALL people to be "included", regardless of belifs.
Katz's thinking goes like this:
"Women are okay, I guess... as long as they don't disagree with me. So let's include them. Old people are okay... as long as they don't disagree with me. They're in. 'Foreigners' are fine, also, as long as they don't disagree with me. So they get an invitation also. But religious people DON'T agree with me, so I won't mention them. Christians disagree with me... so they don't belong here. Muslims disagree with me... so who cares if they're excluded! Jews tend to disagree with me also... so they're out of luck also. They don't get the benefit from the wonderfully intelligent and influential articles that I spam Slashdot with. *cough*"
So, WHY did Katz include gender, nationality, and age, but not religion?
That's easy. All we have to do is look at a previous article he's written. Remember his terribly insulting "Onward Christian Geeks" piece? I think that's proof enough of his anti-religion bias.
Where are his articles that insult OTHER groups like that. Where is his "Onward Female Geeks" article in which he insults the efforts of women to move into more "geek" areas of interest. Where is his "Onward Jewish Geeks" rant, where he mocks and ridicules the activity of Jews on the Internet? Where is, "Onward, Elderly Geeks", in which he described how old people are the bane of the Internet?
The answer? NOWHERE. That's because it's only "fashionable" and "in-style" on Slashdot to insult Christians and Microsoft employees, i.e. those people who don't agree with the dominant atheist paradigm of Slashdot.
I've read Katz's articles. They're cute. I've read what he said about accountability.
Well, Katz, you'll see my name and e-mail on this post. I am taking accountability for what I say, and what I am saying is "YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE."
I AM CALLING YOU OUT, JON KATZ. I am calling you out. What are you going to do? Write another inane article about it?
It's Jon Katz who's too cowardly to take responsibility to what he writes.
And to whomever moderated my post down as a "troll", I assure you it was not. It came from the heart. I propose two new down-moderation categories to satisfy the atheists on Slashdot:
-1, contains the truth
-1, disagrees with the dominant atheistic paradigm
I hope you get busted up in meta-moderation.
Peace out. Have a great day everyone. (Yes, even Katz.)
The reasons that no one has mentioned are that
1. Jon Katz is a subtle twister of words.
2. The Slashdot community has become so accepting of the persecution and exclusion of Christians and anyone else who doesn't buy into the latest atheistic paradigm that most people don't even notice anymore.
3. Most Christians don't put up with reading the comments on Slashdot, or reading JonKatz's articles, because of the hatred, inanity, and mindless self-centeredness that most Slashdot comments/JonKatz articles express. Most people who don't agree with the dominant atheistic paradigm just don't want to put up with the abuse. Funny how Katz wants to include EVERYONE... except people he doesn't like, i.e. anyone how doesn't agree with the dominant atheistic paradigm.
You know FULL WELL that anyone posting to Slashdot who doesn't agree with the dominant atheistic paradigm will be mocked, excluded, and insulted. Showing similar behavior towards women, people of a specific ethnicity, or almost anyone else for that matter, would be regarded as hateful and completely unacceptable, but when the hostility is directed towards people who disagree with the dominant atheistic paradigm, it's suddenly okay. Everyone cheers. "My gosh, that poster doesn't agree with the dominant atheistic paradigm! He/she should be BANNED from Slashdot! Let's make all such people feel unwelcome by calling them nasty names. Doing so will make me popular with all my friends! WE'VE GOT TO DEFEND THE STATUS QUO!!"
*cough, cough*
Katz seems to be in favour of political correctness for some, and inclusion for some, but not for all.
Katz mentions the exclusion of "women, older people, foreigners, newcomers, and newbies" in favour of "technologically skilled young white men," but he neglects to mention the one group most abused, most insulted, and most excluded on the sites he discusses: (non-liberal) Christians.
What he SHOULD have said, to be accurate, instead of "technologically skilled young white men," was "technologically skilled young white ATHEIST men," with the "atheist" attribute seeming to lead to MUCH more hatred, rudeness, and bigotry than all the "young" and "white" and "men" attributes combined.
It seems that Katz has an agenda here... inclusion for all, regardless of race, sex, or age... as long as their beliefs don't differ from his own. He's talking out one side of his mouth, trying to sound fair and inclusionary, but intentionally leaves out Christians, the most excluded and most persecuted group (other than perhaps MCSE's) on sites like this.
Katz has shown his anti-Christian leanings numerous times in the past. I've been forced several times to write letters to Christian groups and articles for Christian websites about some of Katz's more insulting, distasteful articles, and it looks like that time ago. Sorry, JonKatz, but there *ARE* reasons not to like you, and I've just exposed one of them.
http://www.remarq.com/
I'm not going to say it's great, but the interface is IMHO a lot better than Deja's.
GNU/HURD
GNU's not UNIX/HIRD of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX/HURD of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HIRD of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HURD of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HIRD of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HURD of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HIRD of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HURD of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HIRD of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HURD of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HIRD of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HURD of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HIRD of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HURD of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HIRD of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
GNU's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX's not UNIX/HIRD of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth of UNIX-Replacing Daemons
NOMINATE MAE LING MAK NAKED AND PETRIFIED
You have caught my act
Lure of trolling is too strong
Turn the girls to stone
New resolution:
"I will never troll again"
"Starting tomorrow"
Tomorrow then comes.
"I will never troll again"
"Starting tomorrow"
Karma comes and goes
First post, it is forever
Eat my dust, suckas
My statue Haiku
Is real controversial
It just makes me glad
"Post Anonymous"
I will not do it this time
Let mail-bomb begin!
She's most notable for her roles as Claudia on Party of Five and Penny in the recent film Lost in Space. She'll be appearing in two upcoming films, "Tart" and "Christmas with JD" in 2000.
For more information:
http://www.laceyonline.com/
http://www.laceyvibes.com/
http://www.lacey-chabert.com/
What I'm really tiring of are these zealous self-righteous "the millennium begins in 2000" people. They're so fanatical about it. Their snide self-important comments are so annoying. For one thing by the Gregorian calender in which we live, 2000 is NOT the start of the milleNNium (most of the 2000-heads can't even spell it), and secondly you are exhibiting a very revealing characteristic about your personality, we've all heard it before, it's in every damn TV commercial, and it can be debated all you want... bu there isn't a point to it, we just want to have some fun, but the Cult of 2000 denies us the right to speak and threatens us with physical violence and social ostracism as they continue to paint their ignorance everywhere you care to look. Be careful not to show these people any shiny objects, they're easily distracted by them.
There's a Turning-Redhat-Into-Debian HOWTO out there, but it's really a pretty simple process.
/etc, and temporarily shut off as many init scripts as you can. The transition will leave some cruft on the system, which is tolerable, but you sure don't need to be reminded of it every time you boot.
Here's a rough outline:
1. Back up
2. Download the Debian package management tools in a tarball, compile them, and install the base Debian packages, and then any other packages you use.
3. You can download the Cruft package to search your system for files not belonging to any Debian packages, for possible removal.
apt-get install linuxconf
*whew, that was hard*
"Have we all blocked web ads from our browsers because Doubleclick has patented online advertising? Nope."
Yes. Doubleclick is the first line of my Junkbuster blockfile.
Can you say BACK ORIFICE?
Poor Aunt Helga, how are you going to explain to her that people all over the world now have full access to her computer? How do you think she's going to take that? How are you going try to explain to her what to do about it? Let's see how she enjoys trying to navigate the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE branch of the system registry, just because Windows 9x's poor security model allowed her to unknowingly install destructive software on her computer.
All it takes to compromise a Windows box is one little e-mail to a naive user saying "The program I've attached is really cool, you should run it." Putting an uneducated user on a Windows machine, come back a few days later, and count the viruses and trojans. Put an uneducated user on a properly configured Linux machine, DO NOT give the person any kind of root access, and come back a few days later. More than likely Aunt Helga will still be bashing on random keys trying to figure out how to exit Emacs, but that's beside the point.
The point is, NO system is really secure when it's operated by an uneducated person. However, while there's a chance that Aunt Helga's Linux box might someday get compromised because of a tiny security hole, on a Windows box she's likely to be trojaned within a week.
You should have considered placing it under a BSD-style license. Microsoft's feelings are going to be hurt over the fact that they can't incorporate it into Windows 2000.
fact: it's impossible for karma to go above ten from meta-moderating or being meta-moderated. Once your karma reaches ten, you can only get higher by actually having posts moderated up. So that means someone has to have AT LEAST +10 karma from posts being moderated up to get the bonus, assuming they already got the first ten karma from meta-moderation.
proof: 1. Rob said so. 2. Try it yourself! I did.
Try http://www.remarq.com/
It's a newsgroup site similar to Deja, but I like the interface better, and there aren't as many advertisements and other unrelated stuff everywhere. I haven't tested the search capabilities very heavily, so I don't know how they stack up against Deja, but you should give it a try.
When you've got a message selected in mutt, just press the "s" key to save, and it'll prompt you for the mailbox you want to save the message to.
Then when you want to access that mailbox, just run mutt -f
NT and Linux now handle issuing the HLT instruction by default; they basically have software that does the same thing built into the kernel. Windows 95/98 most certainly does NOT. I'm not sure about MacOS, I don't know if the PPC architecture even has a HLT instruction. I think that the inclusion of proper HLT-management in Linux is one of its coolest features. If someone isn't sold on Linux, just tell them that their computer will generate MUCH less heat than in Windows 9x, their processor will last longer because of it, and they'll probably save a few bucks in electricity. Sells 'em every time! And overheats in Windows without Waterfall or CPUIdle are SO annoying -- Linux is a godsend.
Also note that using Waterfall and something like D.net or Seti@home are mutually exclusive. Depending on what priorities the programs are running at, either Waterfall with grab all the idle CPU cycles and turn them into HLTs, grinding the other program to a halt, or D.net or Seti will grab all the idle CPU cycles and keep Waterfall from getting to any.
I wrote this a long time ago, but it still holds true today.
Okay, I'm sure we're all used to seeing glaring inaccuracies with regards to computers and the Internet in the media. I thought it might be funny to make a list of the more absurd things that Hollywood tells us about computing. Here's a few I thought of, to start with. Contribute any more you can think of.
1. NOBODY'S QUITE SURE WHAT COMPUTERS ARE ACTUALLY CAPABLE OF. All computer games are primitive, side-scrolling action games with blocky, pixel-based graphics and sound effects that generally don't go much beyond a "beep." Except that all games include full, high-quality speech, of course, even 5-megabit games on video game consoles. Though game technology hasn't advanced at all in the past 10 years, bandwidth is entirely unlimited. All websites, even websites with sound and large, TV-quality video, load instantly, even over modem lines.
2. ENCRYPTION IS A JOKE. Distributed.net is a joke, why spend years brute-forcing an encrypted message when everyone knows that a 17-year-old kid with a laptop can crack any encrypted message within two days? 4096-bit public key encryption? Not a problem! All the kid needs to do is press random keys on the keyboard for a few seconds, and the encryption will conveniently be broken.
3. ZANY AUTHENTICATION SYSTEMS. Whenever an attempt is made to access a computer in an unauthorized fashion, a large red box containing the words ACCESS DENIED will appear in the exact center of the screen. Sometimes it will flash, or make loud klaxony noises. After the 17-year-old kid presses random keys on the keyboard for a moment, the box will change from red to blue (or sometimes green) and will flash ACCESS GRANTED.
4. "HACKERS". "Hackers" are nerds with godlike powers who are capable of causing any remote system to do anything at all, regardless of whether or not it's possible. All "hackers" are well versed in the use of firearms, capable of using anything from a Saturday Night Special to artillary weapons. Whenever an authority figure attempts to arrest a hacker, upbeat rock music will begin to play, and the authority figure will pursue the hacker down fire escapes, through alleyways, etc. Hackers can run quite fast and show more physical prowess than one would expect. Police officers and government agents are idiots and will be easily fooled by any of the hacker's tricks. If a hacker can get access to a computer connected to a company network, the hacker can immediately shut off power to the entire building, and do anything else for that matter. Actually, screw the company network. The hacker can do that from his laptop, whether or not it actually has any kind of network connection at all. Hackers are quite adept at causing other people's computers to flash "ACCESS GRANTED" in large letters.
5. THE WORLD WIDE WEB IS THE INTERNET. The internet consists of nothing but webpages. Anything is possible using the World Wide Web. All computers have snazzy web-based interfaces that remote users can use to access any information contained on that computer, complete with nifty "ACCESS DENIED" boxes.
5. GOVERNMENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS. All confidential government data is kept in an easy-to-use database on a public server connected to the internet. A web server runs on every computer containing top-secret information. Anyone accessing this web server is presented with the large red flashing "ACCESS DENIED" box. Any 17-year-old kid can press buttons on the keyboard for a moment, calling up the "ACCESS GRANTED" box, and allowing full access to the system. The system has a convenient graphical user interface making it very fast and convenient for the kid to find any information in the database within several keystrokes, and of course, all information on the page will load instantaniously. Much of it will be encrypted, but again, a few keystrokes will remedy that. Full write-permission is available for all information on the server, allowing the kid to change any information he wishes. In the 30 seconds that this has taken so far, the FBI will have arrived at the kid's door. The kid will, of course, have a pistol at hand and a gun battle will ensue, and end with the kid being chased through dark alleys by the FBI agents.
6. OH YEAH. Everyone either uses Microsoft Windows, or some made-up OS that somehow manages to look twice as useless. This made-up OS includes full support for flashing ACCESS DENIED/ACCESS GRANTED screens. The remote administration/security software that comes with this OS by default allows any remote user to access the computer in any way, assuming that person is a hacker and can press a few random buttons when the ACCESS DENIED screen pops up and begins flashing. Not only is this the default security setting, it's the ONLY security setting.
Hehe, that's just what I was going to append.
7. Computer viruses can infect ANYTHING: not just computers, they can completely control cars, toasters, elevators, etc. Not only can they infect anything, they can DO anything on the infected systems. They can talk, cause the machine to explode, etc. Computer virus infection isn't just limited to "running infected programs" or "booting from infected disks." Anyone can infect anyone else's computer with a virus, via the internet. No access to the computer is required, the virus is just pointed at the target computer and manages to take over the entire system just by "coming in contact with it" in some weird virtual way. Computer viruses aren't programs, and aren't constrained by the limits of what software can do. Oh yeah, and anyone can code a virus in under a day that will take down any computer system, even alien ones.
Danimal wrote:
/etc :)
>Debian may be a better alternative, maybe you can enlighten me.
I've only been using Debian for maybe 4 months now, but I'll see what I can do.
>I am new to the actual systems cosmetic portion and I find it very difficult to configure my system with RedHat.
The Debian "Control Panel": ls
I've never had any trouble configuring Debian. I've hacked up the look of things quite a bit, Debian includes a number of packages to help with aesthetics, (including very cute Debianized version of the Linux Logo, though use slink one, the new one in potato ain't so hot), svgatextmode, every window manager you might want to try, themes for every window manager, etc. It also includes the linuxconf utility, but it doesn't seem to do much overly useful at the current time.
Debian makes it very easy to configure things without understanding them intimately, because it installs fully-functional (usually well-commented) default configuration files for everything, so you don't have to puzzle over dozens of options you don't understand. Want to run an ssh sever, but don't really know a lot about ssh servers? (Probably not the best idea to run servers you don't know much about, but hey, your system), one simple apt-get, and it's installed, configured, and running. Many of the configuration files have good manpages as well, between them and the comments you shouldn't have any trouble figuring out config files.
>I know it can be done but I would rather have a stripped down version and build my way up, rather than a bloated version and work my way down. Does Debian have more of this approach?
Debian seems to me to be the most modular of the distros. The Debian base system, including just the package management tools, basic utilities, and telnet so you can MUD while packages are downloading, is just a few MB. Above that, there are the set of "required" packages; you'll get yelled at if you don't have all of them installed. There are a few that most people will never use, but nothing that'll get in your way. I wouldn't call it bloat. Above the base filesystem and the required packages, everything is simple to install or uninstall in seconds. The packages tend to not be psychotic with dependencies, create impossible sets of dependencies, or depend on packages that don't exist (there are exceptions, of course). The package management software can have some interesting quirks from time to time, and it's hard to override dependencies in dselect and APT (though you can download the package yourself and force it with dpkg), but I'm very, very pleased with the package system. Though you're likely to find almost anything you want either in the main distribution or on some apt-friendly server, local packages are supported nicely as well, and alien seems to do a very good job of converting RPMs -- 18 of the 20 packages I've converted with it worked flawlessly, though source RPMs seem to be a bit flaky.
>BTW: I realize there are options in the installation process, and I have tried different configurations. But it always seems that my changes to certain files always get overwritten by some script at the next boot-up.
I've never seen anything like this with Debian. When upgrading packages, you'll be asked whether you want to keep your current config file(s) or upgrade to the default config files included with the new version. (Unless they're the same -- isn't it clever?)
Oh yeah, if you're looking for a very good very lightweight window manager that's good for systems with low memory, try icewm. It's quite cool, probably includes all the features you need, and is very small. And of course, it comes with Debian.
There are several explanations for that, first I've seen them post comments more than a few weeks ago that got moderated up quite a bit, also, since meta-moderating does tend to raise karma sometimes, and I imagine they had to test the meta-moderation quite a bit, that might explain it also, or perhaps they did some fair moderation of their own and got their karma up when those moderations got meta-moderated.
Gawd, anyone else think this thread contains WAY too many instances of the word moderat*? Say it out loud over and over. "Moderate, moderate, moderate, moderate, mod-er-ate." It sounds silly after a while.
Thanks, I had never used a customized set of Slashboxes before today, so I'd never seen the little arrows before, and I didn't have time to fiddle with them today.
I'm glad there's SOME way to re-arrange Slashboxes. Nice to have the fun stuff back at the top, and "Perhaps you're seeking Jon Katz's series of articles...." a bit further down.