I'm by no means a subversion expert, or even a daily user (i have use CVS for my daily work; but i keep my personal projects that i rarely get a chance to play with in subversion), but even I can answer most of your points.
It isn't the most disk space efficient system; but as you point out, the laptop you are using is rather limited. For the vast majority of cases these days this is not an issue.
Slow compared to CVS? I find just the opposite. It's very much faster for most operations. Perhaps we are using it on different types of repositories.
The database corruption/locking is a point I will give you. In my fairly casual reading on the subject it seems even the Subversion developers will give you this point. The good news is that the underlying architecture should be portable to other storage types, and this is supposedly going to be coming eventually. On the other hand, while there have been some annoying storage issues with subversion, and I've had to fix and manually unlock the database a few times, i've never lost data.
The fact that most "installations" work over http only is not subversion's fault. It has many methods that can be used. Personally I like https via Apache webdav. It's much more flexible for my usage. But one can set things up to use ssh transport (and you don't have to do it via apache as you seem to be).
I'm just amazed no one more knowledgeable than me has responded to these points yet. Perhaps the more hardcore users weary of answering these constant misconceptions...
Re:Why you should think twice before heading to Ca
on
What's Going On in Canada?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Dear Sir, as a fellow Canadian i find your accusations against our beloved country to be hateful, and i've reported your slashdot ID to the "hate crimes police" and you should be expected to hear from them shortly.
Except, what you say in your point one is not true.
Try reading the criminal code if you are concerned about it. The hate crimes laws are fairly specific. You can hate people all you want. It becomes a crime when you are inciting violence (in several forms, including illegal public disturbances) against an identifiable group of people. The wording is sometimes claimed to have some looseness, but the intent is fairly clear in actual case histories.
To put it into context, this section of the criminal code starts out addressing specifically the promotion of genocide. This is extreme. But all of the related sections follow this similar theme.
You conclude: "the full truth deserves to be out there so people can make informed decisions". I won't address your other points, because they are as misinformed as your first... over blown, out of context, based on uninformed opinions, etc.
"he has never done a single useful thing in his political career, which he built entirely on 4 months of military service, etc."
Here's a rather long and disturbing story of Kerry's relentless efforts to investigate and expose the Contra-Cocaine trafficking which Regan (and Bush Sr, even more) tried to sweep under the carpet.
That's funny. Considering that seeminly every review on the planet gets posted/linked there.
This is not to say I disagree with you. I agree with you to a large extent (though not necessarily in reference to this particular movie)!
It's funny though...
I often look though the rotten tomatoes reviews looking for that one reviewer who is consistantly semi-intelligent... or, at least, reflects my own views 50% or more of the time... i've yet to find one...
Movie reviews are like some sort of roulette game is the only conclusion I have been able to reach.
Trey Parker is an idiot. This is not to say South Park is not funny; nor to dis the movie (i have not seen it, I can't say)... but just judging from what I read of his own words... in this case, at least, the man has his "dick" stuck very far up his own "ass" (i use the terms advisedly).
(Note: i link to the more intelligent letters responding to the interview above; if one wants to read the interview they can find the link on that page as well.)
Years and years and years and years ago I replaced the standard Apache 404 page with a cgi on my (old) site which attempted to detect typos, and pick up other hints from the URL being accessed (moved pages in different subdirectories, changed extensions, etc). If the script felt that it had a good idea where the visitor had intended, it would automatically redirect them; otherwise it would present a list of links suggesting what the visitor might have been wanting.
"you were probably under the impression that Bush delivered this line at some sort of secret fund raising dinner, rallying the his vast right-wing army"
There, you see, you went too far in the other direction. It's true that probably nearly everyone (myself included) did not know the lines came from a often jocular fundraiser dinner, also featuring the comic stylings of Al Gore. But this does not mean that I (nor why would anyone?) think it was a "secret" dinner; and while one might reasonably assume Bush would be speaking to a more partisan crowd, with such comments, your phrasing goes to far in making it seem like people watching who disfavour Bush think that that makes it some sort of conspiracy.
Your info does put things in an interesting new (to me) context though. I even read the article you linked (after removing the extra space before the slash).
It's interesting to reflect on the nature of the jokes of the two gentlemen. At least the jokes quoted. One is a sort of elitist joke, a sort of (half?) joking show of self-aggrandizement. While the Jokes attributed to Gore humorously phrase his real positions on issues he cares about and affect America.
Why is it so easy to believe that those (perhaps) joking lines of Bush flow directly from his heart, and that it is actually a confused grin on his face when people laugh at what he said.
I am reminded of the phrase Al Franken so desperately wants to have introduced into wide use, and attributed to himself, that George is "kidding on the square".
Well, and so was Al Gore. I'm sure he was being (almost) entirely serious about the lettuce, while at the same time hilarious.
In other words, it seems to me, that even in light of this fuller context to the lines, doesn't really seem to change their effect or meaning, or tone very much.
As for me, I just sold a business because I could not get quality employees. [...] but I guess it does make some feel better if they have someone to blame for what is likely just bad luck.
Yeah, it's a sad shame that Bush is so unlucky and just can't seem to get enough quality citizens. I guess he'll have to sell the country, or something.
Ah./,./,./, how I despair at times. But I know you can't help it, weaned on... well, check the book review section.
I may be able to understand that not all would recognise the greatest cinematic masterpiece yet to grace the silver screen... tops in every category. Adventure ("I saved the day! I saved the day."), romance ("I got you this bag of jewels! A bag of jewels!"), and hard hitting social commentary ("You want to fuck this?"), a profound and probing study in the psychology of family---especially father-son---relationships ("Now we *can* sew soccer balls, together!"). Beautiful.
But surely at least you have to deeply appreciate any movie that can send 9 out of 10 movie reviewers into shockingly violent fits of dry heaves... it's a beautiful, beautiful thing...
"tsearch2" which openfts is based on is BSD licenced, and included in the PostgreSQL contrib package. It's pretty good, and all you need for creating full text searchable indexes.
The documentation describes the differences between tsearch2 and openfts like this:
OpenFTS is a middleware between application and database, so it uses tsearch2 as a storage, while database engine is used as a query executor (searching). Everything else (parsing of documents, query processing, linguistics) carry outs on client side. That's why OpenFTS has its own configuration table (fts_conf) and works with its own set of dictionaries. OpenFTS is more flexible, because it could be used in multi-server architecture with separated machines for repository of documents (documents could be stored in file system), database and query engine.
You know, reading all this iPod stuff on slashdot for so long... i just realized i've never actually seen an iPod in the wild! I live in Toronto. True I don't get out that much (hey, i read slashdot---)... but still, I've never actually come across anyone with one out there...
Hmmmm.
(My wife has had a Nex IIe for a year... still works great -- never seen another one of those in the wild either though...)
The LoTR movies have a lot of flaws, and irksome elements (and omissions). Different people have different reasons for loathing certain aspects of it. Most people who have read the books, and many who haven't, find the whole Arwin sappiness just a sickening imposition. I personally find the Smegol/Daegol scene at the beginning of Return of the King to be just embarrassingly bad in every respect.
Despite all this, for some reason I still feel Jackson did a pretty good job.
My opinion was reenforced greatly yesterday when I had opportunity to The Bourne Identity for the first time. I had heard all sorts of good things about this movie (considering its genre); a lot of people seemed to like it. I had been intensely curious to see how the filmmaker might have distilled down the essence of the book, which is immensely detailed and full of characters, with a multi-pronged plot. Ludlum's pacing, as usual, is practically flawless once the story starts picking up... if one gets caught up in it, it takes your breath away, it sets your nerves on edge for days.
So I saw the movie. I was stunned. Pretty much the only real similarities to the novel were the name Bourne, the name Treadstone, and the fact that he had amnesia. The entire assassin vs assassin angle was removed (though of course hints that it will return in Supremecy). The major theme and purpose for the woman character was missed. The physical an emotional trauma of the main character throughout the book. The woman (whom in the novel he kidnaps, and treats somewhat badly in his desperation for a long time, her thinking she is about to be killed by a maniac) has stripped away her central role in holding Bourne together psychologically when he can not believe in himself.
In short, next to the novel, the movie was utterly shallow, and quite tediously boring. Yes, reading for 13 hours worth of pages was much more exciting and engaging.
Anyhow, it gave me another reason to respect what Jackson did with LoTR. LoTR is an even more emense and complex work than Ludlum's novel. True, Jackson had 3 movies to draw it out. But while the Bourne movie had some slight interest due to it's style of rendering, for the most part the screen writer's solution was to remove so much that the essense was barely recognizable. The essense of LoTR, the novel, perhaps is stronger in it's imagry. But still, it's amazing how, over all, faithful Jackson was able to remain to the text even with his silly romantic tinkerings.
This post is slightly off topic i guess, as it doesn't have anything to do with FoTR reviews 50 years ago.
No, don't archive to Kazaa! The RIAA and it's evil minions and bots will find them, and start injecting fakes of them into the network...when you want to look at them again, God (and the RIAA) only knows what you'll get... if anything but endless corrupt downloads retrying, retrying, retrying to fetch the last chunk...
But whatever it turns out to be, no doubt you deserve it for file sharing.
Re:uh,, Black and White anyone?
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think this demonstrates the problem fairly well: if anyone thinks for a second that Black and White has anything beyond the more basic superficial resemblance to any religious system, that is in fact the problem. It doesn't, at all.
Even old Populous had more depth in this respect, and it also is basically an "economic" system wrapped in semi-religious terminology.
The analysis should perhaps take a look at art. The most successful and profound religious artists in the realm of writing often have barely detectable overt religous activities depicted: yet the religion in woven into the fabric of their art gives it a profoundness it could have gotten nowhere else. Look at Dostoevsky for example. Even look at Tolkien. His work is very spiritual, but you never actually see the Elves go to church or the Hobbits consult a priest.
The very structure of the world and the nature of the characters imply the depth of spiritual consciousness.
I think Garriot's Ultima has been the closest thing yet created to a religious system. It is basically an ethical system, as he explained: but it allows the character to apply religious meaning to those ethics beyond the simple religious factions provided in the game.
I have lately been playing Deus Ex (the original... i never got around to it before), and actually think it comes close to an almost religious depth. It's interesting that it was not mentioned in the article. The name of the game at least gives a hinting reference to God. (And the G.K. Chesterton quote in a copy of "The Man Who was Thursday" found in various places in the game world was a nice touch.) While there are no priests, or cliche religious cults to battle, the balance of competing perspectives in the game often imply a depth to the characters, and an artistic soul in the designer. While most of the conversations are more political in nature, they could easily have been spun in a more spiritual direction: it's all about motives and underlying premises up which the characters feel the meaning of their existence depends and is expressed.
Quite the opposite, sadly. Those design guys you link are just not getting it. Nielsen's site is pretty horribly ugly, but it remains vastly superior in usability compared to the two sites you suggest he may pick up some ideas.
Good God, the first thing one notices when going to those sites is... fixed width design. Half my browser window suddenly has no content. Tiny fonts. One had a nice logo, but that's about it.
It's tragic that designers just can't seem to help themselves. The greatest pain in my occassional web designing life is trying to help my sister out : she was a professional graphic designer (before becoming a retailer)... no matter how many millions of times i try to explain to her the concept of web pages, and non-fixed resolutions... she just can not seem to get it. Yet another fixed design, with comlicated overlapping elements... which tend to break on any non-ie browser, and load horribly slowly on modem.
Ah, the objective truth. Here is a precious example of this intrepid crusader for the truth's research. Most of his refutations have no actual references one can check (and they are piddling nit-picks which have little to nothing to do with the actual substantial arguments of the movie anyhow), but down in the conclusion he reminds people that Moore has called the Americans "possibly the dumbest people on the planet" (of which, of course, Mike himself is one).
Never mind that this quote is insanely out of context and seriously misconstrued (as it is in every single instance of it being widely quoted in the internet which I have seen). It is clearly just placed in the conclusion as another ad hominem belch which began at the top of the article... but, check the link he provides! It links off to a GOSSIP column on MSNBC where "Jeannette Walls Delivers the Scoop"; and the page featurers a big-toothed caricature of the author, herself, for any who may lack confidence in her journalistic presence.
If you think about it you'll realise that your definition excludes the vast majority, if not all, of what is commonly referred to as a documentary. Virtually every documentary film maker is, for lack of a better expression, trying to tell a "story" in their work. The "moral of the story" is just not so obvious due to the less controversal nature of most documentaries.
Your definition is wrong on pretty much every level. It's sad that it is modded up so high. But i guess it is a common misconception, as I've heard this argument a lot lately. It is wrong factually; and it is wrong in relation to the common usage of the term.
1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing [documentary evidence]
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE [a documentary film of the war]
Do not be distracted by the "broad" synonyms. The definition states clearly "employing documentation in literature or art". This is what Michael Moore did; and did it with a surprising level of self control and artistry, to boot.
Some other dictionaries define things (of course) slightly differently, but there is no substantial difference which negates the above definition.
On a personal note: I went into the movie fairly certain that I'd see nothing new. I already knew all of the "facts" Moore played upon. And this was true to a large extent (though there were a couple of things I'd missed in the news, and a few more which I'd almost forgotten). But despite "knowing" most of the material, I found the "movie" profoundly disturbing and moving in ways I had not felt before. The presentation was incredible.
For example, the absolutely breathtaking intro during the credits... just scene after scene of the elite white house staff being prepared for a press conference, with music over top of it. The slow motion looks. The makeup and hair dressers milling around. The waiting. Was this "deceptive"? We all know that probably all politicians of that level of all parties do the same menial things to prepare: but then these images are not just put in to make the president look ridiculous, but are brought back later and we realise what exact press conference all that was leading up to... breathtaking. It is truly something to think about in regards to how "facts" are presented to us from the Oval Office... not much different than Moore's film. And in this particular case, much more in danger of being realistically convicted of deception and lies especially... and if there were justice: legally.
One of the many subtle and artistic observances of Moore which actually apply to our society and the way government works as a whole, not just the current regime: it's just that the current regime is a particularly gross and hypocritical offender, in the views of many people.
Telemate was an incredible application for the time. It was the only DOS comm program that was actually multithreaded; you could access different functions in the program while downloading, etc. This concept simply amazed me at the time. Very few apps had this capability.
It was by far the most advanced DOS based modem app I ever found (and I tried a lot of them). It was merely Shareware, coded by one guy.
DSpam does have a feature whereby untrained accounts can refer to a "parent" trained account.... unfortunately I've not had good success trying to set this up, however it sounds excellent in theory...
If you have all your users use the global stats by default, it might be a bit dangerous... if one of those users happens to get a lot of legit email that looks like the global classified spam... but it sounds like in the real world this method should work...
And yeah... it's the speed that is the most attractive part for me as well. We have spamassassin on our small ISP, but only users who configure it themselves use it (via spamd)... but the load on the system is annoying. I don't really want to enable it for everyone by default because of this. If I could get DSpam set up and seemingly reasonably accurate using the global stats setup, I'd do it. I'm hoping to do it... eventually. Haven't got around to testing DSpam 3.0 yet.
Slashdot Mirror
- It isn't the most disk space efficient system; but as you point out, the laptop you are using is rather limited. For the vast majority of cases these days this is not an issue.
- Slow compared to CVS? I find just the opposite. It's very much faster for most operations. Perhaps we are using it on different types of repositories.
- The database corruption/locking is a point I will give you. In my fairly casual reading on the subject it seems even the Subversion developers will give you this point. The good news is that the underlying architecture should be portable to other storage types, and this is supposedly going to be coming eventually. On the other hand, while there have been some annoying storage issues with subversion, and I've had to fix and manually unlock the database a few times, i've never lost data.
- The fact that most "installations" work over http only is not subversion's fault. It has many methods that can be used. Personally I like https via Apache webdav. It's much more flexible for my usage. But one can set things up to use ssh transport (and you don't have to do it via apache as you seem to be).
I'm just amazed no one more knowledgeable than me has responded to these points yet. Perhaps the more hardcore users weary of answering these constant misconceptions...Except, what you say in your point one is not true.
Try reading the criminal code if you are concerned about it. The hate crimes laws are fairly specific. You can hate people all you want. It becomes a crime when you are inciting violence (in several forms, including illegal public disturbances) against an identifiable group of people. The wording is sometimes claimed to have some looseness, but the intent is fairly clear in actual case histories.
To put it into context, this section of the criminal code starts out addressing specifically the promotion of genocide. This is extreme. But all of the related sections follow this similar theme.
You conclude: "the full truth deserves to be out there so people can make informed decisions". I won't address your other points, because they are as misinformed as your first... over blown, out of context, based on uninformed opinions, etc.
No offence.
Anyone have experience and knowledge to compare these two animals?
Here's a rather long and disturbing story of Kerry's relentless efforts to investigate and expose the Contra-Cocaine trafficking which Regan (and Bush Sr, even more) tried to sweep under the carpet.
Feel free to pass on the link to your parents.
This is not to say I disagree with you. I agree with you to a large extent (though not necessarily in reference to this particular movie)!
It's funny though...
I often look though the rotten tomatoes reviews looking for that one reviewer who is consistantly semi-intelligent... or, at least, reflects my own views 50% or more of the time... i've yet to find one...
Movie reviews are like some sort of roulette game is the only conclusion I have been able to reach.
The replies are much more intelligent, and in some cases a lot wittier, than the interviewees.
(Note: i link to the more intelligent letters responding to the interview above; if one wants to read the interview they can find the link on that page as well.)
But who will use your service when they find out however that mine allows for an entire 1 mllion, 46 thousand, five hundred and seventy-six bytes?
Damn, i should have gotten a patent!
Sigh.
Your info does put things in an interesting new (to me) context though. I even read the article you linked (after removing the extra space before the slash).
It's interesting to reflect on the nature of the jokes of the two gentlemen. At least the jokes quoted. One is a sort of elitist joke, a sort of (half?) joking show of self-aggrandizement. While the Jokes attributed to Gore humorously phrase his real positions on issues he cares about and affect America.
Why is it so easy to believe that those (perhaps) joking lines of Bush flow directly from his heart, and that it is actually a confused grin on his face when people laugh at what he said.
I am reminded of the phrase Al Franken so desperately wants to have introduced into wide use, and attributed to himself, that George is "kidding on the square".
Well, and so was Al Gore. I'm sure he was being (almost) entirely serious about the lettuce, while at the same time hilarious.
In other words, it seems to me, that even in light of this fuller context to the lines, doesn't really seem to change their effect or meaning, or tone very much.
Yeah, it's a sad shame that Bush is so unlucky and just can't seem to get enough quality citizens. I guess he'll have to sell the country, or something.
I may be able to understand that not all would recognise the greatest cinematic masterpiece yet to grace the silver screen... tops in every category. Adventure ("I saved the day! I saved the day."), romance ("I got you this bag of jewels! A bag of jewels!"), and hard hitting social commentary ("You want to fuck this?"), a profound and probing study in the psychology of family---especially father-son---relationships ("Now we *can* sew soccer balls, together!"). Beautiful.
But surely at least you have to deeply appreciate any movie that can send 9 out of 10 movie reviewers into shockingly violent fits of dry heaves... it's a beautiful, beautiful thing...
The documentation describes the differences between tsearch2 and openfts like this:
Who cares about IBM, anyone installed this thing on WINE yet?
Wake me up when there's an SQL interface to DB.
Hmmmm.
(My wife has had a Nex IIe for a year... still works great -- never seen another one of those in the wild either though...)
Despite all this, for some reason I still feel Jackson did a pretty good job.
My opinion was reenforced greatly yesterday when I had opportunity to The Bourne Identity for the first time. I had heard all sorts of good things about this movie (considering its genre); a lot of people seemed to like it. I had been intensely curious to see how the filmmaker might have distilled down the essence of the book, which is immensely detailed and full of characters, with a multi-pronged plot. Ludlum's pacing, as usual, is practically flawless once the story starts picking up... if one gets caught up in it, it takes your breath away, it sets your nerves on edge for days.
So I saw the movie. I was stunned. Pretty much the only real similarities to the novel were the name Bourne, the name Treadstone, and the fact that he had amnesia. The entire assassin vs assassin angle was removed (though of course hints that it will return in Supremecy). The major theme and purpose for the woman character was missed. The physical an emotional trauma of the main character throughout the book. The woman (whom in the novel he kidnaps, and treats somewhat badly in his desperation for a long time, her thinking she is about to be killed by a maniac) has stripped away her central role in holding Bourne together psychologically when he can not believe in himself.
In short, next to the novel, the movie was utterly shallow, and quite tediously boring. Yes, reading for 13 hours worth of pages was much more exciting and engaging.
Anyhow, it gave me another reason to respect what Jackson did with LoTR. LoTR is an even more emense and complex work than Ludlum's novel. True, Jackson had 3 movies to draw it out. But while the Bourne movie had some slight interest due to it's style of rendering, for the most part the screen writer's solution was to remove so much that the essense was barely recognizable. The essense of LoTR, the novel, perhaps is stronger in it's imagry. But still, it's amazing how, over all, faithful Jackson was able to remain to the text even with his silly romantic tinkerings.
This post is slightly off topic i guess, as it doesn't have anything to do with FoTR reviews 50 years ago.
Let me guess... Metalica fan? Uh huh, okee...
But whatever it turns out to be, no doubt you deserve it for file sharing.
Even old Populous had more depth in this respect, and it also is basically an "economic" system wrapped in semi-religious terminology.
The analysis should perhaps take a look at art. The most successful and profound religious artists in the realm of writing often have barely detectable overt religous activities depicted: yet the religion in woven into the fabric of their art gives it a profoundness it could have gotten nowhere else. Look at Dostoevsky for example. Even look at Tolkien. His work is very spiritual, but you never actually see the Elves go to church or the Hobbits consult a priest.
The very structure of the world and the nature of the characters imply the depth of spiritual consciousness.
I think Garriot's Ultima has been the closest thing yet created to a religious system. It is basically an ethical system, as he explained: but it allows the character to apply religious meaning to those ethics beyond the simple religious factions provided in the game.
I have lately been playing Deus Ex (the original... i never got around to it before), and actually think it comes close to an almost religious depth. It's interesting that it was not mentioned in the article. The name of the game at least gives a hinting reference to God. (And the G.K. Chesterton quote in a copy of "The Man Who was Thursday" found in various places in the game world was a nice touch.) While there are no priests, or cliche religious cults to battle, the balance of competing perspectives in the game often imply a depth to the characters, and an artistic soul in the designer. While most of the conversations are more political in nature, they could easily have been spun in a more spiritual direction: it's all about motives and underlying premises up which the characters feel the meaning of their existence depends and is expressed.
Good God, the first thing one notices when going to those sites is ... fixed width design. Half my browser window suddenly has no content. Tiny fonts. One had a nice logo, but that's about it.
It's tragic that designers just can't seem to help themselves. The greatest pain in my occassional web designing life is trying to help my sister out : she was a professional graphic designer (before becoming a retailer)... no matter how many millions of times i try to explain to her the concept of web pages, and non-fixed resolutions... she just can not seem to get it. Yet another fixed design, with comlicated overlapping elements... which tend to break on any non-ie browser, and load horribly slowly on modem.
Ah well.
Never mind that this quote is insanely out of context and seriously misconstrued (as it is in every single instance of it being widely quoted in the internet which I have seen). It is clearly just placed in the conclusion as another ad hominem belch which began at the top of the article... but, check the link he provides! It links off to a GOSSIP column on MSNBC where "Jeannette Walls Delivers the Scoop"; and the page featurers a big-toothed caricature of the author, herself, for any who may lack confidence in her journalistic presence.
Whee.
Your definition is wrong on pretty much every level. It's sad that it is modded up so high. But i guess it is a common misconception, as I've heard this argument a lot lately. It is wrong factually; and it is wrong in relation to the common usage of the term.
As for the facts, here is what Merriam-Webster says:
1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing [documentary evidence]
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE [a documentary film of the war]
Do not be distracted by the "broad" synonyms. The definition states clearly "employing documentation in literature or art". This is what Michael Moore did; and did it with a surprising level of self control and artistry, to boot.
Some other dictionaries define things (of course) slightly differently, but there is no substantial difference which negates the above definition.
On a personal note: I went into the movie fairly certain that I'd see nothing new. I already knew all of the "facts" Moore played upon. And this was true to a large extent (though there were a couple of things I'd missed in the news, and a few more which I'd almost forgotten). But despite "knowing" most of the material, I found the "movie" profoundly disturbing and moving in ways I had not felt before. The presentation was incredible.
For example, the absolutely breathtaking intro during the credits... just scene after scene of the elite white house staff being prepared for a press conference, with music over top of it. The slow motion looks. The makeup and hair dressers milling around. The waiting. Was this "deceptive"? We all know that probably all politicians of that level of all parties do the same menial things to prepare: but then these images are not just put in to make the president look ridiculous, but are brought back later and we realise what exact press conference all that was leading up to... breathtaking. It is truly something to think about in regards to how "facts" are presented to us from the Oval Office... not much different than Moore's film. And in this particular case, much more in danger of being realistically convicted of deception and lies especially... and if there were justice: legally.
One of the many subtle and artistic observances of Moore which actually apply to our society and the way government works as a whole, not just the current regime: it's just that the current regime is a particularly gross and hypocritical offender, in the views of many people.
It was by far the most advanced DOS based modem app I ever found (and I tried a lot of them). It was merely Shareware, coded by one guy.
Yeah, very fond memories here as well.
If you have all your users use the global stats by default, it might be a bit dangerous... if one of those users happens to get a lot of legit email that looks like the global classified spam... but it sounds like in the real world this method should work...
And yeah... it's the speed that is the most attractive part for me as well. We have spamassassin on our small ISP, but only users who configure it themselves use it (via spamd)... but the load on the system is annoying. I don't really want to enable it for everyone by default because of this. If I could get DSpam set up and seemingly reasonably accurate using the global stats setup, I'd do it. I'm hoping to do it... eventually. Haven't got around to testing DSpam 3.0 yet.