I never really bothered to fully learn to use leet-speak, since I'm too old for it. But a bit of substitution in combination with an appropriate and memorable bit of poetry can be a pretty good way of constructing a fairly impenetrable password that doesn't require external keychains to keep track of it. A trivial example:
A fly can't bird, but a bird can fly.
-> A fly (4n'7 bird, but a bird (4an'7 fly.
A virtual beer to anyone who gets the reference, but unless someone has the resources to construct a database of every poem known to man and selectively translate keystrokes to 1337 notation, your password is in this case not ideally safe, but close.
If the parent wants a server, he could do worse than install Slackware. For many years I used this as my desktop distro (now I use Arch), but for servers Slack kicks ass. It is so simple to set up and maintain, you don't need to pay for support unless you are lazy or clueless.
Evolution at work: on an overpopulated planet, where the world's resources are being squandered faster than they can be replaced and there's barely standing room in most of the more habitable regions, "educated" people defer procreation for a host of reasons.
Meanwhile, population is increasing out of all control in those areas least able to support it, driven by the fastest pricks and spread legs, each successive generation dumber than the last.
Backwards compatibility is achieved by (optionally) running X(server) as a sub-process of Wayland.
Isn't this inherently inefficient? I can understand (I guess) why some might feel that x.org might need a re-write from the bottom up, but that doesn't help those of us who actually use the interface. Without clearly defining why x.org should be relegated to a sub-process, we are left with an impression that someone has too much time on his hands, and has the leisure to break a lot of programs for no very good reason.
Most of us who have been hanging around the various Unices for a while will have pet peeves about projects that have been unnecessarily diddled with. While I can see that x.org (formerly xfree86) is big, its supposed "bloat" derives from the fact that it has a hell of a lot to do.
If the Wayland developers can present a convincing case for why we need to introduce another process underpinning X11, I'll be interested to hear it. But from what I've read so far, it looks more like a few people are simply bored with the old interface.
Agreed about their software. But I don't use the device for much more than making calls and sending text messages, for which it's adequate. That handset is really beginning to flake out now, so I'll have to take a look at the competition. Yes, I am still using it - in a way, it's kind of cool to have a phone that has been so extensively abused.;-}
That isn't as silly as it sounds. I drove my tractor (twice - forwards and backwards) over my Motorola Razr2 V9 a few months ago. Funny thing is, although the phone looked a bit of a mess, it was still working after that. I guess that qualifies as an endorsement.:-}
One thing I'm curious about is the kernel configuration these guys used - I couldn't find it. Unless they built the kitchen sink into the kernel in the first place, I find it difficult to see how they could have used the same.config for that many builds.
Until a year or two ago, I used to be an inveterate kernel stripper; any driver or service that wasn't used or supported by my hardware got ruthlessly taken out. This did leave me with more responsive machines at the minor cost of my time. More recently I have become lazy, and I have adopted the default kernels that come with my preferred distro; now that I am no longer at university, I'm not pushing my machines as hard with molecular modelling as I used to.
Even changing kernels can be problematic if you go back far enough; you start running into problems (as mentioned in TFA) with not being able to build your kernel with the same version of gcc. If it were not for this factor, I would be more interested to see a comparison against the 2.0-2.4 kernels. Having said that, since 2.4.37.10 was only released last September, I would imagine that that should be compatible with current compilers.
I've been married for over 20 years, and my wife uses Facebook to keep in contact with her various friends, cronies and relations. Some of her Facebook friends are actually my siblings and other relations. I, on the other hand, have no interest whatsoever in flushing my time away on Facebook, and don't have an account.
If my wife wants to bitch about me, she can (and does, at length and maximum Db) to my face. Or better, from several rooms away...:P
What I do know is that I don't need to keep tabs on her, which is both a matter of trust and our familiarity with each other's character, including defects. I would contend that if you need to watch your partner's Facebook posts to check that you are still attached, then you shouldn't be married in the first place.
Right. So unlike the submission's claim that "Continuing with this obviously accurate analysis, perhaps it's men who do more of the dumping just before spring break, as for some--however unfairly--their main concern lies in how their girl will look on the beach", in fact their ladies have realised that the guys are immature douchebags and flushed them. Sounds fair enough to me, but then I've been married for over 20 years.
My "old" Motorola Razr2 V9 has a standard setting to forward selected texts to another number. These forwarded texts appear (as they should) in the sentbox, and the process is manual, so there is no question of underhand activity. Is this uncommon? I can't think of any useful reason why I would want to do this with every SMS.
Tell me you don't subconsciously ignore businesses with excessive/annoying ads.
I consciously ignore businesses with intrusive ads (they get added to my/etc/hosts file), and I use adblock and flashblock for more fine-grained stuff. I also block googleadservices and their other advertising and syndication hosts.
I've been doing this for a long time, and it's always a bit striking to use someone's unprotected machine and see the deluge of advertising content that would be sucking up my bandwidth.
He has a mailing list of 105,000 gullible customers, who will pay money...
Well, I'm not one of them. The Times was once a great newspaper (decades ago, when it was a newspaper), but the standard of its journalism is now pretty much identical to the other syndicated, superficial pap that is regurgitated by all the other media.
It is actually quite hard to find high quality original investigative journalism anywhere these days.
Every time I see this kind of idea posted, I am struck by how creepy and controlling some parents are. What is so wrong with actually talking to your offspring?
Monitoring your kids' phones is just as creepy as doing the same to an adult. In fact, the invasion and abrogation of trust may well be even more unforgivable.
Something seems to have been awry with/. moderation for some time, and metamoderation doesn't seem to be catching it any more. Maybe the user-base has just got too big, and moderators need to be "appointed" with a bit more discretion. And I guess people like me should stop wasting mod points.:-|
Orphaned posts such as you mention are common now, and flagrant abuses such as this: by Dishevel (1105119) on Wed Nov 03, '10 12:33 AM (#34101256)
You are an idiot.
are modded as "informative".
Having physical access to the phone does not imply that one is not malicious. In fact, if anyone at all picked up my phone and altered any settings on it or started any persistent logging programs, I would treat that action as hostile, and the person would have some explaining to do.
In actuality, any perusal of my SMSs would actually be pretty boring, but that doesn't mean they have no right to be private. Even law-enforcement agencies are required to obtain a warrant before tapping a phone.
I suppose it is technically possible that someone might have a legitimate reason to forward all their SMSs to another phone, but for practical purposes it is obvious that this should come under the heading of wire-tapping if applied by a third party with physical access to the phone for a few moments.
maybe it's time people look for something that might work better.
One day, I might have a stab at this problem: I write (as with a fountain-pen on paper) in a form of cursive hand with which most OCR programs have difficulty in coping, despite being regarded by others as quite attractive.
What I would like to see implemented is a touchscreen input mechanism that will accept my finger gestures as I write "on the spot", i.e. without needing to scroll to the right. It should be possible to do, and I'm fairly sure it would be faster than any of the one-handed alternatives for mobile devices.
Though you have to accept that the main problem is buying a Mac...is there really anything that your MacBook does that couldn't be done with a System76 for instance?
In this case, you've picked on someone who isn't actually a Mac fanboy (my desktop systems all run Linux) - but my laptop is a hand-me-down from my wife (thanks to an upgrade) who has specific and clearly-defined reasons for running a Mac. So I have a laptop that I wouldn't otherwise possess, and it happens to be a MacBook. If you want to make some ideological deal of that, then have fun.
I suppose I could go to the trouble of putting Linux on it, but to be fair, Apple does actually make a pretty good implementation of Unix for the desktop, so I have no particularly good reason to do so. I just use it to run a range of apps that includes a larger proportion of FOSS software than might be typical, and all the usual BSDish utilities are available to be called up from a bash/csh/ksh/tcsh or in my case, zsh shell (all installed by default) in a terminal window.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that KDE is (sort of) a play on CDE. ;-)
I never really bothered to fully learn to use leet-speak, since I'm too old for it. But a bit of substitution in combination with an appropriate and memorable bit of poetry can be a pretty good way of constructing a fairly impenetrable password that doesn't require external keychains to keep track of it. A trivial example:
A fly can't bird, but a bird can fly.
-> A fly (4n'7 bird, but a bird (4an'7 fly.
A virtual beer to anyone who gets the reference, but unless someone has the resources to construct a database of every poem known to man and selectively translate keystrokes to 1337 notation, your password is in this case not ideally safe, but close.
If the parent wants a server, he could do worse than install Slackware. For many years I used this as my desktop distro (now I use Arch), but for servers Slack kicks ass. It is so simple to set up and maintain, you don't need to pay for support unless you are lazy or clueless.
Heh. My sister-in-law used to have a rabbit that had a habit of viciously raping their cat. Scary. 8-|
Evolution at work: on an overpopulated planet, where the world's resources are being squandered faster than they can be replaced and there's barely standing room in most of the more habitable regions, "educated" people defer procreation for a host of reasons.
Meanwhile, population is increasing out of all control in those areas least able to support it, driven by the fastest pricks and spread legs, each successive generation dumber than the last.
I wouldn't know (and don't want to) about being raised as an idolater^W Catholic, but at least some things are still simple enough:
$ man woman
No manual entry for woman
$
Backwards compatibility is achieved by (optionally) running X(server) as a sub-process of Wayland.
Isn't this inherently inefficient? I can understand (I guess) why some might feel that x.org might need a re-write from the bottom up, but that doesn't help those of us who actually use the interface. Without clearly defining why x.org should be relegated to a sub-process, we are left with an impression that someone has too much time on his hands, and has the leisure to break a lot of programs for no very good reason.
Most of us who have been hanging around the various Unices for a while will have pet peeves about projects that have been unnecessarily diddled with. While I can see that x.org (formerly xfree86) is big, its supposed "bloat" derives from the fact that it has a hell of a lot to do.
If the Wayland developers can present a convincing case for why we need to introduce another process underpinning X11, I'll be interested to hear it. But from what I've read so far, it looks more like a few people are simply bored with the old interface.
Do I have to be the first to point out that Ubuntu is not an operating system? [Sigh.]
Agreed about their software. But I don't use the device for much more than making calls and sending text messages, for which it's adequate. That handset is really beginning to flake out now, so I'll have to take a look at the competition. Yes, I am still using it - in a way, it's kind of cool to have a phone that has been so extensively abused. ;-}
...in case your phone gets run over by a truck.
:-}
That isn't as silly as it sounds. I drove my tractor (twice - forwards and backwards) over my Motorola Razr2 V9 a few months ago. Funny thing is, although the phone looked a bit of a mess, it was still working after that. I guess that qualifies as an endorsement.
Yawn. When will you kiddies grow up? Linux has been on the desktop for over a decade - in my case, since 1995.
One thing I'm curious about is the kernel configuration these guys used - I couldn't find it. Unless they built the kitchen sink into the kernel in the first place, I find it difficult to see how they could have used the same .config for that many builds.
Until a year or two ago, I used to be an inveterate kernel stripper; any driver or service that wasn't used or supported by my hardware got ruthlessly taken out. This did leave me with more responsive machines at the minor cost of my time. More recently I have become lazy, and I have adopted the default kernels that come with my preferred distro; now that I am no longer at university, I'm not pushing my machines as hard with molecular modelling as I used to.
Even changing kernels can be problematic if you go back far enough; you start running into problems (as mentioned in TFA) with not being able to build your kernel with the same version of gcc. If it were not for this factor, I would be more interested to see a comparison against the 2.0-2.4 kernels. Having said that, since 2.4.37.10 was only released last September, I would imagine that that should be compatible with current compilers.
I've been married for over 20 years, and my wife uses Facebook to keep in contact with her various friends, cronies and relations. Some of her Facebook friends are actually my siblings and other relations. I, on the other hand, have no interest whatsoever in flushing my time away on Facebook, and don't have an account.
:P
If my wife wants to bitch about me, she can (and does, at length and maximum Db) to my face. Or better, from several rooms away...
What I do know is that I don't need to keep tabs on her, which is both a matter of trust and our familiarity with each other's character, including defects. I would contend that if you need to watch your partner's Facebook posts to check that you are still attached, then you shouldn't be married in the first place.
Right. So unlike the submission's claim that "Continuing with this obviously accurate analysis, perhaps it's men who do more of the dumping just before spring break, as for some--however unfairly--their main concern lies in how their girl will look on the beach", in fact their ladies have realised that the guys are immature douchebags and flushed them. Sounds fair enough to me, but then I've been married for over 20 years.
OK, whoosh, my bad. :-\
My "old" Motorola Razr2 V9 has a standard setting to forward selected texts to another number. These forwarded texts appear (as they should) in the sentbox, and the process is manual, so there is no question of underhand activity. Is this uncommon? I can't think of any useful reason why I would want to do this with every SMS.
Tell me you don't subconsciously ignore businesses with excessive/annoying ads.
/etc/hosts file), and I use adblock and flashblock for more fine-grained stuff. I also block googleadservices and their other advertising and syndication hosts.
I consciously ignore businesses with intrusive ads (they get added to my
I've been doing this for a long time, and it's always a bit striking to use someone's unprotected machine and see the deluge of advertising content that would be sucking up my bandwidth.
He has a mailing list of 105,000 gullible customers, who will pay money...
Well, I'm not one of them. The Times was once a great newspaper (decades ago, when it was a newspaper), but the standard of its journalism is now pretty much identical to the other syndicated, superficial pap that is regurgitated by all the other media. It is actually quite hard to find high quality original investigative journalism anywhere these days.
Parents could install it on a child's phone.
Every time I see this kind of idea posted, I am struck by how creepy and controlling some parents are. What is so wrong with actually talking to your offspring?
Monitoring your kids' phones is just as creepy as doing the same to an adult. In fact, the invasion and abrogation of trust may well be even more unforgivable.
Something seems to have been awry with /. moderation for some time, and metamoderation doesn't seem to be catching it any more. Maybe the user-base has just got too big, and moderators need to be "appointed" with a bit more discretion. And I guess people like me should stop wasting mod points. :-|
Orphaned posts such as you mention are common now, and flagrant abuses such as this:
by Dishevel (1105119) on Wed Nov 03, '10 12:33 AM (#34101256)
You are an idiot.
are modded as "informative".
Having physical access to the phone does not imply that one is not malicious. In fact, if anyone at all picked up my phone and altered any settings on it or started any persistent logging programs, I would treat that action as hostile, and the person would have some explaining to do.
In actuality, any perusal of my SMSs would actually be pretty boring, but that doesn't mean they have no right to be private. Even law-enforcement agencies are required to obtain a warrant before tapping a phone.
I suppose it is technically possible that someone might have a legitimate reason to forward all their SMSs to another phone, but for practical purposes it is obvious that this should come under the heading of wire-tapping if applied by a third party with physical access to the phone for a few moments.
maybe it's time people look for something that might work better.
One day, I might have a stab at this problem: I write (as with a fountain-pen on paper) in a form of cursive hand with which most OCR programs have difficulty in coping, despite being regarded by others as quite attractive.
What I would like to see implemented is a touchscreen input mechanism that will accept my finger gestures as I write "on the spot", i.e. without needing to scroll to the right. It should be possible to do, and I'm fairly sure it would be faster than any of the one-handed alternatives for mobile devices.
Though you have to accept that the main problem is buying a Mac...is there really anything that your MacBook does that couldn't be done with a System76 for instance?
In this case, you've picked on someone who isn't actually a Mac fanboy (my desktop systems all run Linux) - but my laptop is a hand-me-down from my wife (thanks to an upgrade) who has specific and clearly-defined reasons for running a Mac. So I have a laptop that I wouldn't otherwise possess, and it happens to be a MacBook. If you want to make some ideological deal of that, then have fun.
I suppose I could go to the trouble of putting Linux on it, but to be fair, Apple does actually make a pretty good implementation of Unix for the desktop, so I have no particularly good reason to do so. I just use it to run a range of apps that includes a larger proportion of FOSS software than might be typical, and all the usual BSDish utilities are available to be called up from a bash/csh/ksh/tcsh or in my case, zsh shell (all installed by default) in a terminal window.