From what I've heard, slightly earlier versions of IE on Windows had semi-cruddy PNG support. Even ignoring problems with support for things like alpha, they render more slowly than other image types.
You're mostly right, though the raster image is of limited resolution, and it isn't inconceivable that an extremely high-resolution scan coupled with vectorization could yield more useful data than a low res raster image.
I didn't claim they weren't. I am claiming that this fact is not the real reason that most Slashdotters are up in arms about music distribution. Check the post...as I said, how many people that suddenly took up the cause were crusading against the RIAA's exploitation of the artist before Napster was around?
ISS is enabled by default on most installation of win2k
It hasn't been installed by default on any of the installations of W2k Pro *I've* done in the last month. (And how is it enabled "by default on most"?)
If you think this is propaganda think again, in some sweatshops people have to work 12h+ in a row with no break whatsoever, even toilet breaks.
Yes, I know. Read my post -- that wasn't my objection. My point is that if you buy from companies that do US-based production instead of those that have foreign sweatshops, instead of the worker "working inhuman hours" which they were *willingly*, (though probably not *happily*) working, you simply take away what meager source of income they have and give it to some (relatively) wealthy citizen of the US.
Afghanastan: Your first two sentences about not knowing who is a terrorist, and it's all warlords and villages is correct. But then you went off about the US killing innocent people, etc, and that's bunk.
Why are they not innocent? We are killing many people in Afghanistan who have nothing whatsoever to do with September 11th. I mean, given the number of weapons floating around in Afghanistan, I suspect that a lot of them might have killed *someone* at some point, but it wasn't brokers in NYC...as a matter of fact, given the region, it was much more likely to be US-encouraged violence against Soviet soldiers.
But lets face it, Afghanastan is a mess. Any new government, no matter how benign, will end up causing some bloodshed. There are just too many warlords who don't want to loose power. I'm not sure what the solution is, or if Karzai will succede. But I honestly believe that he has his people's best interest at heart. Getting him into power should be a good thing for Afghanastan, and it was the right thing for the US to do. What I fear now is that the US will leave him to languish as he faces the difficult job of running such a messed up country.
Maybe. But dammit, Bush is supposed to be avoiding more terrorism. And in the past we've fostered a tremendous amount of dislike by charging into countries and then setting up (and providing muscle to keep in power) puppet governments. Iran. Saudi Arabia probably wouldn't keep the present regime if we exited the region.
So you kill a lot of people in a country, occupy it, and set up a new government for it? I mean, if that isn't a *recipe* for generating lots more terrorists, I can't imagine what is. What if *you* lived in some country, and a huge, powerful nation came in, bombed your house and killed your parents, wiped out the people that you consider your religious leaders, then occupied your country and set up a notoriously corrupt government (this *could* end up being a clean one, but it'd be a first for US-set-up governments). What are you going to do? I can't think of a better way to get people who are willing to die to hurt the country that's commiting such atrocities.
And now we have to put up with a whole generation of people willing to die to hurt the US. At least 50 years of problems generated by Bush's ("They're friends with someone who hit us, so let's clobber them because it feels good.") Insane.
The Quebec act, which prevented expansion west of the Appalachians
Part of the protection from Indians I mentioned. The colonists had been running into trouble with natives that they had ripped off in land deals. The British, in an attempt to stop raids and war, had tried to finally make a land agreement that wouldn't be violated, and let the Indians have a chunk of land.
Mercantilist trade barriers
Which came up *after* the colonists refused to pay for their military protection in order to punish them for not paying.
The fact that the windfall made by the British was much more than the cost they incurred guarding the place
I honestly don't know whether this is true, though it might be. The way they made money, however, was through taxes...
the Confederate side is not
All I really needed for my point was that the Union not to be primarily fighting against slavery, but I'll see if I can still argue this. It's true that slavery was an underlying cause of many of the Confederacy's actions, but I believe that there were other issues quite aside from that.
What government line are you listening to?
I'm not trying to sum up the complete position, just the bits that are frusteratingly and egregiously wrong or distorted. I've heard at many times justification of bombing "terrorist camps" and seen the human rights issued played up quite a bit.
However, the Taliban and Al Qaeda is not running the place anymore. And that is a Good Thing
Wow..someone else uses the "Good Thing" capitalization. I love that.:-)
Anyway, Al Qaeda was hardly running the country. The worst you can claim is that the Taliban (which *was* running the country) wouldn't hand them over to us. And given that bin Laden has been a major figure to the fighters in that country in their decades long struggle against Soviet occupation...it'd be like us handing over George Washington.
That wasn't the Government line, never was. The Government line was that if they conquered France and England, soon they will be trying to conquer us.
Yes. Empire-building, as I wrote in my post.
Geocities links
on
Lego Segway
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It would be a useful addition to Slashcode to autoreject any posts containing links to a user-configurable set of sites, and tell the user why his story was rejected.
ANY machine -- Windows, Linux, Solaris, ANYTHING, is Swiss cheese on the Internet w/o a firewall.
What the hell are you talking about? The only point of a personal firewall is to prevent outside users from contacting servers on the computer. If your servers don't have holes, you don't have any problem.
I'd say that someone relying on a firewall for his security is a lot fucking worse off than someone with solid servers and no firewall in place, because all a firewall is going to let you do is filter the packets based on IP. Spoof an IP and hit something that can be affected with a small amount of data or manage to take control of a machine on the local network, and your "high security" system is toast. It's like the r-services with IP-based trust all over again.
It's this complacent thinking ("my 1337 Linux box is the most-est secure-est!! -- hah, who needs a firewall!?!") that causes security vulnerabilities in the first place.
Nope. Though said people not keeping up with patches to their servers could be a problem.
Tell me personal firewalls don't have a place on Linux and tell me you're running X11 and I'll tell you that you're full of shit.
Oh, I'm running X11 at the moment. It's just fine. X11 has no fundamental security issues.
First, if I cared about disallowing network access, I wouldn't go screwing around with a firewall -- I'd just tell XFree86 to only use Unix socket connections, not TCP.
Second, some of us *don't* use xhost and host-based authentication. Xauth all the way.
Third, some of us *ssl tunnel* our remote X11 connections so that no one can wait for keystrokes.
Now, feel free to post your stunning X11 hole that would let you through all this (and into most Slashdotters' computers).
Most backup systems are not capable of handling the mass quantities of data on modern hard drives at reasonable prices.
CDRW: 600MB chunks to back up a 200GB drive? Ugh. Thanks, but no. Also, I'm not too impressed with CDRW reliability. Sometime, notice how much movies and music on P2P networks is slightly corrupted...that's from people burning to CDs and copying it back to their HD.
DVDRW: still too new to be comfortable. Even more fragile than CDs.
Tapes: Fucking expensive. If you drop $250 on a tape drive, you can have the pleasure of backing up to $40 10GB cartridges. It'd be far cheaper to just buy a second hard drive, even if you're ignoring the initial drive cost.
Zip/SyQuest/similar: Even more expensive, less reliable than the hard drives.
Bought an 80 MB drive for a Mac Plus a decade or so ago. Still works fine.
Next, got a 250MB internal Quantum Fireball for my Power Mac 6100/60.
Then a 2gig external drive...forget the manufacturer, but it was APS-branded.
Then a 6 gig WD. Then a 30gig WD.
Everything works flawlessly after all these years.
These have been under loads for years. I mount noatime, and I have a decent amount of RAM (avoiding heavy paging), but nothing else.
There's only one notable thing about these -- I always, always buy only 5400 RPM drives. No 7200, and certainly not anything above that. YMMV, but I've had good reliability, which I care more about than raw hard drive read times (esp. since Linux's very good caching means that you're rarely limited by drive speeds if you have any reasonable amount of RAM).
The problem is the new drives, which run much hotter.
That's why you buy a quieter, more reliable 5400 RPM model.
Also, when all the manufacturers in a field reduce their warranty, it's time to consider whether maybe they know something about new hard drives that you don't.
Just because Slashdot readers have a variety of opinions doesn't mean that there aren't some overarching feelings. Linux is good. MS is bad. LEGOs are cool. H1Bs are bad.
I use twelve viewports. I put a fair amount of time into finding a window manager (Sawfish) that had extremely quick edge flipping (or at least didn't block other apps from doing things until *it* had finished redrawing). Your visual area isn't actually all that big, so if edge flipping is painless, you can work with a very large desktop.
I haven't used a software CD on my computer in ages. I'm not using Windows, so I don't have much interest in CD-based distribution -- everything I want, I can get (legally) from the network.
I decided it's easier to just install Tiny firewall on all the boxes
Well, there you have it, folks. The administrative interface to manage services on Windows sucks bollocks, which is why Windows boxes run personal firewalls. I could never figure out the point of personal firewalls...it turns out they *don't* have a point, as long as you're on Linux.
You mean other than the fact that we don't run out and save lives in other countries (where we have no economic ties) where people are being massacred?
And the fact that France and Russia, which have strong economic relationships with Iraq, were serious opponents of the bombing, was just coincidence?
Countries go to war over resources, not because they're nice, kind, and altruistic.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I've heard, slightly earlier versions of IE on Windows had semi-cruddy PNG support. Even ignoring problems with support for things like alpha, they render more slowly than other image types.
You're mostly right, though the raster image is of limited resolution, and it isn't inconceivable that an extremely high-resolution scan coupled with vectorization could yield more useful data than a low res raster image.
Yeah...I could see *reading* someone's mail being an issue.
But deleting it, when they've asked for it?
I could see getting upset with an employee who refused to do that.
Yes, the RIAA is exploiting artists.
I didn't claim they weren't. I am claiming that this fact is not the real reason that most Slashdotters are up in arms about music distribution. Check the post...as I said, how many people that suddenly took up the cause were crusading against the RIAA's exploitation of the artist before Napster was around?
ISS is enabled by default on most installation of win2k
It hasn't been installed by default on any of the installations of W2k Pro *I've* done in the last month. (And how is it enabled "by default on most"?)
If you think this is propaganda think again, in some sweatshops people have to work 12h+ in a row with no break whatsoever, even toilet breaks.
Yes, I know. Read my post -- that wasn't my objection. My point is that if you buy from companies that do US-based production instead of those that have foreign sweatshops, instead of the worker "working inhuman hours" which they were *willingly*, (though probably not *happily*) working, you simply take away what meager source of income they have and give it to some (relatively) wealthy citizen of the US.
It relates directly to the link *in the article* to Geocities.
Afghanastan: Your first two sentences about not knowing who is a terrorist, and it's all warlords and villages is correct. But then you went off about the US killing innocent people, etc, and that's bunk.
Why are they not innocent? We are killing many people in Afghanistan who have nothing whatsoever to do with September 11th. I mean, given the number of weapons floating around in Afghanistan, I suspect that a lot of them might have killed *someone* at some point, but it wasn't brokers in NYC...as a matter of fact, given the region, it was much more likely to be US-encouraged violence against Soviet soldiers.
But lets face it, Afghanastan is a mess. Any new government, no matter how benign, will end up causing some bloodshed. There are just too many warlords who don't want to loose power. I'm not sure what the solution is, or if Karzai will succede. But I honestly believe that he has his people's best interest at heart. Getting him into power should be a good thing for Afghanastan, and it was the right thing for the US to do. What I fear now is that the US will leave him to languish as he faces the difficult job of running such a messed up country.
Maybe. But dammit, Bush is supposed to be avoiding more terrorism. And in the past we've fostered a tremendous amount of dislike by charging into countries and then setting up (and providing muscle to keep in power) puppet governments. Iran. Saudi Arabia probably wouldn't keep the present regime if we exited the region.
So you kill a lot of people in a country, occupy it, and set up a new government for it? I mean, if that isn't a *recipe* for generating lots more terrorists, I can't imagine what is. What if *you* lived in some country, and a huge, powerful nation came in, bombed your house and killed your parents, wiped out the people that you consider your religious leaders, then occupied your country and set up a notoriously corrupt government (this *could* end up being a clean one, but it'd be a first for US-set-up governments). What are you going to do? I can't think of a better way to get people who are willing to die to hurt the country that's commiting such atrocities.
And now we have to put up with a whole generation of people willing to die to hurt the US. At least 50 years of problems generated by Bush's ("They're friends with someone who hit us, so let's clobber them because it feels good.") Insane.
the following things had nothing to do with it:
:-)
The Quebec act, which prevented expansion west of the Appalachians
Part of the protection from Indians I mentioned. The colonists had been running into trouble with natives that they had ripped off in land deals. The British, in an attempt to stop raids and war, had tried to finally make a land agreement that wouldn't be violated, and let the Indians have a chunk of land.
Mercantilist trade barriers
Which came up *after* the colonists refused to pay for their military protection in order to punish them for not paying.
The fact that the windfall made by the British was much more than the cost they incurred guarding the place
I honestly don't know whether this is true, though it might be. The way they made money, however, was through taxes...
the Confederate side is not
All I really needed for my point was that the Union not to be primarily fighting against slavery, but I'll see if I can still argue this. It's true that slavery was an underlying cause of many of the Confederacy's actions, but I believe that there were other issues quite aside from that.
What government line are you listening to?
I'm not trying to sum up the complete position, just the bits that are frusteratingly and egregiously wrong or distorted. I've heard at many times justification of bombing "terrorist camps" and seen the human rights issued played up quite a bit.
However, the Taliban and Al Qaeda is not running the place anymore. And that is a Good Thing
Wow..someone else uses the "Good Thing" capitalization. I love that.
Anyway, Al Qaeda was hardly running the country. The worst you can claim is that the Taliban (which *was* running the country) wouldn't hand them over to us. And given that bin Laden has been a major figure to the fighters in that country in their decades long struggle against Soviet occupation...it'd be like us handing over George Washington.
That wasn't the Government line, never was. The Government line was that if they conquered France and England, soon they will be trying to conquer us.
Yes. Empire-building, as I wrote in my post.
It would be a useful addition to Slashcode to autoreject any posts containing links to a user-configurable set of sites, and tell the user why his story was rejected.
geocities *always* hits data limits.
Your sig:
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
And there are far more people using Linux than BSD -- there's a message here.
There is one gun for every person in the North and two guns for every five people in Saskatchewan.
So that would be...uh...15 additional guns in total?
He gets an Informative tag, but no Funny?
English is rather complex.
I rarely see lengthy documents any more without errors.
And the fact that you're sending the signal rather further.
ANY machine -- Windows, Linux, Solaris, ANYTHING, is Swiss cheese on the Internet w/o a firewall.
What the hell are you talking about? The only point of a personal firewall is to prevent outside users from contacting servers on the computer. If your servers don't have holes, you don't have any problem.
I'd say that someone relying on a firewall for his security is a lot fucking worse off than someone with solid servers and no firewall in place, because all a firewall is going to let you do is filter the packets based on IP. Spoof an IP and hit something that can be affected with a small amount of data or manage to take control of a machine on the local network, and your "high security" system is toast. It's like the r-services with IP-based trust all over again.
It's this complacent thinking ("my 1337 Linux box is the most-est secure-est!! -- hah, who needs a firewall!?!") that causes security vulnerabilities in the first place.
Nope. Though said people not keeping up with patches to their servers could be a problem.
Tell me personal firewalls don't have a place on Linux and tell me you're running X11 and I'll tell you that you're full of shit.
Oh, I'm running X11 at the moment. It's just fine. X11 has no fundamental security issues.
First, if I cared about disallowing network access, I wouldn't go screwing around with a firewall -- I'd just tell XFree86 to only use Unix socket connections, not TCP.
Second, some of us *don't* use xhost and host-based authentication. Xauth all the way.
Third, some of us *ssl tunnel* our remote X11 connections so that no one can wait for keystrokes.
Now, feel free to post your stunning X11 hole that would let you through all this (and into most Slashdotters' computers).
This isn't true of at least Seagate drives -- the high end ones are quite different from the consumer ones.
I'd like to see a 5400 RPM SCSI drive.
Mmm....blessed reliability, no vacuum cleaner in the background...
Most backup systems are not capable of handling the mass quantities of data on modern hard drives at reasonable prices.
CDRW: 600MB chunks to back up a 200GB drive? Ugh. Thanks, but no. Also, I'm not too impressed with CDRW reliability. Sometime, notice how much movies and music on P2P networks is slightly corrupted...that's from people burning to CDs and copying it back to their HD.
DVDRW: still too new to be comfortable. Even more fragile than CDs.
Tapes: Fucking expensive. If you drop $250 on a tape drive, you can have the pleasure of backing up to $40 10GB cartridges. It'd be far cheaper to just buy a second hard drive, even if you're ignoring the initial drive cost.
Zip/SyQuest/similar: Even more expensive, less reliable than the hard drives.
I've yet to own a hard drive that failed.
Bought an 80 MB drive for a Mac Plus a decade or so ago. Still works fine.
Next, got a 250MB internal Quantum Fireball for my Power Mac 6100/60.
Then a 2gig external drive...forget the manufacturer, but it was APS-branded.
Then a 6 gig WD. Then a 30gig WD.
Everything works flawlessly after all these years.
These have been under loads for years. I mount noatime, and I have a decent amount of RAM (avoiding heavy paging), but nothing else.
There's only one notable thing about these -- I always, always buy only 5400 RPM drives. No 7200, and certainly not anything above that. YMMV, but I've had good reliability, which I care more about than raw hard drive read times (esp. since Linux's very good caching means that you're rarely limited by drive speeds if you have any reasonable amount of RAM).
The problem is the new drives, which run much hotter.
That's why you buy a quieter, more reliable 5400 RPM model.
Also, when all the manufacturers in a field reduce their warranty, it's time to consider whether maybe they know something about new hard drives that you don't.
Common Slashdot sentiments.
Just because Slashdot readers have a variety of opinions doesn't mean that there aren't some overarching feelings. Linux is good. MS is bad. LEGOs are cool. H1Bs are bad.
I use twelve viewports. I put a fair amount of time into finding a window manager (Sawfish) that had extremely quick edge flipping (or at least didn't block other apps from doing things until *it* had finished redrawing). Your visual area isn't actually all that big, so if edge flipping is painless, you can work with a very large desktop.
I haven't used a software CD on my computer in ages. I'm not using Windows, so I don't have much interest in CD-based distribution -- everything I want, I can get (legally) from the network.
I decided it's easier to just install Tiny firewall on all the boxes
Well, there you have it, folks. The administrative interface to manage services on Windows sucks bollocks, which is why Windows boxes run personal firewalls. I could never figure out the point of personal firewalls...it turns out they *don't* have a point, as long as you're on Linux.
I used to use it to message people that weren't running ICQ and ask them to start it up so that I could talk to them.
You mean other than the fact that we don't run out and save lives in other countries (where we have no economic ties) where people are being massacred?
And the fact that France and Russia, which have strong economic relationships with Iraq, were serious opponents of the bombing, was just coincidence?
Countries go to war over resources, not because they're nice, kind, and altruistic.
My grandfather always used to tell me to eat onions because it would put hair on my chest (oh how he was right).
Fortunately, RedWolves2's bio clarifies that he is, in fact, a man.