on the other side of this, my dad was the kind that said "my house, my rules"...
Mine was the same.
I left home at 16 and never went back. I wonder how often this will happen to some of the other 'loving parents' out there who see control and restriction as an expression of their love.
It is quite obvious in this thread who has kids and who doesn't.
If it is, it shouldn't be. I have kids, a boy and two girls -- both girls in their teens -- and I wouldn't dream of censoring or supervising their internet access.
I think you may be going a little overboard but I am totally on board with the watchful deal.
And perhaps I might be as well, if I thought that my kids were stupid or irresponsible. As it is, they are neither, so I'm perfectly happy to trust them to do the right thing for them.
The kids we are talking about are 11 and 12. I happen to personally know a family who's 12 yo was lured into a meeting by a 38 yo pedophile.
See, I've gotta wonder what kind of environment a 12 year old kid is growing up in that makes her want to go and meet *anyone* she's been corresponding with on the net? I think you've got to be pretty damn unhappy if you're looking for company online at the age of 12.
And when parents are overly 'watchful' and prescriptive, their kids are much more likely to keep secrets from them, and so when they do go off to meet that 38 year old paedophile, the chances are, you'll have no idea at all where they've gone to.
Our rule is that when they're in our house, as long as they behave in an adult fashion, we'll treat them like adults. But when they're out of the house, we want to know where they are and who they're with at all times.
ATT sells their spam circumvention patents to SCO, who, dying from their fight with IBM, seeks to build a new business providing software tools for the spam community.
I suspect that your registry cleaner is *causing* those problems, which are abnormal
I don't believe that it is the registry cleaner, which actually works very well.
I accept that it's abnormal though. That was precisely my point. I can install and uninstall all the crappy software that I like under linux without worrying about what it will do to the basic functionality of the OS.
When I do so under Windows (can't speak for XP because I've never used it, but I'd see this in NT and 98 -- far more so in 98), then over time it will invariably introduce these kinds of abnormalities.
Then, eventually something will break, and while it's probably fixable I'm much happier returning to what I know to be a solid, clean install.
This might be an aesthetic issue, but in general it does not impair the functionality of Windows in any way, and in the odd case when it does, you can fix it.
As I write, in my 'Add/remove software' control panel, whenever I try to remove the app titled Reaktor User Libraries, it actually attempts to remove my text editor. Whenever I try to remove another app, it attempts to remove the drivers for my midi keyboard.
That's impaired functionality by any stretch of the imagination. I've got a commercial registry cleaner/repairer that I run regularly, but it doesn't seem to fix these particular screwed up registry entries.
I suppose I could go in and edit the registry by hand, but I'm a lot happier if I just go back to my trusty Ghost image every couple of months and start again.
You seem to have somehow, God knows how, decided that people posting here represent the views of the Debian developers
No, I was assuming they represented the views of Debian users.
(And by the way, please don't split your infinitives. I know that an excess of Star Trek does that to people, but it grates on the rest of us.)
ask yourself who the "they" are that you talk about in your last paragraph.
These, clearly *are* the developers.
What I'm curious about is whether they know that they're casting pearls before swine, and what they feel about that?
Or do you suppose that in five years time, when the great new all-singing, all-dancing Debian graphical installer is finally unveiled, that we'll see the same Debian users being just as vocal about how the kick-ass Debian installer beats the pants off anything produced by RedHat or Suse?
Jeez, sarcasm is lost on a witless fuck like you, isn't it?
If you don't randomly install software and drivers, then its a non-issue
Hey, if you don't use your machine at all, it's an even bigger non-issue.
But here's by point, spelled out in words of three syllables or fewer so that you can understand it.
I use both Windows and Linux on a daily basis. I install and uninstall a lot of flaky software onto my Windows machine, and the registry gets filled up with crud and random shitty drivers get scattered around the machine. I don't mind that. I understand how the system works and that an occasional reinstall is the price that I pay for that.
My point wasn't that this shouldn't happen. My point was that any stupid fuck -- yes, even someone as retarded as you -- can and does install Windows on a regular basis.
I've always admired the user friendliness of Mandrake
I quite liked it as well, until the bug-ridden mess that was Mandrake 9.
far before Redhat turned into a bloatfest
You don't *have* to install it all, you know. The installer lets you choose what you install and what you leave off.
Personally, I'll miss the quality and reliability of the basic RedHat distro, and I've no idea what I'll use in its place. Fedora certainly doesn't appear to be there yet.
Hang on a minute. I've just sat and read through dozens of posts from Debian and BSD zealots telling me that graphical installers are a crime against humanity, an abomination to all right thinking people, and that the last thing that a politically correct distro like Debian needs is one of these evil contraptions.
Now you're telling me that they'd actually like one really, they just haven't gotten around to doing it yet?
Funny mods don't give karma, overrated takes away karma
That's me fucked then. Any moderation of my posts always seem to be divided equally between Funny and either Flamebait or Troll.
They aren't ever intended to be either, but if the butt of your joke happens to be something that somebody somewhere venerates (be that Linux or Windows, Bush or Clinton) than a joke at the expense of any of them will inevitably result in a flamebait/troll modding.
Of course, you're just giving the Nevill Coghill 'translation' of the original Middle English
It's true. I think they felt that the original Middle English was heavy going for fifteen year old kids.
But that particular word doesn't translate with quite the vulgarity as Mr. Coghill suggests.
Actually, I believe the original is even more vulgar than the Coghill translation, but you're referring to a different stanza. You're quoting the bit Coghill translates as:
"Then held her haunches hard and gave a cry
'O love-me-all-at-once or I shall die!'"
And heeld hire harde by the haunchebones,
And seyde, "Lemman, love me al atones,
I believe that the couplet that Coghill translates as 'grabbed her by the quim', actually reads:
"As clerkes ben ful subtile and ful queynte;
And prively he caughte hire by the queynte,"
Personally, I think that would more accurately be translated as:
"grabbed her by the cunt" as opposed to "grabbed her by the quim" -- but I'm no Middle English scholar, so I could easily be wrong.
the system appears designed to make sure that even good moderators mod things inappropriately - by accident
Oh, OK. Thanks for reminding me about this.
Actually, I've been caught by that 'feature' in the past myself. I'd modded one comment on the page, but somehow, the scroll wheel on my mouse managed to switch focus from the scroll bar to one of the drop down boxes and I accidentally randomly moderate a post that I had no desire to make any judgements about. As a result, when I clicked 'moderate', a random post got a random moderation from me.
That could also explain the many seemingly arbitrary mods up, as well as the mods down.
Jesus, if Darl McBride is on crack, some of these retarded Slashdot moderators must be smoking an eightball an hour.
This isn't a troll at all, but a legitimate question, and in a less high-profile case, the chances are that someone in Linus's position wouldn't need legal representation.
Because of SCO's past behaviour though, and their tendency to use the courts to bully, to intimidate and to try and ramp up their stocks, Linus almost certainly *does* need a lawyer in this instance -- and he needs his own lawyers, rather than just IBM's lawyers, because he needs to preserve his independence, rather than giving SCO the opportunity to say 'Look, there's a big conspiracy going on between Linus and Stallman and IBM. Chewbacca lives on Endor. You must convict, you must convict.'
The story headline is somewhat clueless though. Nobody is funding Linus's 'defence', because Linus hasn't actually been accused of anything.
Is it obscure? I suppose it depends on which part of the world you live in? When we did Canterbury Tales at 'O' Level, this was always our favourite part.
Now, gentleman, this gallant Nicholas One day began to romp and make a pass At this young woman, in a mood of play, Her husband being out down Osney way. Students are sly, and giving way to whim, He made a grab and caught her by the quim And said, 'Unless I have my will of you I'll die of secret love -- O, darling, do!' Then held her haunches hard and gave a cry 'O love-me-all-at-once or I shall die!'
But there isn't a hated semi-meat food called spim
I propose the term Quasi-legal Instant Messages.
It may not be a particularly accurate description of the problem, but it provides us with a great acronym. I'd love to see thousands of people posting:
'I'm sick and tired of all this quim.'
'I get far too much quim.'
'Does anyone have any advice on how I can reduce the volume of my quim'
etc...
SCO's counsel isn't stupid enough to create inadmissible testimony by asking completely irrelevant and prejudicial questions about political alignment or ideology.
Clearly you haven't read any of their filings with the court. After having done so, I find it hard to see what *else* they plan on introducing as evidence in this case but irrelevant and prejudical questions.
Yeah but the really sad thing is the whole world except the UK knows what those damm allegations were, but we cant find out cos no one here is prepared to publish them with that stupid censorship order in place!
And everyone *knows* that the internet doesn't reach the UK yet.
In case you're still wondering, Charles purportedly buggered the butler.
Personally, I think it's good to see our Royal Family upholding the old traditions in this manner.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus wept (as my old mother would say).
How the hell can *any* parent object to their kids reading Slashdot?
Do they not allow you to watch television either?
Do you really think a person commits acts like those just so they can get women in heaven?
If they were Slashdot-reading geeks? Damn straight. They'd be trying to make up for the lack of women they get here on earth.
dude, you couldn't come home pregnant, that's why you got no curfew.
And everyone knows you can't get pregnant if you do it *before* 9.00pm...
on the other side of this, my dad was the kind that said "my house, my rules"...
Mine was the same.
I left home at 16 and never went back. I wonder how often this will happen to some of the other 'loving parents' out there who see control and restriction as an expression of their love.
It is quite obvious in this thread who has kids and who doesn't.
If it is, it shouldn't be. I have kids, a boy and two girls -- both girls in their teens -- and I wouldn't dream of censoring or supervising their internet access.
I think you may be going a little overboard but I am totally on board with the watchful deal.
And perhaps I might be as well, if I thought that my kids were stupid or irresponsible. As it is, they are neither, so I'm perfectly happy to trust them to do the right thing for them.
The kids we are talking about are 11 and 12. I happen to personally know a family who's 12 yo was lured into a meeting by a 38 yo pedophile.
See, I've gotta wonder what kind of environment a 12 year old kid is growing up in that makes her want to go and meet *anyone* she's been corresponding with on the net? I think you've got to be pretty damn unhappy if you're looking for company online at the age of 12.
And when parents are overly 'watchful' and prescriptive, their kids are much more likely to keep secrets from them, and so when they do go off to meet that 38 year old paedophile, the chances are, you'll have no idea at all where they've gone to.
Our rule is that when they're in our house, as long as they behave in an adult fashion, we'll treat them like adults. But when they're out of the house, we want to know where they are and who they're with at all times.
Works very well for us.
Actually, whenever I see your .sig, I think it's referring to goatse.cx.
I'm not quite sure why.
2005...
ATT sells their spam circumvention patents to SCO, who, dying from their fight with IBM, seeks to build a new business providing software tools for the spam community.
I suspect that your registry cleaner is *causing* those problems, which are abnormal
I don't believe that it is the registry cleaner, which actually works very well.
I accept that it's abnormal though. That was precisely my point. I can install and uninstall all the crappy software that I like under linux without worrying about what it will do to the basic functionality of the OS.
When I do so under Windows (can't speak for XP because I've never used it, but I'd see this in NT and 98 -- far more so in 98), then over time it will invariably introduce these kinds of abnormalities.
Then, eventually something will break, and while it's probably fixable I'm much happier returning to what I know to be a solid, clean install.
This might be an aesthetic issue, but in general it does not impair the functionality of Windows in any way, and in the odd case when it does, you can fix it.
As I write, in my 'Add/remove software' control panel, whenever I try to remove the app titled Reaktor User Libraries, it actually attempts to remove my text editor. Whenever I try to remove another app, it attempts to remove the drivers for my midi keyboard.
That's impaired functionality by any stretch of the imagination. I've got a commercial registry cleaner/repairer that I run regularly, but it doesn't seem to fix these particular screwed up registry entries.
I suppose I could go in and edit the registry by hand, but I'm a lot happier if I just go back to my trusty Ghost image every couple of months and start again.
You seem to have somehow, God knows how, decided that people posting here represent the views of the Debian developers
No, I was assuming they represented the views of Debian users.
(And by the way, please don't split your infinitives. I know that an excess of Star Trek does that to people, but it grates on the rest of us.)
ask yourself who the "they" are that you talk about in your last paragraph.
These, clearly *are* the developers.
What I'm curious about is whether they know that they're casting pearls before swine, and what they feel about that?
Or do you suppose that in five years time, when the great new all-singing, all-dancing Debian graphical installer is finally unveiled, that we'll see the same Debian users being just as vocal about how the kick-ass Debian installer beats the pants off anything produced by RedHat or Suse?
No, it makes you a dumbass.
Jeez, sarcasm is lost on a witless fuck like you, isn't it? If you don't randomly install software and drivers, then its a non-issue
Hey, if you don't use your machine at all, it's an even bigger non-issue.
But here's by point, spelled out in words of three syllables or fewer so that you can understand it.
I use both Windows and Linux on a daily basis. I install and uninstall a lot of flaky software onto my Windows machine, and the registry gets filled up with crud and random shitty drivers get scattered around the machine. I don't mind that. I understand how the system works and that an occasional reinstall is the price that I pay for that.
My point wasn't that this shouldn't happen. My point was that any stupid fuck -- yes, even someone as retarded as you -- can and does install Windows on a regular basis.
Now try learning to read in context, dimwit.
I've always admired the user friendliness of Mandrake
I quite liked it as well, until the bug-ridden mess that was Mandrake 9.
far before Redhat turned into a bloatfest
You don't *have* to install it all, you know. The installer lets you choose what you install and what you leave off.
Personally, I'll miss the quality and reliability of the basic RedHat distro, and I've no idea what I'll use in its place. Fedora certainly doesn't appear to be there yet.
If you want a graphical installer, stop being an armchair quarterback and go develop it
Or alternatively, go use a distro that already has one.
Not that anyone needs telling that, as that's what they currently do anyway.
"Average consumers" don't install operating systems. They get an OS pre-installed and never change (or probably even update) it.
Have you never used Windows then? I always understood that a complete reinstall every couple of months was the only way to make the thing useable?
Perhaps that makes me an 'expert' though?
now they're working on the graphical installer
Hang on a minute. I've just sat and read through dozens of posts from Debian and BSD zealots telling me that graphical installers are a crime against humanity, an abomination to all right thinking people, and that the last thing that a politically correct distro like Debian needs is one of these evil contraptions.
Now you're telling me that they'd actually like one really, they just haven't gotten around to doing it yet?
Funny mods don't give karma, overrated takes away karma
That's me fucked then. Any moderation of my posts always seem to be divided equally between Funny and either Flamebait or Troll.
They aren't ever intended to be either, but if the butt of your joke happens to be something that somebody somewhere venerates (be that Linux or Windows, Bush or Clinton) than a joke at the expense of any of them will inevitably result in a flamebait/troll modding.
This one, for example.
I suppose if I cared enough, I should think about posting jokes as an Anonymous Coward, but really, who can be bothered?
Of course, you're just giving the Nevill Coghill 'translation' of the original Middle English
It's true. I think they felt that the original Middle English was heavy going for fifteen year old kids.
But that particular word doesn't translate with quite the vulgarity as Mr. Coghill suggests.
Actually, I believe the original is even more vulgar than the Coghill translation, but you're referring to a different stanza. You're quoting the bit Coghill translates as:
"Then held her haunches hard and gave a cry
'O love-me-all-at-once or I shall die!'"
And heeld hire harde by the haunchebones,
And seyde, "Lemman, love me al atones,
I believe that the couplet that Coghill translates as 'grabbed her by the quim', actually reads:
"As clerkes ben ful subtile and ful queynte;
And prively he caughte hire by the queynte,"
Personally, I think that would more accurately be translated as:
"grabbed her by the cunt" as opposed to "grabbed her by the quim" -- but I'm no Middle English scholar, so I could easily be wrong.
the system appears designed to make sure that even good moderators mod things inappropriately - by accident
Oh, OK. Thanks for reminding me about this.
Actually, I've been caught by that 'feature' in the past myself. I'd modded one comment on the page, but somehow, the scroll wheel on my mouse managed to switch focus from the scroll bar to one of the drop down boxes and I accidentally randomly moderate a post that I had no desire to make any judgements about. As a result, when I clicked 'moderate', a random post got a random moderation from me.
That could also explain the many seemingly arbitrary mods up, as well as the mods down.
Jesus, if Darl McBride is on crack, some of these retarded Slashdot moderators must be smoking an eightball an hour. This isn't a troll at all, but a legitimate question, and in a less high-profile case, the chances are that someone in Linus's position wouldn't need legal representation. Because of SCO's past behaviour though, and their tendency to use the courts to bully, to intimidate and to try and ramp up their stocks, Linus almost certainly *does* need a lawyer in this instance -- and he needs his own lawyers, rather than just IBM's lawyers, because he needs to preserve his independence, rather than giving SCO the opportunity to say 'Look, there's a big conspiracy going on between Linus and Stallman and IBM. Chewbacca lives on Endor. You must convict, you must convict.' The story headline is somewhat clueless though. Nobody is funding Linus's 'defence', because Linus hasn't actually been accused of anything.
Is it obscure? I suppose it depends on which part of the world you live in? When we did Canterbury Tales at 'O' Level, this was always our favourite part.
Now, gentleman, this gallant Nicholas
One day began to romp and make a pass
At this young woman, in a mood of play,
Her husband being out down Osney way.
Students are sly, and giving way to whim,
He made a grab and caught her by the quim
And said, 'Unless I have my will of you
I'll die of secret love -- O, darling, do!'
Then held her haunches hard and gave a cry
'O love-me-all-at-once or I shall die!'
The Miller's Tale, Geoffrey Chaucer
But there isn't a hated semi-meat food called spim
I propose the term Quasi-legal Instant Messages.
It may not be a particularly accurate description of the problem, but it provides us with a great acronym. I'd love to see thousands of people posting:
'I'm sick and tired of all this quim.'
'I get far too much quim.'
'Does anyone have any advice on how I can reduce the volume of my quim'
etc...
SCO's counsel isn't stupid enough to create inadmissible testimony by asking completely irrelevant and prejudicial questions about political alignment or ideology.
Clearly you haven't read any of their filings with the court. After having done so, I find it hard to see what *else* they plan on introducing as evidence in this case but irrelevant and prejudical questions.
You Europeans just frickin' invented humor didn't you?
Pretty well, yes. Remind me, what sort of humour was coming out of America when Chaucer wrote Canterbury Tales?
You really should give people the benefit of the doubt; you don't know whether he was a lawyer or not.
Come on. What are the odds that anyone gave up billing hundreds of dollars an hour in order to sit and wade through this twaddle?
Assuming that someone is lying without any evidence to the contrary is simply unkind.
I think there *is* evidence, but it's circumstantial.
Yeah but the really sad thing is the whole world except the UK knows what those damm allegations were, but we cant find out cos no one here is prepared to publish them with that stupid censorship order in place!
And everyone *knows* that the internet doesn't reach the UK yet.
In case you're still wondering, Charles purportedly buggered the butler.
Personally, I think it's good to see our Royal Family upholding the old traditions in this manner.