Good answer, thank you. My perspective, which is of coursed biased by being a TOS/Mac/OS2/X/Win/X-user, in that order, over the last 15 years, is that now you've broken free from the single winterface start with/tabula rasa/. Remember all those times you said "why does it X?", or "why doesn't it Y?", or "would't it be better if Z?", well now's the time to realise those ideas - find the one that does things the way you _want_ rather than merely what you're _used to_. Maybe I'm just brave, your "user fear" is a superb answer, and I guess I can understand it, it's just not 'me'! YAW.
Stop using deodorant, wash several times a day with the simplest soap you can find (not scented). Your body will eventually stop trying to _fight_ the artificial situation you're currently exposing it to. You are over-producing the hormones and scents currently, and the mechanism your body takes to overproduce these is to over-sweat.
Shower in the morning, and have a freshen up - just with plain water or minimal soap - after lunch-time, and have another light wash after work. Within a month you'll start missing out the lunch-time wash as it won't be necessary any more. Wear cotton rather than man-made fibers, for improved breathability and wicking.
It's not _sweat_ that smells, it's _stale sweat_. Fresh sweat, as this study indicates, is not unpleasant to most people. However, some of the hormones it contains, such as androsterone, are smelt differently by different noses. To some it's like flowers, to some it's sweet, to others it's like a jock's jockstrap. So don't expect everyone to think that you smell divine.
I've not used an aftershave or deoderant for about 10 years, I simply make sure I keep good personal hygiene, and my girlfriend loves my smell. (She's one who likes androsterone) This article isn't news to me at all - hell, my girlfriend always nuzzles up to my armpits when going for a hug! However, I have a very sedentary lifestyle, and a cool flat (I'm exothermic), so I sweat very little on the whole.
I fail to see why there is so much fuss over what's effectively just eye candy. I don't believe that anyone will hold up these window managers up as the point of comparison between Linux and Windows which makes Linux the patform of choice. In particular these immitative ones. I just can't see "Use Linux - it's just like Windows" as being a particularly convincing argument.
What does this WM do that I couldn't do in the past? or even: What is the problem to which this is the solution?
Sure, it's a choice, and choice is good, but having a progress report on 10 different Linux disties and 10 different WMs every couple of months gets a bit boring after a while.
One will have its name chaged by marketeers within the next 3 months, the other won't.
Never try to get inside the minds of marketeers.
Given The Register's ( http://theregister.co.uk/ ) habit of mutating processor names (Celery, Itanic etc.), which annoys the maufacturer(s) greatly (as it dilutes their trademark) I think that AMD we unwise to call one 'Opteron' - I think that it might be called the 'flopteron' if it doesn't catch on quickly.
It;s been a long time since I did the maths, but the user-level virtual address space is about 8192 tasks, 8192 descriptors per task, 2^64 bytes per selector. i.e. 2^90, or 2^77 per task.
The linear address space is still of course 2^64, but user-land doesn't get to see linear addresses, only virtual (descriptor:offset) ones.
Of course, many OSes don't implement memory protection via descriptors, and so each task will have just one 'segment', and rely on linear address protection facilities.
" 64-bit servers for the masses, cheap SPARCs, PPCs "
PPCs aren't 64-bit. _Power_ are 64-bit, but PPCs are 32-bit. The next generation of PPCs will be 64-bit.
However, you're right, you only need to look at e-bay to see cheap old (ten years old, some of them) 64-bit machines: Alpha, HPPA, Sparc, MIPS. Most are Sparcs, admittedly.
I did install it, but it didn't work. I require it so infrequently I couldn't be bothered to work out why, as good old old old Netscape does the trick.
Didn't you notice that the talks/ directory serves a page which is: " HTML composed using mozilla 0.9.9 on a Redhat Linux 8.0 machine. Best viewed in any browser "
So _obviously_ the guy's interested in making sure that _everyone_ can read his work. It's just a shame that he seemed to forget that when writing up all his work. Duh!
Anyway, the Powerpoint file viewer that I use under linux is called "strings". Amazingly it sometimes even works!
Jeeeeesus, I'm so fsking slow. I re-read your comment (and the one above) about 10 times, and was sure there must be a joke in it, but couldn't work out what it was. I feel ashamed that that part of my brain has rotted after 5 years with my current partner. There was a time when I'd have got it immediately, as it is quite funny (though in retrospect predictable).
You bastards, you've brought back happy memories of surfing for pr0n, buying new hard disks for more pr0n, and all that crap. It was easier in those days - more stuff was free.
Back in the days when software came out for the x86 and windows _last_!
Usenet was always the best place for pr0n, I found. The web _still_ doesn't equal it, IMHO. Not that I am allowed to look for it any more (under the thumb!).
The two most commonly used browsers on my systems are lynx (my girlfriend's browser of choice) and w3m (my browser of choice). Only when we're desperate do we resort to Opera, and only when completely desperate (need to view a flash) do we crank up Netscape 4.7.
I use the internet as a library, a resource for information. 99% of the sites I go to can be browsed perfectly as plain text. Keeps it quick, keeps it easy.
So it may not be powered flight any more, but text-mode browsing is still a nice glide most of the time.
However, it uses more fuel than the old motorbike I used to ride when I was a student, which also had a 160km range. And such motorbikes are dime-a-dozen too, so it's hard to compete on cost too.
"while you sit here trying to argue that Mr. al-Muhajir was picked up without reason,"
There is a serious miscommunication problm here. I don't say that at all. I get the feeling you're speaking a different language, as you really don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Come on - show me where I say he was picked up without reason. Give me the reference to my post. You can't, can you. You're beginning to make things up.
The reason I raised the 5th amendment is because the FindLaw analysis of the situation indicated that it was at the core of the government's stance, and as far as I can tell this bloody story is about the government's stance on this guys consitutional rights. Isn't it? Are you reading the same story as me? And did I say anywhere that you raised it? Didn't think so.
The 1971 snippet came from the ACLU analysis. Google will find it. However, you appear too lazy, given that you are too lazy to even parse what I write correctly.
"So again, are you really telling us that an attack by one nation on another nation which it was not at war with prior to the attack is not `an act of war'? Really?"
No, quite the opposite. I think there's miscommunication going on here. I think it was quite absolutely an act of war. I thought that's what I said. The attack was the single thing that took the US from a state of not being at war to a state of being at war. It was bilateral, and as soon as one side declared war, war was declared.
And yes, we have drifted away from the issue. The reason I hold up the nation as being import is because if there is way to identify "the enemy" then anyone, for any ad hoc reason, could be asserted to be the enemy. That's what we're seeing here. He has not partaken in an act of war, as and many I would define one, as far as we know. He's almost certainly plotting something, that I don't doubt. However, he's currently nothing more than a US citizen consorting with suspicious foreigners. (But the same could be said for those that deal with the central and southern American drug producers for example.) If the authorities believe that he has betrayed his country, the surely he'd be guilty of treason, which I'm sure is a capital offense, and most definitely a civilian, criminal, one. As far as I can tell there's no assertion that he has actually taken up arms with another's militia against the USA. So it looks like he fits cleanly on one pigeon-hole, and not in another, yet they are insisting that he fits in the other pigeon-hole.
And why are they making a fuss over 5-th amendment rights? That's irrelevant. If he's tried for and guilty of treason, then whether he co-operates or not is a complete red herring. If they are so sure they have the evidence, then he will lose his head, and there's no need to threaten him with whatever he'll be threatened with if he exercises his now non-existant 5-th amendment rights. And do you actually buy the "sleeper cells" excuse for forbidding access to a lawyer? I think the organ-grinders can still work out what to do even if they lose their favorite monkey.
To be honest, I don't care too much for Padilla as a person, I'm sure he's guilty as fuck of something, but I don't want any triggers pulled until the evidence is irrefutably presented in black and white. However, it's the principle of procedure that concerns me. Look at the case of the 72-year old Brit Derek Bond in South Africa whose association with "the enemy" was that he _had the same surname as someone_ on the FBI's most wanted list. Now I've heard of the phrase "guilty by association", but when the association is sharing a surname, then the FBI's practices and procedures are fucked, truly fucked.
So I have to side with the ACLU here (then again, I side with them on most things). (Assuming the ACLU are still on his case, they were certainly involved last year?) Basically that rides on the following 1971 Congressional statute - "[no] citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." There has been no such act of Congress. (And 1971 postdates 1942.)
However did you notice in the article it said: "nearly doubling in the past six months, according to Brightmail Inc., a major vendor of anti-spam software."
So I'm not 100% sure the stats can be believed - it's in their interest to tell you it's all doom and gloom. It's even in their interest to have you spammed, but that of course would be conspiracy theory central...
Slashdot Mirror
Good answer, thank you. /tabula rasa/. Remember all those times you said "why does it X?", or "why doesn't it Y?", or "would't it be better if Z?", well now's the time to realise those ideas - find the one that does things the way you _want_ rather than merely what you're _used to_.
My perspective, which is of coursed biased by being a TOS/Mac/OS2/X/Win/X-user, in that order, over the last 15 years, is that now you've broken free from the single winterface start with
Maybe I'm just brave, your "user fear" is a superb answer, and I guess I can understand it, it's just not 'me'!
YAW.
Stop using deodorant, wash several times a day with the simplest soap you can find (not scented). Your body will eventually stop trying to _fight_ the artificial situation you're currently exposing it to. You are over-producing the hormones and scents currently, and the mechanism your body takes to overproduce these is to over-sweat.
Shower in the morning, and have a freshen up - just with plain water or minimal soap - after lunch-time, and have another light wash after work. Within a month you'll start missing out the lunch-time wash as it won't be necessary any more. Wear cotton rather than man-made fibers, for improved breathability and wicking.
It's not _sweat_ that smells, it's _stale sweat_. Fresh sweat, as this study indicates, is not unpleasant to most people. However, some of the hormones it contains, such as androsterone, are smelt differently by different noses. To some it's like flowers, to some it's sweet, to others it's like a jock's jockstrap. So don't expect everyone to think that you smell divine.
I've not used an aftershave or deoderant for about 10 years, I simply make sure I keep good personal hygiene, and my girlfriend loves my smell. (She's one who likes androsterone)
This article isn't news to me at all - hell, my girlfriend always nuzzles up to my armpits when going for a hug! However, I have a very sedentary lifestyle, and a cool flat (I'm exothermic), so I sweat very little on the whole.
YAW.
I fail to see why there is so much fuss over what's effectively just eye candy.
I don't believe that anyone will hold up these window managers up as the point of comparison between Linux and Windows which makes Linux the patform of choice. In particular these immitative ones. I just can't see "Use Linux - it's just like Windows" as being a particularly convincing argument.
What does this WM do that I couldn't do in the past?
or even:
What is the problem to which this is the solution?
Sure, it's a choice, and choice is good, but having a progress report on 10 different Linux disties and 10 different WMs every couple of months gets a bit boring after a while.
YAW.
One will have its name chaged by marketeers within the next 3 months, the other won't.
Never try to get inside the minds of marketeers.
Given The Register's ( http://theregister.co.uk/ ) habit of mutating processor names (Celery, Itanic etc.), which annoys the maufacturer(s) greatly (as it dilutes their trademark) I think that AMD we unwise to call one 'Opteron' - I think that it might be called the 'flopteron' if it doesn't catch on quickly.
You heard it here first.
YAW.
Yes, it instantly increases your network bandwidth, obviously.
Remember - even sites with a single text page which would be in cache (memory) get stashdotted, so it's not the hard disks that are the problem.
Or were you trying to whore for a +1 funny?
YAW.
Don't worry - you did the right thing.
There are only 2 times to buy a PC - now, and never.
YAW.
It;s been a long time since I did the maths, but the user-level virtual address space is about 8192 tasks, 8192 descriptors per task, 2^64 bytes per selector. i.e. 2^90, or 2^77 per task.
The linear address space is still of course 2^64, but user-land doesn't get to see linear addresses, only virtual (descriptor:offset) ones.
Of course, many OSes don't implement memory protection via descriptors, and so each task will have just one 'segment', and rely on linear address protection facilities.
YAW
"
64-bit servers for the masses, cheap SPARCs, PPCs
"
PPCs aren't 64-bit. _Power_ are 64-bit, but PPCs are 32-bit.
The next generation of PPCs will be 64-bit.
However, you're right, you only need to look at e-bay to see cheap old (ten years old, some of them) 64-bit machines: Alpha, HPPA, Sparc, MIPS. Most are Sparcs, admittedly.
YAW
I did install it, but it didn't work. I require it so infrequently I couldn't be bothered to work out why, as good old old old Netscape does the trick.
YAW.
You devious chappy you!
I did quick tests against a few big name sites
www.sun.com - failed
www.ibm.com - failed
www.debian.org - failed
www.redhat.com - failed
www.slashdot.org - failed
www.microsoft.com - failed
www.w3c.org - failed
www.opera.com - failed
www.mozilla.org - passed
The failure closest to passing was www.opera.org, which has a _single_ minor error, probably a typo, rather than policy.
My web pages pass, but then again they're optimised for Lynx...
YAW.
"One commodore 64 demo program (just a few POKE statements)..."
h ackers /1/1505.html
You're not thinking of the Commodore PET "urban legend" are you?
C64 != PET. PET != C64. Don't let the big long "Commodore" word confuse you.
For more info on the blow-up-your-PET story, try:
http://www.softwolves.pp.se/misc/arkiv/cbm-
YAW.
Didn't you notice that the talks/ directory serves a page which is:
"
HTML composed using mozilla 0.9.9 on a Redhat Linux 8.0 machine. Best viewed in any browser
"
So _obviously_ the guy's interested in making sure that _everyone_ can read his work. It's just a shame that he seemed to forget that when writing up all his work. Duh!
Anyway, the Powerpoint file viewer that I use under linux is called "strings". Amazingly it sometimes even works!
YAW.
Jeeeeesus, I'm so fsking slow. I re-read your comment (and the one above) about 10 times, and was sure there must be a joke in it, but couldn't work out what it was. I feel ashamed that that part of my brain has rotted after 5 years with my current partner. There was a time when I'd have got it immediately, as it is quite funny (though in retrospect predictable).
You bastards, you've brought back happy memories of surfing for pr0n, buying new hard disks for more pr0n, and all that crap. It was easier in those days - more stuff was free.
YAW.
Hahah - I'll cross them, you knock them in!
I should have made some comment about it being easy to drive Opera with only one hand on the mouse too, I guess, for maximum incrimination!
However, pop-ups at inopportune moments can be embarrassing, can't they?
YAW.
You forgot the mots important bit:
http://WWW.company.web/
I guess
http://www.company.web/homepage.html
would be overkill, wouldn't it?
YAW.
http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/art/merriday.htmlt p://www.spacebarcowboy.com/ascii/a-z/a-z.html
ht
And of course, don't forget "Deep ASCII", not that that can be viewed in Lynx, though.
YAW.
Back in the days when software came out for the x86 and windows _last_!
Usenet was always the best place for pr0n, I found. The web _still_ doesn't equal it, IMHO. Not that I am allowed to look for it any more (under the thumb!).
YAW.
The two most commonly used browsers on my systems are lynx (my girlfriend's browser of choice) and w3m (my browser of choice).
Only when we're desperate do we resort to Opera, and only when completely desperate (need to view a flash) do we crank up Netscape 4.7.
I use the internet as a library, a resource for information. 99% of the sites I go to can be browsed perfectly as plain text. Keeps it quick, keeps it easy.
So it may not be powered flight any more, but text-mode browsing is still a nice glide most of the time.
YAW.
However, it uses more fuel than the old motorbike I used to ride when I was a student, which also had a 160km range. And such motorbikes are dime-a-dozen too, so it's hard to compete on cost too.
YAW.
With only a few oil spray marks on their trouser legs? That'll impress the client/customer.
YAW.
"Sure miss my silks."
;-)
We really don't want to know about your underwear, thank you!
YAW
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=%22citizen+shall+be+imprisoned+or+otherwise+d etained+by+the+United+States%22&btnG=Google+Search
Happy reading.
Bookmark that "google" place, you might find it useful.
YAW.
"while you sit here trying to argue that Mr. al-Muhajir was picked up without reason,"
There is a serious miscommunication problm here. I don't say that at all. I get the feeling you're speaking a different language, as you really don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Come on - show me where I say he was picked up without reason. Give me the reference to my post. You can't, can you. You're beginning to make things up.
The reason I raised the 5th amendment is because the FindLaw analysis of the situation indicated that it was at the core of the government's stance, and as far as I can tell this bloody story is about the government's stance on this guys consitutional rights. Isn't it? Are you reading the same story as me? And did I say anywhere that you raised it? Didn't think so.
The 1971 snippet came from the ACLU analysis. Google will find it. However, you appear too lazy, given that you are too lazy to even parse what I write correctly.
YAW.
"So again, are you really telling us that an attack by one nation on another nation which it was not at war with prior to the attack is not `an act of war'? Really?"
No, quite the opposite. I think there's miscommunication going on here. I think it was quite absolutely an act of war. I thought that's what I said. The attack was the single thing that took the US from a state of not being at war to a state of being at war.
It was bilateral, and as soon as one side declared war, war was declared.
And yes, we have drifted away from the issue. The reason I hold up the nation as being import is because if there is way to identify "the enemy" then anyone, for any ad hoc reason, could be asserted to be the enemy. That's what we're seeing here. He has not partaken in an act of war, as and many I would define one, as far as we know. He's almost certainly plotting something, that I don't doubt. However, he's currently nothing more than a US citizen consorting with suspicious foreigners. (But the same could be said for those that deal with the central and southern American drug producers for example.) If the authorities believe that he has betrayed his country, the surely he'd be guilty of treason, which I'm sure is a capital offense, and most definitely a civilian, criminal, one. As far as I can tell there's no assertion that he has actually taken up arms with another's militia against the USA. So it looks like he fits cleanly on one pigeon-hole, and not in another, yet they are insisting that he fits in the other pigeon-hole.
And why are they making a fuss over 5-th amendment rights? That's irrelevant. If he's tried for and guilty of treason, then whether he co-operates or not is a complete red herring. If they are so sure they have the evidence, then he will lose his head, and there's no need to threaten him with whatever he'll be threatened with if he exercises his now non-existant 5-th amendment rights. And do you actually buy the "sleeper cells" excuse for forbidding access to a lawyer? I think the organ-grinders can still work out what to do even if they lose their favorite monkey.
To be honest, I don't care too much for Padilla as a person, I'm sure he's guilty as fuck of something, but I don't want any triggers pulled until the evidence is irrefutably presented in black and white. However, it's the principle of procedure that concerns me. Look at the case of the 72-year old Brit Derek Bond in South Africa whose association with "the enemy" was that he _had the same surname as someone_ on the FBI's most wanted list. Now I've heard of the phrase "guilty by association", but when the association is sharing a surname, then the FBI's practices and procedures are fucked, truly fucked.
So I have to side with the ACLU here (then again, I side with them on most things). (Assuming the ACLU are still on his case, they were certainly involved last year?) Basically that rides on the following 1971 Congressional statute - "[no] citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." There has been no such act of Congress. (And 1971 postdates 1942.)
YAW.
Nice innit?
However did you notice in the article it said:
"nearly doubling in the past six months, according to Brightmail Inc., a major vendor of anti-spam software."
So I'm not 100% sure the stats can be believed - it's in their interest to tell you it's all doom and gloom. It's even in their interest to have you spammed, but that of course would be conspiracy theory central...
YAW.