He is a warez Monger. He will become a god because of his Hard drives...
[Old Man Voice] Ya know, when I was a kid, we had more stringent theological requirements for godhood.... Omnipotence, omniscience, at least turning yourself into a swan to get laid. Ragnarok, Armegeddon, at least killing the Titans. Our gods destroyed whole cities of pervs, flooded the Earth, poked out their eyes in exchange for Wisdom, at least got themselves nailed to trees.... I dunno about you kids...[/Old Man Voice]
Why is this post considered a troll? Just because it links to goatse?
Re:Need Link to Source Code and or Binary
on
Triangle Boy Lives
·
· Score: 1
Now here's a question:
I don't necessarily want to run Triangle Boy for all and sundry oppressed peoples of Noliberty-istan and pointy-headed-boss.com.
But I'd like to run it for... me. That is, I'd like to be able to https from work to my box at home, have my home box fetch pages from not-approved-websites.com, and re-send that data, encypted, to my work box.
The "obvious" solution seems to be to run Apache with SSL, and create an SSL'd frame around a cgi program that does nothing other than forward. (I'm assuming that clicking a link on an encrypted page generates an encrypted GET; this may be an unfounded assumption.)
Given that I'd already running a web proxy on my home machine, I wonder if anyone has a better suggestion?
Re:Filters are in danger... Oh no.
on
Triangle Boy Lives
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I personally have been in a University which performed heavy filtering
Did everybody on campus go to chapel together?
Did they also have lights-out in the dorms at 11pm, after the "Dorm Mother" made sure that all members of the opposite sex had signed out and left?
Did they hold seminars explaining that "self-abuse" could lead to blindness and hairy palms?
Did they ban Elvis for swiveling his hips, and look askance at all the "groovy" kids who went to the campus rally for Adlai Stevenson's presidential campaign?
Policies like your uni's scare me a lot more than the thought that some geek might be pullin' his pud to pictures of Paulina Porizkova.
No, the wildest "coincidence" is that said software firm put out the press release that the article in siliconvalley.internet.com is surely a rewrite of...
A Calif.-based software company Friday issued a warning for network administrators who think they have total control of content flowing in and out of their systems: Triangle Boy is alive and well...
Starbucks's Muzak is slightly annoying, by not so much that it distracts me from my reading; nor is it loud enough to overpower my head phones.
I suppose it's somewhat "hip" music, picked by a demographer at Starbucks to appeal to their yuppie customers and above all not to offend customers or in any way frustrate those customers in their quest to give Starbucks $5.00 for a cup of coffee.
And that's a good thing. I'm no fan of corporate blandness or lowest common denominator marketing, but...
A Starbucks employee is often a pierced-nosed, tattooed counter-culture wanna-be, and there is no way I'm going to enjoy my Venti Mocha Frap listening to what that employee wants to hear.
I know this makes me sound old and curmudgeonly, but I've always been this way.
killing a person because of who they are is prelude to genocide. much like the killing of a cop, it is a crime against the social order. how is this not a treason?
I don't like to throw the term "genocide" around too lightly, but, ok, let's stipulate for the moment that hate crime is a "prelude to genocide".
Then I can equally well argue that any murder that isn't state sanctioned is a prelude to anarchy, because the murderer, by taking a power the State reserves exclusively to itself, is undermining or even beginning the overthrow of the State.
But all this "asshole" is saying -- I won't speak for anybody else you've been deliberative enough to call an asshole -- all I'm saying is that I'm all for punishing murder and other crimes. I'm all for punishing the guy who murders because of the victim's race, and I'm all for punishing the guy who murders to get at the victim's pocketbook, and I'm all for punishing the guy who kills out of rage or jealousy or sheer bloody-mindedness.
But if we establish hate crimes laws that exact different punishments, we are, explicitly or implicitly saying some thoughts are OK to believe, and some aren't. Here's what I mean: if killing somebody because they're black is a hate crime, but killing somebody because they're a Communist isn't, we are implicitly saying that being anti-communist is OK, but that being anti-black (racist) is wrong.
One world view -- "Communism is a threat to all we hold dear" -- is OK, in that we won't punish you any extra if you act on it by murdering a Communist.
Another world view -- "Racial equality and miscegenation are a threat to all we hold dear" -- isn't an belief OK'd by the State, and the State demonstrates it's not OK by punishing you extra if you act on it by murdering an African-American.
Now maybe you'll argue that it's more fundamental to be black that it is to be Communist. But some would argue that deeply held belief is more fundamental than accidents of birth. A Communist probably would, a born-again Christian certainly would.
So, on behalf of the State, what beliefs will you say are OK to have? And how is telling people what it's OK - or not OK -- to believe consistent with freedom?
American consumers have proven time and again that they prefer a sense of ownership. They like to have their applications installed on their machine.
Dude! I'm getting me that Japanese terabyte hologram disk, and then I'm gonna run a big ol' 2GHz dumb terminal!
Yup, I'll put none o' that comppiled code on that there terabyte, I'll just fill it with my MS Windows swap file and a bunch of MS Active Desktop scripts written in Visual Basic for Applications!
we already have differing penalties "based on... the criminal's thoughts." [e.g., basing different categories of homicides on intent]
True. No argument there.
But differentiating between first degree murder and a lesser homicide charges is -- pun intended -- a horse of an entirely different color than differentiating between a "hate crime" and non-"hate crime".
We punish homicide if you planned to do it ("first degree"), if you didn't plan to do it ("second degree") and even if you failed to adequately plan your actions to prevent it ("negligent homicide"). But please note that this is all about planning your actions.
The Anglo-American political tradition, especially as codified in the U.S. Constitution, strives to protect individual freedom of belief. This tradition, one might say, strives to officially ignore what one believes, and to pay attention to one's actions only.
This is not merely a high-minded libertarianism of spirit; it's also a quite pragmatic formula first worked out in Europe after years suffering the disastrous consequences of attempting to enforce individual moral belief. With the rise of Protestantism, Europe was convulsed by decades of warfare putatively over and greatly fueled by sectarian difference. The wars ended with millions dead -- and with treaties guaranteeing freedom of religion. The State agreed, more (Holland) or less (English "test" laws), not to examine individuals' beliefs lest it lead once again to civil war.
The situation was as precarious, or more, in the nascent United States: while the northern British American colonies had been settled by persecuted religious minorities (Massachusetts Bay by Puritans, Pennsylvania (led) by Quakers and later joined by a whole host of Protestant splinter sects, Maryland by Catholics), these minorities held radically different religious views and some were more than willing to become persecutors themselves (thus the founding of Rhode Island, for example). To create a common civil union - the United States -- in North America required freedom of conscience, again not merely because it is right but also because nothing else would work in that pluralistic amalgamation of colonies and sects.
What has this to do with laws against hate crimes? Our legal tradition, learned with hard experience, is to punish injurious actions but not to police or punish belief. Hate crime laws deviate from this legal tradition by more forcibly punishing actions that are accompanied by beliefs or ideologies.
While racial bigotry has become perhaps the most ill-regarded civil sin in the United States, I don't think any mainstream legal theorist has or would explicitly propose outlawing bigoted beliefs unaccompanied by actions.
Except -- what, then, does the "hate crime" law punish? The action? No, that's already illegal.
Is it punishing the action, when performed by a bigot? But isn't that just saying that we have different laws for different classes of people: one law for "right-thinking" people and another for "bigots"? And since the difference between a bigot and a non-bigot is just that one does, and the other does not, hold some bigoted belief, isn't that tantamount to punishing the bigot -- (or to be entirely technical, punishing the bigot more when we're otherwise punishing him for some action) - for having that belief?
Then if the "hate crime" law isn't punishing the action, and it isn't punishing the action when performed by a bigot, then it must be punishing - yes - the holding of the bigoted belief. And if we're punishing the holding of a belief, that's entirely distinct from any action. The action triggers the punishment, yes, but what's punished is not the action, but the "incorrect" believing. That's not really any different from outlawing the belief, and that's just saying that we punish "thought crime".
Outlawing belief or ideologies didn't work very well in 17th century Europe, it wouldn't have worked at the founding of the United States, and it hasn't much chance of working well now. Let's leave every man the freedom of his conscience, and punish his actions without trying to read or regulate his mind.
It's "needed" so that Joe Congressman can claim he's "doing something" about a "problem" that Joe Constituent has heard Katie Couric say is "pretty bad".
Not unlike hate crime laws, which legislate additional penalties for already criminal acts based on the victim's membership in some group and the criminal's thoughts.
Assaulting me: 1 year. Assaulting me because I'm Zoroastrian: 5 years. Assaulting me by hitting me over the head with a computer: 10 years.
Passing feel-good laws that make a patchwork of justice: priceless!
I consider it at least equally likely that extraterrestrial life forms are more interested in gazing at their own navels than evolving the means for the complex physical arrangements of materials necessary for instrumentalities designed to emit radio signals.
How can you possibly believe this?!!!
In 1969, men landed on the moon! Since then we've utilized our tremendous technological abilities to go into space hundreds of times more! We've focused the mainstay of our planet's resources to ring the Earth with satellites... to ensure that anyone, any place on the globe, can watch MTV and download pr0n!
As others have noted, the "it's just bolierplate" argument won't prevent Toast Legal Counsel from saying, at some future time, well, you agreed to the EULA and we've changed our minds, too bad sucker.
I'd give the benefit of the doubt to Toast Product Manager and assume that Toast Legal Counsel was pulling the wool over his eyes too, except....
Toast Product Manager is such an odd name, it makes me wonder if he's hiding behind his title. I mean, if you're on the up and up, why not use your own name?
--orthogonal
(Oh, I forgot, the culture of "personal responsibility" has given way to the culture of "no controlling legal authority".)
Imagine my surprise, when one day, I was reading a post that kept talking about how fun it would be for the poster to meet "all of his new clbuttmates on the first day of clbutt"..
Do you meet "clbuttmates" "in the Navy" or when you "go to the Y.M.C.A., the Y.M.C.A."?
-- And do your "clbuttmates" resemble the Village People?
I paid the $30 to get POP3 access [from Yahoo, I presume] for a year, so it isn't just the free(beer) accounts.
I paid $35 to get my-domain-name.tld hosted by Yahoo! This included: five addresses @mydomain.tld, Yahoo! advertising on every outgoing mail, and Geocities web space with ads and whatever absurd bandwidth limit a free Geocities site has. Then Yahoo! told me I'd have to pay $30 to continue having POP3 access.
So I transferred my domain to hostica.com, and for $25 bucks got: another year of registration, as many email addresses as I want (albeit forwarded to one POP3 account), 5MB of space, and 10GB/month of bandwidth, with the option to add services from an a la carte pricing menu. And did I mention? No ads!
(I have no financial interest in hostica, I get no referral fee, no consideration of any sort for this post. This ain't no ad, and it's not even that I don't think you could do as well somewhere else. It's more than you can do a lot better than Yahoo, for not much money. It's just a matter of doing the math -- $65/annum for less, or $25/annum for much more -- and preferring better service.)
Proxomitron's a filtering web proxy; to sufficiently clean HTML requires several rules (regexes, essentially), but it's do-able and doesn't slow down browsing (even ADSL) enough to notice on my 866 Mhz W2K box.
Oh, and it removes lots of other unwanted crap, can be customized if you can write a regex, and can be over-ridden just by clicking on a browser bookmark.
(Actually, I use Proxomitron as the first filter in a series of two; the browser actually communicates to another filtering proxy which passes requests to Proxomitron. And it's still not appreciably slower -- given that I filter out a lot of crap, it's often faster.)
This is a false economy. Not only would I be more than willing to pay $5 for flash, but the lack of it will probably cost Handspring my business in the future.
I own a Handspring Visor Deluxe now, and I'm quite happy with the machine and with Handspring's service. But I need to upgrade for two reasons: I'm starting to see apps I want that won't run under my current OS, and I read enough on the machine that I want a color version. Were Handsprings flashable, it would be a no-brainer.
But I'm not only stuck with an out-of-date OS, I waste a lot of space with built-in apps I've long since replaced with better versions. So it's likely a Palm for me next time, and all over $5.
Slashdot Mirror
He is a warez Monger. He will become a god because of his Hard drives...
[Old Man Voice] Ya know, when I was a kid, we had more stringent theological requirements for godhood....
Omnipotence, omniscience, at least turning yourself into a swan to get laid.
Ragnarok, Armegeddon, at least killing the Titans.
Our gods destroyed whole cities of pervs, flooded the Earth, poked out their eyes in exchange for Wisdom, at least got themselves nailed to trees....
I dunno about you kids...[/Old Man Voice]
Let's spam 10,000 random addresses, asking if they have a "biology" facility.
And if they want to help us our "biology" research...
into the mechanics of reproduction...
of cannabis producing plants...
for the DEA.
Why is this post considered a troll? Just because it links to goatse?
Now here's a question:
I don't necessarily want to run Triangle Boy for all and sundry oppressed peoples of Noliberty-istan and pointy-headed-boss.com.
But I'd like to run it for... me. That is, I'd like to be able to https from work to my box at home, have my home box fetch pages from not-approved-websites.com, and re-send that data, encypted, to my work box.
The "obvious" solution seems to be to run Apache with SSL, and create an SSL'd frame around a cgi program that does nothing other than forward. (I'm assuming that clicking a link on an encrypted page generates an encrypted GET; this may be an unfounded assumption.)
Given that I'd already running a web proxy on my home machine, I wonder if anyone has a better suggestion?
I was looking for alliteration. ;)
It's the Adlai Stevenson part that shows age.
I personally have been in a University which performed heavy filtering
Did everybody on campus go to chapel together?
Did they also have lights-out in the dorms at 11pm, after the "Dorm Mother" made sure that all members of the opposite sex had signed out and left?
Did they hold seminars explaining that "self-abuse" could lead to blindness and hairy palms?
Did they ban Elvis for swiveling his hips, and look askance at all the "groovy" kids who went to the campus rally for Adlai Stevenson's presidential campaign?
Policies like your uni's scare me a lot more than the thought that some geek might be pullin' his pud to pictures of Paulina Porizkova.
Uh, I use my computer so that I don't have to interact face to face with people.
Much less smell their unwashed bodies out camping.
Geeks are so much more presentable in ASCII.
Why's he "[A]n anonymous person" and not "an An Anonymous Coward"?
/. editor knows this person's identity?
Should I infer something about his identity from this? Should I infer that this means the
Should I cue the X-Files theme song?
I think they recently renamed to "fuf" chairs, whatever the hell that means
Presumably, 'fuf', unlike 'poof' is not derisive British slang for 'homosexual', on the order of 'fag'.
Starbucks's Muzak is slightly annoying, by not so much that it distracts me from my reading; nor is it loud enough to overpower my head phones.
I suppose it's somewhat "hip" music, picked by a demographer at Starbucks to appeal to their yuppie customers and above all not to offend customers or in any way frustrate those customers in their quest to give Starbucks $5.00 for a cup of coffee.
And that's a good thing. I'm no fan of corporate blandness or lowest common denominator marketing, but...
A Starbucks employee is often a pierced-nosed, tattooed counter-culture wanna-be, and there is no way I'm going to enjoy my Venti Mocha Frap listening to what that employee wants to hear.
I know this makes me sound old and curmudgeonly, but I've always been this way.
Donate any down-time to Folding@home.
killing a person because of who they are is prelude to genocide. much like the killing of a cop, it is a crime against the social order. how is this not a treason?
I don't like to throw the term "genocide" around too lightly, but, ok, let's stipulate for the moment that hate crime is a "prelude to genocide".
Then I can equally well argue that any murder that isn't state sanctioned is a prelude to anarchy, because the murderer, by taking a power the State reserves exclusively to itself, is undermining or even beginning the overthrow of the State.
But all this "asshole" is saying -- I won't speak for anybody else you've been deliberative enough to call an asshole -- all I'm saying is that I'm all for punishing murder and other crimes. I'm all for punishing the guy who murders because of the victim's race, and I'm all for punishing the guy who murders to get at the victim's pocketbook, and I'm all for punishing the guy who kills out of rage or jealousy or sheer bloody-mindedness.
But if we establish hate crimes laws that exact different punishments, we are, explicitly or implicitly saying some thoughts are OK to believe, and some aren't. Here's what I mean: if killing somebody because they're black is a hate crime, but killing somebody because they're a Communist isn't, we are implicitly saying that being anti-communist is OK, but that being anti-black (racist) is wrong.
One world view -- "Communism is a threat to all we hold dear" -- is OK, in that we won't punish you any extra if you act on it by murdering a Communist.
Another world view -- "Racial equality and miscegenation are a threat to all we hold dear" -- isn't an belief OK'd by the State, and the State demonstrates it's not OK by punishing you extra if you act on it by murdering an African-American.
Now maybe you'll argue that it's more fundamental to be black that it is to be Communist. But some would argue that deeply held belief is more fundamental than accidents of birth. A Communist probably would, a born-again Christian certainly would.
So, on behalf of the State, what beliefs will you say are OK to have? And how is telling people what it's OK - or not OK -- to believe consistent with freedom?
Dude! I'm getting me that Japanese terabyte hologram disk, and then I'm gonna run a big ol' 2GHz dumb terminal!
Yup, I'll put none o' that comppiled code on that there terabyte, I'll just fill it with my MS Windows swap file and a bunch of MS Active Desktop scripts written in Visual Basic for Applications!
Dude!
A-fucking men . . . Is that like the X-Men, but different? Or an A-Team reference, perhaps? :)
"The A-fucking men"
It's a superhero comic designed to lift the spirits of otherwise alienated and isolated gay teen boys.
we already have differing penalties "based on... the criminal's thoughts." [e.g., basing different categories of homicides on intent]
True. No argument there.
But differentiating between first degree murder and a lesser homicide charges is -- pun intended -- a horse of an entirely different color than differentiating between a "hate crime" and non-"hate crime".
We punish homicide if you planned to do it ("first degree"), if you didn't plan to do it ("second degree") and even if you failed to adequately plan your actions to prevent it ("negligent homicide"). But please note that this is all about planning your actions.
The Anglo-American political tradition, especially as codified in the U.S. Constitution, strives to protect individual freedom of belief. This tradition, one might say, strives to officially ignore what one believes, and to pay attention to one's actions only.
This is not merely a high-minded libertarianism of spirit; it's also a quite pragmatic formula first worked out in Europe after years suffering the disastrous consequences of attempting to enforce individual moral belief. With the rise of Protestantism, Europe was convulsed by decades of warfare putatively over and greatly fueled by sectarian difference. The wars ended with millions dead -- and with treaties guaranteeing freedom of religion. The State agreed, more (Holland) or less (English "test" laws), not to examine individuals' beliefs lest it lead once again to civil war.
The situation was as precarious, or more, in the nascent United States: while the northern British American colonies had been settled by persecuted religious minorities (Massachusetts Bay by Puritans, Pennsylvania (led) by Quakers and later joined by a whole host of Protestant splinter sects, Maryland by Catholics), these minorities held radically different religious views and some were more than willing to become persecutors themselves (thus the founding of Rhode Island, for example). To create a common civil union - the United States -- in North America required freedom of conscience, again not merely because it is right but also because nothing else would work in that pluralistic amalgamation of colonies and sects.
What has this to do with laws against hate crimes? Our legal tradition, learned with hard experience, is to punish injurious actions but not to police or punish belief. Hate crime laws deviate from this legal tradition by more forcibly punishing actions that are accompanied by beliefs or ideologies.
While racial bigotry has become perhaps the most ill-regarded civil sin in the United States, I don't think any mainstream legal theorist has or would explicitly propose outlawing bigoted beliefs unaccompanied by actions.
Except -- what, then, does the "hate crime" law punish? The action? No, that's already illegal.
Is it punishing the action, when performed by a bigot? But isn't that just saying that we have different laws for different classes of people: one law for "right-thinking" people and another for "bigots"? And since the difference between a bigot and a non-bigot is just that one does, and the other does not, hold some bigoted belief, isn't that tantamount to punishing the bigot -- (or to be entirely technical, punishing the bigot more when we're otherwise punishing him for some action) - for having that belief?
Then if the "hate crime" law isn't punishing the action, and it isn't punishing the action when performed by a bigot, then it must be punishing - yes - the holding of the bigoted belief. And if we're punishing the holding of a belief, that's entirely distinct from any action. The action triggers the punishment, yes, but what's punished is not the action, but the "incorrect" believing. That's not really any different from outlawing the belief, and that's just saying that we punish "thought crime".
Outlawing belief or ideologies didn't work very well in 17th century Europe, it wouldn't have worked at the founding of the United States, and it hasn't much chance of working well now. Let's leave every man the freedom of his conscience, and punish his actions without trying to read or regulate his mind.
It's "needed" so that Joe Congressman can claim he's "doing something" about a "problem" that Joe Constituent has heard Katie Couric say is "pretty bad".
Not unlike hate crime laws, which legislate additional penalties for already criminal acts based on the victim's membership in some group and the criminal's thoughts.
Assaulting me: 1 year.
Assaulting me because I'm Zoroastrian: 5 years.
Assaulting me by hitting me over the head with a computer: 10 years.
Passing feel-good laws that make a patchwork of justice: priceless!
That's why my CPU utilization is always 100%!
Ob OnTopic Tie-In: Because I'll get cancer long before you'll chat with aliens.
I consider it at least equally likely that extraterrestrial life forms are more interested in gazing at their own navels than evolving the means for the complex physical arrangements of materials necessary for instrumentalities designed to emit radio signals.
How can you possibly believe this?!!!
In 1969, men landed on the moon!
Since then we've utilized our tremendous technological abilities to go into space hundreds of times more!
We've focused the mainstay of our planet's resources to ring the Earth with satellites...
to ensure that anyone, any place on the globe, can watch MTV and download pr0n!
Oh. Nevermind.
Toast Product Manager
As others have noted, the "it's just bolierplate" argument won't prevent Toast Legal Counsel from saying, at some future time, well, you agreed to the EULA and we've changed our minds, too bad sucker.
I'd give the benefit of the doubt to Toast Product Manager and assume that Toast Legal Counsel was pulling the wool over his eyes too, except....
Toast Product Manager is such an odd name, it makes me wonder if he's hiding behind his title. I mean, if you're on the up and up, why not use your own name?
--orthogonal
(Oh, I forgot, the culture of "personal responsibility" has given way to the culture of "no controlling legal authority".)
Imagine my surprise, when one day, I was reading a post that kept talking about how fun it would be for the poster to meet "all of his new clbuttmates on the first day of clbutt". .
Do you meet "clbuttmates" "in the Navy" or when you "go to the Y.M.C.A., the Y.M.C.A."?
--
And do your "clbuttmates" resemble the Village People?
I paid the $30 to get POP3 access [from Yahoo, I presume] for a year, so it isn't just the free(beer) accounts.
I paid $35 to get my-domain-name.tld hosted by Yahoo! This included: five addresses @mydomain.tld, Yahoo! advertising on every outgoing mail, and Geocities web space with ads and whatever absurd bandwidth limit a free Geocities site has. Then Yahoo! told me I'd have to pay $30 to continue having POP3 access.
So I transferred my domain to hostica.com, and for $25 bucks got: another year of registration, as many email addresses as I want (albeit forwarded to one POP3 account), 5MB of space, and 10GB/month of bandwidth, with the option to add services from an a la carte pricing menu. And did I mention? No ads!
(I have no financial interest in hostica, I get no referral fee, no consideration of any sort for this post. This ain't no ad, and it's not even that I don't think you could do as well somewhere else. It's more than you can do a lot better than Yahoo, for not much money. It's just a matter of doing the math -- $65/annum for less, or $25/annum for much more -- and preferring better service.)
Google on Proxomitron for a solution that works.
Proxomitron's a filtering web proxy; to sufficiently clean HTML requires several rules (regexes, essentially), but it's do-able and doesn't slow down browsing (even ADSL) enough to notice on my 866 Mhz W2K box.
Oh, and it removes lots of other unwanted crap, can be customized if you can write a regex, and can be over-ridden just by clicking on a browser bookmark.
(Actually, I use Proxomitron as the first filter in a series of two; the browser actually communicates to another filtering proxy which passes requests to Proxomitron. And it's still not appreciably slower -- given that I filter out a lot of crap, it's often faster.)
This is a false economy. Not only would I be more than willing to pay $5 for flash, but the lack of it will probably cost Handspring my business in the future.
I own a Handspring Visor Deluxe now, and I'm quite happy with the machine and with Handspring's service. But I need to upgrade for two reasons: I'm starting to see apps I want that won't run under my current OS, and I read enough on the machine that I want a color version. Were Handsprings flashable, it would be a no-brainer.
But I'm not only stuck with an out-of-date OS, I waste a lot of space with built-in apps I've long since replaced with better versions. So it's likely a Palm for me next time, and all over $5.
What's page widening, and why's it controversial? (I use a filtering proxy, so maybe I just don't see it.)