I have to ask myself, did the poster think that after quoting and highlighting a particular thing from the original post, we still wouldn't understannd that they thought it was an important part?
Seriously, the "THIS" meme has to die, and I don't care how ugly it gets or how loud it wails, as long as I get to say "I am thankful for its end." Next time, I'm using mod points.
Because we choose to share some information does not mean we want all information shared, or that we expect that any information about us should be available to anyone.
I will bet all the money I have made in my previous career as a sysadmin for several large companies and hosting companies that in your hosting terms it clearly states they own the system, hardware and software, and that you have no inherent right to deny them access. (unless we are talking about a co-located server you personally own, but since you did not state that I can only assume we are not.
From TFS:
With sufficient memory and CPU, I could install VMware and run my entire system within a VM, and encrypt that.
I'm trying to decide who's being more of a jerk here: you, for openly assuming something directly contrary to what was posted, or me, for pointing it out.
They haven't committed any other crime than driving under the influence.
That is not a crime to be taken lightly, and if you think it is, you're either (i) stupid, or (ii) making excuses because its a crime you commit regularly and I for one would gladly sabotage your car to stop you from driving.
American libel laws, from what I understand of them, are sensible. Canada (where I am) has different libel laws; historically our love of free speech is not as strong as Americans.
The Justices' ruling (and it's freaking long) doesn't say it's OK to libel someone in certain situations. It says the standard defenses against charges of libel aren't broad enough. It also suggests that demanding a standard of judicial proof from reporters isn't reasonable.
People who enter public life cannot reasonably expect to be immune from criticism, some of it harsh and undeserved. But nor does participation in public life amount to open season on reputation. [para. 58]
The Justices are balancing two competing interests; if all goes well and their suggestions are followed, we may well end up with libel laws recognizable to Americans.
It's not possible to take any meaning from "This." or "That." as a full sentence, without the benefit of watching where your hands/fingers/flashlights are pointing. It's devoid of meaning, and I've seen it quite a few times in recent weeks (not from you, just in general).
Judging from the rest of your comment, you are capable of assembling words in a meaningful manner. What gives?
"Every self respecting geek" my ass. Is it really that hard to provide a proper link to the document you're advocating as good background material? Or did I get it wrong, because really, it's just a guess that that's the one you're referring to. There's several dozen available on the IPCC web site for the last session alone. I'm not in the mood to dig through them all, only to discover that the one you're talking about was from two, maybe three sessions back.
If you don't know offhand what DNS servers are available on the network, and there's no DHCP server to tell you, there's a good chance you're not authorized to add nodes to that network in the first place.
Mind you, I've often set up a caching nameserver on localhost due to nincompoop-run ISPs.
You, sir, have no idea what it was I posted. It appears I've touched your sacred cow and given offense, where none was intended.
For free, I'll tell you (judging from this example) why people respond to your criticisms that way. Your criticisms are weak (bordering on uninformed) and irrational.
The anger you read into my post is entirely of your own creation. The underlying derogatory tone is real, put there because you're theoretically capable of better argument. It's like you left your A game at home.
People on the internet aren't usually looking for truth. They're looking for useful. As a result, the first Google hit usually serves (which goes to show how freaking awesome Google is). Aristotle warned us thousands of years ago to remember that "the same degree of precision is not to be expected in all discussions..."
Do you really think that nobody out of after High School should be using an encyclopedias? I sure hope I'm misunderstanding you. Saying that folk should be finding these mythical compendia and/or reading a textbook suggests elitism of the worst kind. My training in maths and physics didn't cover a lot of chemistry or biology, and if a question comes up at a party about basic metallurgy (yes, I'm a geek, I associate with geeks), what is wrong with using an encyclopedia? We're in the middle of a game of Charades here, not writing a dissertation. I'm not calling a certain welding family member of mine in a different time zone.
Comparing the use of Wikipedia to asking the first random person you meet is just stupid.
Let me reiterate: Wikipedia articles are not written by random people. Wikipedia articles are written by people who have gathered under the banner of that article, akin to a tribe. Yes, any person can sneak in and mess things up, but the people who flocked to that banner by design will fix it as best they can given their level of concern.
Comparing Wikipedia to a cult just fails. Yes, there are some fundamental principles that are not supported by "logic", but the same can be said of the wood frame construction industry. Everyone tacitly agrees that volunteers can collaborate, measures of effectiveness aside. By the metrics you offer, academia is a cult too: critics are met with jargon, misdirection, denial, and anger. If you don't believe me, try telling your department head that their reliance on dialectic obscures proper understanding the world as it is, and leads their students away from truth.
Wikipedia is not about scholarship, it's about useful information. Pointing out how wikipedia fails at scholastic rigour won't deter anyone who wants to know some basics about something quickly - it's build right in to the name, for ${LC_DEITY}\'s sake!
Plus, conflating the rise of Wikipedia with the rise of internet noise makes you look dumb.
HTML 4 has not changed in over a decade.. EMCA 262 (Javascript) was released almost exactly a decade ago. Version 4 died on the table, and 5 isn't out for a while yet.
What is the improving technology?
I suspect most people don't care because Microsoft expended a great deal of effort (with a level of success that cannot be characterized as marginal) to make it so that people don't know that there could be an alternative to IE. Some of that effort has been criminal.
I can't recall who said it, but some wag pointed out that the biggest obstacle MS had in mounting their defense was that they were demonstrably guilty.
I felt the explicit to address your post instead of selecting "-1, $reason".
Please don't collect data on "screen resolution" or make *any* assumptions at all about it.
People don't browse with the browser window maximized unless they have to, and in the era of wide-screen monitors, it's getting less and less useful to have such a set up anyway.
Bollocks. I know of only two people who don't use their browsers fullscreen - and one of them is certified. I refuse to presume that I am the only person experiencing this, that for some reason people maximize their browsers just because I happen to walk in to the building.
As for screen resolution, should I be able to view a website on my 96x78 monitor? Especially since, in your eyes, I won't have my browser fullscreen? In designing a web page, devs must make some assumptions, though some are less reasonable than others. Asking said devs to please not test those assumptions when they can is silly.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, right.
"The law will be repealed retrospectively." should be the first hint that this law is intended to stay on the books.
Secondly, even if you take that as a misquote, why would you believe a promise made by an elected politician during an election year?
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my </CYNICISM> tag the most.
How is this NOT one of those times?
Whenever I see this construct:
I have to ask myself, did the poster think that after quoting and highlighting a particular thing from the original post, we still wouldn't understannd that they thought it was an important part?
Seriously, the "THIS" meme has to die, and I don't care how ugly it gets or how loud it wails, as long as I get to say "I am thankful for its end." Next time, I'm using mod points.
Because we choose to share some information does not mean we want all information shared, or that we expect that any information about us should be available to anyone.
No, you're not a nerd. Talk to me when you start offering herring sacrifices during hardware changes.
The default $COLUMNS in VGA mode on a PC is 80.
If you have physical access to the machine, it's usually not hard to boot the machine into a state where there is a root shell running on the console.
From TFC:
From TFS:
I'm trying to decide who's being more of a jerk here: you, for openly assuming something directly contrary to what was posted, or me, for pointing it out.
That is not a crime to be taken lightly, and if you think it is, you're either (i) stupid, or (ii) making excuses because its a crime you commit regularly and I for one would gladly sabotage your car to stop you from driving.
American libel laws, from what I understand of them, are sensible. Canada (where I am) has different libel laws; historically our love of free speech is not as strong as Americans.
The Justices' ruling (and it's freaking long) doesn't say it's OK to libel someone in certain situations. It says the standard defenses against charges of libel aren't broad enough. It also suggests that demanding a standard of judicial proof from reporters isn't reasonable.
The Justices are balancing two competing interests; if all goes well and their suggestions are followed, we may well end up with libel laws recognizable to Americans.
Warning: Offtopic note.
It's not possible to take any meaning from "This." or "That." as a full sentence, without the benefit of watching where your hands/fingers/flashlights are pointing. It's devoid of meaning, and I've seen it quite a few times in recent weeks (not from you, just in general).
Judging from the rest of your comment, you are capable of assembling words in a meaningful manner. What gives?
Re-read "The Warriors", by Larry Niven, 1966. Warship == spherical is not a new idea.
"Every self respecting geek" my ass. Is it really that hard to provide a proper link to the document you're advocating as good background material? Or did I get it wrong, because really, it's just a guess that that's the one you're referring to. There's several dozen available on the IPCC web site for the last session alone. I'm not in the mood to dig through them all, only to discover that the one you're talking about was from two, maybe three sessions back.
Did I guess correctly?
If you don't know offhand what DNS servers are available on the network, and there's no DHCP server to tell you, there's a good chance you're not authorized to add nodes to that network in the first place.
Mind you, I've often set up a caching nameserver on localhost due to nincompoop-run ISPs.
How is this obvious?
And what, pray tell, is "PD" in this lingo you're using?
You, sir, have no idea what it was I posted. It appears I've touched your sacred cow and given offense, where none was intended.
For free, I'll tell you (judging from this example) why people respond to your criticisms that way. Your criticisms are weak (bordering on uninformed) and irrational.
The anger you read into my post is entirely of your own creation. The underlying derogatory tone is real, put there because you're theoretically capable of better argument. It's like you left your A game at home.
People on the internet aren't usually looking for truth. They're looking for useful. As a result, the first Google hit usually serves (which goes to show how freaking awesome Google is). Aristotle warned us thousands of years ago to remember that "the same degree of precision is not to be expected in all discussions..."
Do you really think that nobody out of after High School should be using an encyclopedias? I sure hope I'm misunderstanding you. Saying that folk should be finding these mythical compendia and/or reading a textbook suggests elitism of the worst kind. My training in maths and physics didn't cover a lot of chemistry or biology, and if a question comes up at a party about basic metallurgy (yes, I'm a geek, I associate with geeks), what is wrong with using an encyclopedia? We're in the middle of a game of Charades here, not writing a dissertation. I'm not calling a certain welding family member of mine in a different time zone.
Comparing the use of Wikipedia to asking the first random person you meet is just stupid.
Let me reiterate: Wikipedia articles are not written by random people. Wikipedia articles are written by people who have gathered under the banner of that article, akin to a tribe. Yes, any person can sneak in and mess things up, but the people who flocked to that banner by design will fix it as best they can given their level of concern.
Comparing Wikipedia to a cult just fails. Yes, there are some fundamental principles that are not supported by "logic", but the same can be said of the wood frame construction industry. Everyone tacitly agrees that volunteers can collaborate, measures of effectiveness aside. By the metrics you offer, academia is a cult too: critics are met with jargon, misdirection, denial, and anger. If you don't believe me, try telling your department head that their reliance on dialectic obscures proper understanding the world as it is, and leads their students away from truth.
Wikipedia is not about scholarship, it's about useful information. Pointing out how wikipedia fails at scholastic rigour won't deter anyone who wants to know some basics about something quickly - it's build right in to the name, for ${LC_DEITY}\'s sake!
Plus, conflating the rise of Wikipedia with the rise of internet noise makes you look dumb.
No wonder you posted AC.
You were right to duck for cover. My keyboard (and a bit of my monitor) is now splattered in snork.
HTML 4 has not changed in over a decade.. EMCA 262 (Javascript) was released almost exactly a decade ago. Version 4 died on the table, and 5 isn't out for a while yet.
What is the improving technology?
I can't recall who said it, but some wag pointed out that the biggest obstacle MS had in mounting their defense was that they were demonstrably guilty.
No. No, we're not. Don't encourage them in any way.
Security pros aren't using your book. Maybe you should lower the price.
Bollocks. I know of only two people who don't use their browsers fullscreen - and one of them is certified. I refuse to presume that I am the only person experiencing this, that for some reason people maximize their browsers just because I happen to walk in to the building.
As for screen resolution, should I be able to view a website on my 96x78 monitor? Especially since, in your eyes, I won't have my browser fullscreen? In designing a web page, devs must make some assumptions, though some are less reasonable than others. Asking said devs to please not test those assumptions when they can is silly.
I'm ever so thankful that I don't get all the government that I'm paying for.