No, you're the one making assertions about others breaking the law. (Not to mention ignoring locality issues.) Back up your claims. You go ask one. (Actually, more than one, in more than one place. Laws and officers--human beings--vary.)
So, something reminds you of something funny, and you remember it, and you laugh about it.
That's called life.
I think you should stop thinking about remembering and stop remembering thinking about things; just accept who and what you are and live your life. You seem to think there's something wrong or unusual about you--what if there's not? Maybe the problem is not your memory--maybe the problem is that you think there's a problem.
My mom can remember details like that that bewilder me. She can remember who she was talking to, why they were there, what they were wearing, what she was thinking, what their family members were doing, what they talked about...and this is stuff that happened 30-40 years ago. This is especially true for events like trips or special occasions.
But she doesn't remember details about how to operate electronics or computers as easily as I do.
Sorry to burst your bubble. You don't sound that out of the ordinary to me.
Now if I could choose a few arbitrary dates of your life and have you recite your activities of that day in that level of detail, that would be unusual. But a plane trip that involved unusual occurances such as you described makes for much more significant memories. I'd say you have a slightly above average memory, but you're well within the bell curve.
About the recipe, that's cool, but I'm sure many cooks can recall their recipes well enough to not look them up. That's especially true if it's associated with a tactile activity like cooking and eating.
By the way, for a guy with a great memory, your spelling isn't so great.;)
I'd get tested by qualified people before claiming to have a super memory.
Define "passing." How close to the vehicle I'm passing do I need to be in order to be eligible for the left lane? How much faster do I need to be going? If I'm already exceeding the speed limit to pass, am I obligated to merge into a small space between vehicles so the idiot tailgating me who wants to drive 15 over the limit can pass me sooner?
The real issue with driving safely is maintaining safe following distances. For an average vehicle, one should drive 3-5 seconds behind the vehicle ahead at a minimum. When driving a large or heavy vehicle, a larger margin is required.
The problem is that most people are impatient, selfish, and short-sighted. There are many drivers who will always drive faster than the vehicle ahead of them, no matter the actual speed, and they will always be closing to an unsafe following distance until the other driver moves out of the way--or they pass to the left, but they wait until they are too close before changing lanes. There is never any excuse for driving too closely to the vehicle ahead of you. Relative speeds, absolute speeds, or impatience are not valid excuses.
No, he has an excellent point that you seem to have missed. For example, I'm driving on an interstate which has a speed limit of 70. There are vehicles in the right lane going 68. I am passing them in the left lane going 72. Then a jerk who wants to drive 80 comes up on my tail and tailgates me until I get past the slower vehicles--and as soon as I'm past them, he jumps into the right lane and passes me before I can move ahead to a distance that is a safe following distance for the last vehicle I passed so I can merge right.
There is no excuse for the jerk's behavior. I am not obligated to merge into a space a few car lengths long just so he doesn't have to wait for me to finish passing the slower vehicles. I'm already a) exceeding the speed limit, and b) driving at or faster than the average speed on the road.
This happens to me over and over every time I drive on an interstate. I am left with two choices, both of which are unsafe, but only one of which leaves me with any kind of control: a) merge into a small space between vehicles before I'm finished passing, leaving me boxed in with unsafe distances ahead of and behind my vehicle, and then possibly ending up stuck in that spot until several other cars pass in the left lane; or b) continue driving in the left lane, slowly passing the other vehicles, with the idiot tailgating me, leaving himself zero reaction time if I had to hit my brakes.
In this situation, I am most definitely not obligated to move out of his way, and he is guilty of following too closely.
The Awesome Bar is the best thing about Firefox. I've been using Firefox since Phoenix 0.6, and it was a huge upgrade. I can type a few words, or even just a few characters, of any part of a URL or page title, and if I've been there before or bookmarked it, it will come up in the first few hits. If it's a page I visit every day, just one or two letters is all it takes. No messing around in 12-level hierarchical bookmark menus, no wasting screen space on a "bookmarks bar", no messy "home pages" full of links, no wading through a Google search.
I upgraded from 13.0.1 to 14.0.1 (automatically in Ubuntu, as it was a security update, fixing many vulnerabilities). Suddenly I couldn't use right-click or drop-down menus anywhere in the browser anymore--they vanish as soon as they appear. I downgraded to 13.0.1 and it worked fine. I upgraded again, and it was broken again. Downgraded again, worked again.
IgnoredbyMozilla. No choice but to use outdated versions with critical security holes.
Firefox's decline is evident, but Chrome's extension model pales in comparison. Besides, Chrome still doesn't support bookmark tags or resuming downloads!
It's time for a new community-oriented, user-focused browser--Mozilla has gone the way of corporations. But forking Firefox is not a good option--it's an enormously complex piece of software. And another problem is that every browser is a security nightmare, and requires a team of active, skilled developers to constantly fix bugs.
We're between a rock and a hard place. Computers and software are missing their potential so badly.
So you want to backup your git repo along with the rest of your homedir. Now you have to backup a huge binary file that contains stuff that never needs to be backed up?
So you want to access your git repo. You have to wait for a VM to start?
So you upgrade your kernel and some module like a VirtualBox one doesn't get rebuilt right by DKMS. You can't access your repo because your VM won't start?
What is the point? Why use a VM for the sake of using a VM? Why don't you run every app in a VM?
We all know IP4 addresses don't identify a person. Will this change with IP6? With the "an IP address for every toaster" idea, will they still be dynamic enough for plausible deniability?
Hey, sounds good to me! But where does the buck stop? Theoretically it goes all the way to the Chief Executive, especially if a cabinet agency refuses to comply with a court order. Is Obama going to throw himself in jail? And who's responsible for doing the arresting? The DoJ? FBI? The DoJ is also a cabinet agency, and the AG has also refused to comply with court orders. Is the Secret Service going to allow the President to be arrested for such a crime?
I'm just trying to figure out how the chain of responsibility works. It seems like it boils down to the government, or at least the executive branch, being responsible for arresting and jailing itself, and I don't think that is going to happen, even if it should. If the executive branch refuses to comply with orders from the judicial branch, who's left to enforce?
Maybe Congress or the judicial branch need their own special Federal police forces that can only arrest members of other branches of government for breaches of conduct, not private citizens. But that starts to sound like Rock, Paper, Scissors.
Just curious about the police: how do they protect themselves and the populace from violent criminals? What if some nut with a cricket bat starts whacking people, or throwing bricks? What's a cop to do? Run to his car and drive away, leaving citizens to be maimed? Get knocked in the head trying to tackle him? What if a bad guy has a knife or a gun?
If you don't trust root on the remote server, then you must only send it encrypted data. The only way I know of to have a filesystem that does this is to mount encfs on top of sshfs. I have tested it, and it does work, but the performance is pretty poor, and I wouldn't consider it terribly reliable. I backed up some data over rsync with it. Perhaps eCryptfs would work instead of encfs, but I'm not sure. But for remote encrypted backup, Duplicity and Obnam work better, and there are others too, like brackup.
How do you know a node isn't lying about how much storage it has, or just deleting files and saying it has them so it can have the privilege of uploading backup data?
Isn't that basically FUSE? Not mounting is one thing, but FUSE mounts per-user, anyway.
But if you don't trust the kernel to restrict permissions, how can you trust it for anything? You can't not expose something to the kernel--it's the kernel. So encfs may suit this use case. If you need it as a single file, you could archive the directory when it's not in use.
Perhaps something like a GPG-encrypted tar.bz2 file that's decrypted to a tmpfs would work. But for a stream-like format, rather than requiring the whole image to be decrypted and unpacked at once, perhaps the 7zip format would work. It can encrypt the files and filenames, and unpack individual files. I guess a FUSE wrapper could be written around 7za to handle file operations. 7za isn't very UNIXy, though, and its documentation is not very straightforward (e.g. "-R DOES NOT DO WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT! DO NOT USE IT!"...so why is it even there?). I think it's mainly because it was written for Windows and then ported straight to POSIX. But it does work.
Since git isn't a backup system, using it as one isn't as efficient as it could be, but it is powerful. Joey's project is an exciting potential Dropbox replacement. He knows what he's doing.
Anyway, sorry, dude, I have had enough of Java VMs sucking up memory whether they use it or not, and taking a LONG time to start. One or two of those and you can't use the machine for much else. I wish people would leave Java for enterprise uses, if it's even good for that.
Of course you can do whatever you want. I'm just giving some feedback, because if you want users, I know there are many people who feel the same way I do.
Watch this: http://youtu.be/lkswXVmG4xM If their claims are true, we might already have advanced space travel tech and clean, even free energy tech. I'm not saying their claims are true, but it looks like something that needs to be investigated. There is a lot of evidence, not just from these people, of large scale coverups.
Carrying capacity is just a fancy way of saying that people are stupid and impatient. If people maintained safe following distance, traffic could always flow smoothly, regardless of speed or the number of cars. Backups happen when ONE car has to slow down so much that the car behind him does, and so on--it ripples backward like ripples in a pond. This usually happens when either a) a car has to merge into an adjacent lane, and the driver in the lane did not leave sufficient room; or b) when there's an accident and people slow down to rubberneck. Even when an accident requires closing a lane, it COULD happen smoothly, but what happens is that cars in the closed lane wait until the last second to merge so they can be "in front", and when they can't merge they end up having to come to a stop, which ripples backward down the lane. Then cars in the open lane have to slow down or stop to let cars in the closed lane merge, and voila, traffic jam in both lanes.
It's all about human impatience and stupidity. When cars maintain safe following distance, it's possible to merge without forcing other cars to slow down enough to cause a jam. The problem is that a tiny fraction of drivers actually do this because, again, people are impatient and stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you're the one making assertions about others breaking the law. (Not to mention ignoring locality issues.) Back up your claims. You go ask one. (Actually, more than one, in more than one place. Laws and officers--human beings--vary.)
So, something reminds you of something funny, and you remember it, and you laugh about it.
That's called life.
I think you should stop thinking about remembering and stop remembering thinking about things; just accept who and what you are and live your life. You seem to think there's something wrong or unusual about you--what if there's not? Maybe the problem is not your memory--maybe the problem is that you think there's a problem.
My mom can remember details like that that bewilder me. She can remember who she was talking to, why they were there, what they were wearing, what she was thinking, what their family members were doing, what they talked about...and this is stuff that happened 30-40 years ago. This is especially true for events like trips or special occasions.
But she doesn't remember details about how to operate electronics or computers as easily as I do.
Sorry to burst your bubble. You don't sound that out of the ordinary to me.
Now if I could choose a few arbitrary dates of your life and have you recite your activities of that day in that level of detail, that would be unusual. But a plane trip that involved unusual occurances such as you described makes for much more significant memories. I'd say you have a slightly above average memory, but you're well within the bell curve.
About the recipe, that's cool, but I'm sure many cooks can recall their recipes well enough to not look them up. That's especially true if it's associated with a tactile activity like cooking and eating.
By the way, for a guy with a great memory, your spelling isn't so great. ;)
I'd get tested by qualified people before claiming to have a super memory.
You're full of generalizations.
Define "passing." How close to the vehicle I'm passing do I need to be in order to be eligible for the left lane? How much faster do I need to be going? If I'm already exceeding the speed limit to pass, am I obligated to merge into a small space between vehicles so the idiot tailgating me who wants to drive 15 over the limit can pass me sooner?
The real issue with driving safely is maintaining safe following distances. For an average vehicle, one should drive 3-5 seconds behind the vehicle ahead at a minimum. When driving a large or heavy vehicle, a larger margin is required.
The problem is that most people are impatient, selfish, and short-sighted. There are many drivers who will always drive faster than the vehicle ahead of them, no matter the actual speed, and they will always be closing to an unsafe following distance until the other driver moves out of the way--or they pass to the left, but they wait until they are too close before changing lanes. There is never any excuse for driving too closely to the vehicle ahead of you. Relative speeds, absolute speeds, or impatience are not valid excuses.
No, he has an excellent point that you seem to have missed. For example, I'm driving on an interstate which has a speed limit of 70. There are vehicles in the right lane going 68. I am passing them in the left lane going 72. Then a jerk who wants to drive 80 comes up on my tail and tailgates me until I get past the slower vehicles--and as soon as I'm past them, he jumps into the right lane and passes me before I can move ahead to a distance that is a safe following distance for the last vehicle I passed so I can merge right.
There is no excuse for the jerk's behavior. I am not obligated to merge into a space a few car lengths long just so he doesn't have to wait for me to finish passing the slower vehicles. I'm already a) exceeding the speed limit, and b) driving at or faster than the average speed on the road.
This happens to me over and over every time I drive on an interstate. I am left with two choices, both of which are unsafe, but only one of which leaves me with any kind of control: a) merge into a small space between vehicles before I'm finished passing, leaving me boxed in with unsafe distances ahead of and behind my vehicle, and then possibly ending up stuck in that spot until several other cars pass in the left lane; or b) continue driving in the left lane, slowly passing the other vehicles, with the idiot tailgating me, leaving himself zero reaction time if I had to hit my brakes.
In this situation, I am most definitely not obligated to move out of his way, and he is guilty of following too closely.
Advertising, per se, is not the problem (as much as I hate ads). The problem is greed. The problem is evil.
The Awesome Bar is the best thing about Firefox. I've been using Firefox since Phoenix 0.6, and it was a huge upgrade. I can type a few words, or even just a few characters, of any part of a URL or page title, and if I've been there before or bookmarked it, it will come up in the first few hits. If it's a page I visit every day, just one or two letters is all it takes. No messing around in 12-level hierarchical bookmark menus, no wasting screen space on a "bookmarks bar", no messy "home pages" full of links, no wading through a Google search.
I can't fathom why some people hate it so.
I upgraded from 13.0.1 to 14.0.1 (automatically in Ubuntu, as it was a security update, fixing many vulnerabilities). Suddenly I couldn't use right-click or drop-down menus anywhere in the browser anymore--they vanish as soon as they appear. I downgraded to 13.0.1 and it worked fine. I upgraded again, and it was broken again. Downgraded again, worked again.
Ignored by Mozilla. No choice but to use outdated versions with critical security holes.
Firefox's decline is evident, but Chrome's extension model pales in comparison. Besides, Chrome still doesn't support bookmark tags or resuming downloads!
It's time for a new community-oriented, user-focused browser--Mozilla has gone the way of corporations. But forking Firefox is not a good option--it's an enormously complex piece of software. And another problem is that every browser is a security nightmare, and requires a team of active, skilled developers to constantly fix bugs.
We're between a rock and a hard place. Computers and software are missing their potential so badly.
This deserves Informative.
fightcopyrighttrolls.com is the place to go to follow this issue. Judges are catching on and these trolls' days are numbered.
Nice, but if they take your phone, they can delete it from Dropbox, no?
To be more protected, have the photos emailed to an account that's not accessible from the phone.
What's with the IP address?
512 MB is not enough to run Apache, Ruby, and one app? I've heard of software bloat, but...
What's the point of using a VM?
So you want to backup your git repo along with the rest of your homedir. Now you have to backup a huge binary file that contains stuff that never needs to be backed up?
So you want to access your git repo. You have to wait for a VM to start?
So you upgrade your kernel and some module like a VirtualBox one doesn't get rebuilt right by DKMS. You can't access your repo because your VM won't start?
What is the point? Why use a VM for the sake of using a VM? Why don't you run every app in a VM?
Where did you come from and how are you modded up to the top 5 comments in story after story?
We all know IP4 addresses don't identify a person. Will this change with IP6? With the "an IP address for every toaster" idea, will they still be dynamic enough for plausible deniability?
Hey, sounds good to me! But where does the buck stop? Theoretically it goes all the way to the Chief Executive, especially if a cabinet agency refuses to comply with a court order. Is Obama going to throw himself in jail? And who's responsible for doing the arresting? The DoJ? FBI? The DoJ is also a cabinet agency, and the AG has also refused to comply with court orders. Is the Secret Service going to allow the President to be arrested for such a crime?
I'm just trying to figure out how the chain of responsibility works. It seems like it boils down to the government, or at least the executive branch, being responsible for arresting and jailing itself, and I don't think that is going to happen, even if it should. If the executive branch refuses to comply with orders from the judicial branch, who's left to enforce?
Maybe Congress or the judicial branch need their own special Federal police forces that can only arrest members of other branches of government for breaches of conduct, not private citizens. But that starts to sound like Rock, Paper, Scissors.
I suppose it depends on how one defines freedom.
Just curious about the police: how do they protect themselves and the populace from violent criminals? What if some nut with a cricket bat starts whacking people, or throwing bricks? What's a cop to do? Run to his car and drive away, leaving citizens to be maimed? Get knocked in the head trying to tackle him? What if a bad guy has a knife or a gun?
If you don't trust root on the remote server, then you must only send it encrypted data. The only way I know of to have a filesystem that does this is to mount encfs on top of sshfs. I have tested it, and it does work, but the performance is pretty poor, and I wouldn't consider it terribly reliable. I backed up some data over rsync with it. Perhaps eCryptfs would work instead of encfs, but I'm not sure. But for remote encrypted backup, Duplicity and Obnam work better, and there are others too, like brackup.
How do you know a node isn't lying about how much storage it has, or just deleting files and saying it has them so it can have the privilege of uploading backup data?
This is what we are all waiting for, and it's already been funded! Just a matter of time until Joey finishes it: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/joeyh/git-annex-assistant-like-dropbox-but-with-your-own
Isn't that basically FUSE? Not mounting is one thing, but FUSE mounts per-user, anyway.
But if you don't trust the kernel to restrict permissions, how can you trust it for anything? You can't not expose something to the kernel--it's the kernel. So encfs may suit this use case. If you need it as a single file, you could archive the directory when it's not in use.
Perhaps something like a GPG-encrypted tar.bz2 file that's decrypted to a tmpfs would work. But for a stream-like format, rather than requiring the whole image to be decrypted and unpacked at once, perhaps the 7zip format would work. It can encrypt the files and filenames, and unpack individual files. I guess a FUSE wrapper could be written around 7za to handle file operations. 7za isn't very UNIXy, though, and its documentation is not very straightforward (e.g. "-R DOES NOT DO WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT! DO NOT USE IT!" ...so why is it even there?). I think it's mainly because it was written for Windows and then ported straight to POSIX. But it does work.
:(
I wish Linus would take a few weeks off to write a distributed backup system, but he just uses public FTP servers...
Of course, there're several projects that use git as a backend, like http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/joeyh/git-annex-assistant-like-dropbox-but-with-your-own (already funded; he's also a Debian Developer).
Since git isn't a backup system, using it as one isn't as efficient as it could be, but it is powerful. Joey's project is an exciting potential Dropbox replacement. He knows what he's doing.
Obnam is also exciting: http://liw.fi/obnam/
Anyway, sorry, dude, I have had enough of Java VMs sucking up memory whether they use it or not, and taking a LONG time to start. One or two of those and you can't use the machine for much else. I wish people would leave Java for enterprise uses, if it's even good for that.
Of course you can do whatever you want. I'm just giving some feedback, because if you want users, I know there are many people who feel the same way I do.
Watch this: http://youtu.be/lkswXVmG4xM If their claims are true, we might already have advanced space travel tech and clean, even free energy tech. I'm not saying their claims are true, but it looks like something that needs to be investigated. There is a lot of evidence, not just from these people, of large scale coverups.
Again, only time will tell. But what if...?
Carrying capacity is just a fancy way of saying that people are stupid and impatient. If people maintained safe following distance, traffic could always flow smoothly, regardless of speed or the number of cars. Backups happen when ONE car has to slow down so much that the car behind him does, and so on--it ripples backward like ripples in a pond. This usually happens when either a) a car has to merge into an adjacent lane, and the driver in the lane did not leave sufficient room; or b) when there's an accident and people slow down to rubberneck. Even when an accident requires closing a lane, it COULD happen smoothly, but what happens is that cars in the closed lane wait until the last second to merge so they can be "in front", and when they can't merge they end up having to come to a stop, which ripples backward down the lane. Then cars in the open lane have to slow down or stop to let cars in the closed lane merge, and voila, traffic jam in both lanes.
It's all about human impatience and stupidity. When cars maintain safe following distance, it's possible to merge without forcing other cars to slow down enough to cause a jam. The problem is that a tiny fraction of drivers actually do this because, again, people are impatient and stupid.