as another poster mentioned earlier in this thread: kick open nautilus, and type applications:// in the address bar. bingo. edit ze "start menu" to your heart's content.
Note also: there's a difference between celibacy and chastity. Priests of the Roman Catholic Church are celibate: they do not marry. Members of the monastic orders are chaste: they do not engage in intercourse. in the US, these definitions are synonomous, but they certainly didn't used to be.
No piece of software is bulletproof, and Firefox is no exception, certainly. It's lack of ActiveX support and relative independance from the kernel are two powerful advantages it has over IE, however, in the realms of security. Spoofs can still happen, last week's "this affects all browsers" vulnerability being a notable one, but in my experience, they tend to be fewer, less critical, and patched faster.
This has been knocked around here for quite a while, and every time, somebody points out what i'm about to.
It's probably safe to say that firefox is simply a better written browser, but another aspect of the issue is the question of system incorporation. Bugs on IE are critical because not only can they do the normal spoof/phish/etc, they can also worm their way into the guts of windows. Bugs on Firefox can't, simply because firefox isn't integrated as tightly into the operating system as a whole -- and when we're talking about web browsers, that's a Good Thing.
i have a side business de-spywareing people's computers in the community (rates range from free ( my parents), beer (my friends), and $75/hour (everyone else)
I'm also an EMT, and even though i'm not paid, it provides a meaningful service to my community at large and makes me feel like i occasionally do something useful with my life.
I drive a '92 Honda Civic CX (nobody has them, they suck that much). It's a total hunk of junk, but i love it. It does precisely what i tell it to (at speeds of under 60 mph -- it don't accelerate too well), gets 35 mpg, and takes me from point A to point B. Now i have another reason -- because it's not looking at what i'm doing.
[sci.crypt newsgroup] The technique of breaking a code or cipher by finding someone who has the key and applying a rubber hose vigorously and repeatedly to the soles of that luckless person's feet until the key is discovered. Shorthand for any method of coercion: the originator of the term drily noted that it "can take a surprisingly short time and is quite computationally inexpensive" relative to other cryptanalysis methods.
Seriously, if you familiarize yourself with spyware removal, you could make a killing on the home PC market.
hell yeah, man. $75 to haul my ass out of bed and go to your house, $75/hour thereafter. Normally, i walk out with $150 and did basically what you described, then installed Firefox, uninstalled OE, and replaced it with thunderbird.
this is what a glucometer and protocols are for. If you suspect intox (at least where i work,) SOP demands you check blood sugar levels too, just to rule out exactly this scenario. Also, you never assume that someone is "fine" after they've been in an MVA -- you always treat for the worst, and hope for the best.
. As for allergic rxns, glucose is one of the few freebies -- giving it to somebody can't possibly hurt them. Even if they're hyperglycemic at the time, the body's reaction to high glucose levels is essentially saturated -- giving them more won't help, but it won't hurt, either.
no doubt medics can, and do, push real meds that can cause a severe reaction.
... but in the case of a nice severe MVA, i really don't see a need for pushing those kinds of meds on scene, or even en route (if they go into traumatic arrest, then a. you need to be worrying about other things than an allergic reaction and b. you're pushing epi anyway)
not sure i like your jab at EMT-Bs, either. They're more than qualified to treat MVA victims to nearly the extent of a paramedic -- especially in the spinial immobilization, stabilization and transport areas. Granted, they're less qualified for airway stabilization.
Speaking from experience, about the last thing i would care about on scene at a wreck bad enough to eject stuff from the vehicle is whether you're allergic to pennicillin or not. What i care about is making sure your neck doesn't move, you can actually breathe, and that you're not bleeding to death or going into shock. We can find out pertinent medical data later, once you're stable.
In the field, about the only thing we can do to you, as an EMT, anyway -- medics can push some drugs, but not ones that would cause an allergic reaction, especially on a MVA -- we'd probably just push saline to get some fluids back into you; but about the only thing an EMT can do to trigger an allergic reaction is use latex gloves. that's it. nobody's allergic to O2 or a leg splint or a cerebral-spine stabilization device.
And it's not like i want to be standing in the middle of the road with a reciever, poking at you and trying to recieve... what, your own personal bar code so i can radio that to the hospital? that's going to take far longer than is safe, for you bleeding to death on the pavement, and for me about to get hit by a damn rubbernecker.
this story has been around a long, long time -- i heard it first in AP Chem in high school. google for it, but the "traditional" text generally credits neils bohr as being the student :
Sir Ernest Rutherford, President of the Royal Academy, and recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, related the following story:
Some time ago I received a call from a colleague. He was about to give a student a zero for his answer to a physics question, while the student claimed a perfect score. The instructor and the student agreed to an impartial arbiter, and I was selected.
I read the examination question: "Show how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer."
The student had answered: "Take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to the street, and then bring it up, measuring the length of the rope. The length of the rope is the height of the building."
The student really had a strong case for full credit since he had really answered the question completely and correctly! On the other hand, if full credit were given, it could well contribute to a high grade in his physics course and certify competence in physics, but the answer did not confirm this.
I suggested that the student have another try. I gave the student six minutes to answer the question with the warning that the answer should show some knowledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, he hadn't written anything. I asked if he wished to give up, but he said he had many answers to this problem; he was just thinking of the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him and asked him to please go on in the next minute, he dashed off his answer, which read:
"Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge of the roof. Drop the barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch. Then, using the formula x=0.5*a*t^2, calculate the height of the building."
At this point, I asked my colleague if he would give up. He conceded, and gave the student almost full credit. While leaving my colleague's office, I recalled that the student had said that he had other answers to the problem, so I asked him what they were.
"Well," said the student, "there are many ways of getting the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer. For example, you could take the barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height of the barometer, the length of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building, and by the use of simple proportion, determine the height of the building."
"Fine," I said, "and others?"
"Yes," said the student, "there is a very basic measurement method you will like. In this method, you take the barometer and begin to walk up the stairs. As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks, and this will give you the height of the building in barometer units. A very direct method."
"Of course. If you want a more sophisticated method, you can tie the barometer to the end of a string, swing it as a pendulum, and determine the value of g [gravity] at the street level and at the top of the building. From the difference between the two values of g, the height of the building, in principle, can be calculated."
"On this same tack, you could take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to just above the street, and then swing it as a pendulum. You could then calculate the height of the building by the period of the precession."
"Finally," he concluded, "there are many other ways of solving the problem. Probably the best," he said, "is to take the barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent's door. When the superintendent answers, you speak to him as follows: 'Mr. Superintendent, here is a fine barometer. If you will tell me the height of the building, I will give you this barometer.'"
At this point, I asked the student if he really did not know the c
here at BU, we're installing firefox on user's computers on a daily basis when they come to tech support, laden with spyware. we install adaware, and get them off IE... which is certainly one way to convert the student body:)
Slashdot Mirror
and Frank Zappa's instrumental album, Jazz from Hell, got a "parental warning: explicit lyrics" tag, too. I'm still trying to figure that one out.
as another poster mentioned earlier in this thread: kick open nautilus, and type applications:// in the address bar. bingo. edit ze "start menu" to your heart's content.
and now "linus is the devil" will have two results. no, three! Augh! now i said it! ooh! i said it again!
two words: "screaming heebie-jeebies".
Note also: there's a difference between celibacy and chastity. Priests of the Roman Catholic Church are celibate: they do not marry. Members of the monastic orders are chaste: they do not engage in intercourse. in the US, these definitions are synonomous, but they certainly didn't used to be.
thank you for getting the joke. ( i don't know where all this south park/ star trek stuff comes from, geez...)
is your name, by chance, eric?
No piece of software is bulletproof, and Firefox is no exception, certainly. It's lack of ActiveX support and relative independance from the kernel are two powerful advantages it has over IE, however, in the realms of security. Spoofs can still happen, last week's "this affects all browsers" vulnerability being a notable one, but in my experience, they tend to be fewer, less critical, and patched faster.
This has been knocked around here for quite a while, and every time, somebody points out what i'm about to.
It's probably safe to say that firefox is simply a better written browser, but another aspect of the issue is the question of system incorporation. Bugs on IE are critical because not only can they do the normal spoof/phish/etc, they can also worm their way into the guts of windows. Bugs on Firefox can't, simply because firefox isn't integrated as tightly into the operating system as a whole -- and when we're talking about web browsers, that's a Good Thing.
i have a side business de-spywareing people's computers in the community (rates range from free ( my parents), beer (my friends), and $75/hour (everyone else)
I'm also an EMT, and even though i'm not paid, it provides a meaningful service to my community at large and makes me feel like i occasionally do something useful with my life.
I drive a '92 Honda Civic CX (nobody has them, they suck that much). It's a total hunk of junk, but i love it. It does precisely what i tell it to (at speeds of under 60 mph -- it don't accelerate too well), gets 35 mpg, and takes me from point A to point B. Now i have another reason -- because it's not looking at what i'm doing.
to quote from the jargon file
rubber-hose cryptanalysis: n.
[sci.crypt newsgroup] The technique of breaking a code or cipher by finding someone who has the key and applying a rubber hose vigorously and repeatedly to the soles of that luckless person's feet until the key is discovered. Shorthand for any method of coercion: the originator of the term drily noted that it "can take a surprisingly short time and is quite computationally inexpensive" relative to other cryptanalysis methods.
Seriously, if you familiarize yourself with spyware removal, you could make a killing on the home PC market.
hell yeah, man. $75 to haul my ass out of bed and go to your house, $75/hour thereafter. Normally, i walk out with $150 and did basically what you described, then installed Firefox, uninstalled OE, and replaced it with thunderbird.
yeah, they ain't supposed to be comfy.
this is what a glucometer and protocols are for. If you suspect intox (at least where i work,) SOP demands you check blood sugar levels too, just to rule out exactly this scenario. Also, you never assume that someone is "fine" after they've been in an MVA -- you always treat for the worst, and hope for the best.
. As for allergic rxns, glucose is one of the few freebies -- giving it to somebody can't possibly hurt them. Even if they're hyperglycemic at the time, the body's reaction to high glucose levels is essentially saturated -- giving them more won't help, but it won't hurt, either.
no doubt medics can, and do, push real meds that can cause a severe reaction.
... but in the case of a nice severe MVA, i really don't see a need for pushing those kinds of meds on scene, or even en route (if they go into traumatic arrest, then a. you need to be worrying about other things than an allergic reaction and b. you're pushing epi anyway)
not sure i like your jab at EMT-Bs, either. They're more than qualified to treat MVA victims to nearly the extent of a paramedic -- especially in the spinial immobilization, stabilization and transport areas. Granted, they're less qualified for airway stabilization.
Speaking from experience, about the last thing i would care about on scene at a wreck bad enough to eject stuff from the vehicle is whether you're allergic to pennicillin or not. What i care about is making sure your neck doesn't move, you can actually breathe, and that you're not bleeding to death or going into shock. We can find out pertinent medical data later, once you're stable.
In the field, about the only thing we can do to you, as an EMT, anyway -- medics can push some drugs, but not ones that would cause an allergic reaction, especially on a MVA -- we'd probably just push saline to get some fluids back into you; but about the only thing an EMT can do to trigger an allergic reaction is use latex gloves. that's it. nobody's allergic to O2 or a leg splint or a cerebral-spine stabilization device.
And it's not like i want to be standing in the middle of the road with a reciever, poking at you and trying to recieve... what, your own personal bar code so i can radio that to the hospital? that's going to take far longer than is safe, for you bleeding to death on the pavement, and for me about to get hit by a damn rubbernecker.
i heartily agree.
at my uni, we engineers generally consider sacrificing your soul and 20 IQ points as entrance requirements to the school of management.
have you tried maxing out the refresh rate? that generally helps.
and dude, GIYF. good god.
confuse a cat, ltd!
stun a stoat!
bewilderbeast!
Stump the Baby!
fuck that, i want hiro's bike and armorjel riding gear!
Reason would be nice to have, too.
this story has been around a long, long time -- i heard it first in AP Chem in high school. google for it, but the "traditional" text generally credits neils bohr as being the student :
Sir Ernest Rutherford, President of the Royal Academy, and recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, related the following story:
Some time ago I received a call from a colleague. He was about to give a student a zero for his answer to a physics question, while the student claimed a perfect score. The instructor and the student agreed to an impartial arbiter, and I was selected.
I read the examination question: "Show how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer."
The student had answered: "Take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to the street, and then bring it up, measuring the length of the rope. The length of the rope is the height of the building."
The student really had a strong case for full credit since he had really answered the question completely and correctly! On the other hand, if full credit were given, it could well contribute to a high grade in his physics course and certify competence in physics, but the answer did not confirm this.
I suggested that the student have another try. I gave the student six minutes to answer the question with the warning that the answer should show some knowledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, he hadn't written anything. I asked if he wished to give up, but he said he had many answers to this problem; he was just thinking of the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him and asked him to please go on in the next minute, he dashed off his answer, which read:
"Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge of the roof. Drop the barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch. Then, using the formula x=0.5*a*t^2, calculate the height of the building."
At this point, I asked my colleague if he would give up. He conceded, and gave the student almost full credit. While leaving my colleague's office, I recalled that the student had said that he had other answers to the problem, so I asked him what they were.
"Well," said the student, "there are many ways of getting the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer. For example, you could take the barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height of the barometer, the length of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building, and by the use of simple proportion, determine the height of the building."
"Fine," I said, "and others?"
"Yes," said the student, "there is a very basic measurement method you will like. In this method, you take the barometer and begin to walk up the stairs. As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks, and this will give you the height of the building in barometer units. A very direct method."
"Of course. If you want a more sophisticated method, you can tie the barometer to the end of a string, swing it as a pendulum, and determine the value of g [gravity] at the street level and at the top of the building. From the difference between the two values of g, the height of the building, in principle, can be calculated."
"On this same tack, you could take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to just above the street, and then swing it as a pendulum. You could then calculate the height of the building by the period of the precession."
"Finally," he concluded, "there are many other ways of solving the problem. Probably the best," he said, "is to take the barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent's door. When the superintendent answers, you speak to him as follows: 'Mr. Superintendent, here is a fine barometer. If you will tell me the height of the building, I will give you this barometer.'"
At this point, I asked the student if he really did not know the c
I still think the best (worst?) virus would delete one card at random from solitare....
... 10 guage loaded with rock salt seems to do the trick for me.
here at BU, we're installing firefox on user's computers on a daily basis when they come to tech support, laden with spyware. we install adaware, and get them off IE... which is certainly one way to convert the student body :)