As part of University of Michigan/CITI's work on NFSv4, we're implementing rpcsec_gss on Linux, which uses kerberos to authenticate every NFS request and reply. This applies equally well to earlier versions of NFS, and interoperates with other vendor's NFS implementations. While it's still not sufficiently tested for production use, the code is going in to the 2.5 kernel series (thank-you, Mr. Torvalds, for accepting crypto into 2.5...) and is being actively developed.
As much as I applaud foreign aid, the way we've been doing it DOESN'T WORK. When we go in and feed people, guess what happens when we leave (and leave we will!)? They starve again.
On the contrary, what I've always been lead to understand is that most starvation is due to temporary, local situations--war, natural disaster, whatever--so most food aid is to communities that can normally feed themselves but that need aid to survive through just a few months.
IMHO, the Institute for Justice is a much more worthy organization, although it is not yet as well-known as the ACLU.
OK, I checked them out. I'd describe them as extremely conservative, and not the kind of a group I'm interested in. But, that aside, a search for "patriot" and "patriot act" turned up absolutely nothing of any relevance; have they done any work on this?
"... the story is almost too ambitious for a cartoon (especially for people who like their cartoons with a little more fun and a little less elaborate plots and "end of the world" stuff)." -- The Movie Chicks
That quote bothers me, and I'm not even an anime fan!
Ah! Bingo, you found it. Yup, that is one really lame review.
--Bruce F.
Where's the anti-cartoon prejudice?
on
Review: Cowboy Bebop
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
skimming through the reviews, the ones who dislike it seem to do so for the usual reason: it's a cartoon.
Here are some quotes from those critics:
Liam Lacey, Globe and Mail:
The dynamic use of the screen frame is exciting compared to the more tame North American animation fare, but it doesn't hold interest by itself. Unfortunately, the storyline -- a mixture of B-movie dialogue, supernaturalism and technological catastrophe -- feels dashed off and puerile.
Jan Stuart, Newsday:
the script wallows in the sort of solemn existential malaise borrowed from film noir that young people who wear black mistake for hip. The dialogue is blockheaded, and it is delivered by a retinue of bland soap opera voices that seem out of joint with their characters. At nearly two hours, this "Cowboy" is a very long and pretentious ride into the sunset.
Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle
Were it replicated, shot for shot, as a live-action film, "Cowboy Bebop" would be just another unpleasant science-fiction thriller, with the usual mix of salaciousness and violent death. The Magritte sky and the laser-like colors will push this into the winning column for some, while others will be put off by a Speed Racer-like lack of detail in the characters' faces and find the animation novelty wearing thin after 10 minutes.
Maybe you could put down the end of that last quote to an "anti-cartoon" bias? But from the paragraph as a whole its clear that the reviewer thinks the animation is actually the only thing that the movie has going for it.
I don't mean to bash the movie. (In fact, I had to read through a lot of positive comments to get to the above quotes. Sounds like it might be a fun movie!) I just question the article's claim that the reviewers disliked the movie just because it's animated. Seems to me that does an injustice to the criticisms raised, criticisms which are actually repeated by a lot of reviewers, and which have less to do with the medium than with the dialog, the story, and the characters.
Speaking as someone who is world traveled, has worked telephone support, has a relative who is a speech pathologist, and is currently learning a foreign language I can say that there is a great deal of difference between knowing a language and speaking is properly.
Would you claim that an Indian who speaks English as their native tongue is not "speaking it properly" because the dialect of English that they speak is not your dialect? You're likely to have difficulty understanding an English speaker who is a native speaker from London, for exactly the same reasons; are you also going to try to claim that the English don't speak English properly?
It's not as though the English spoken by, say, the average white native of Michigan, is the One True Dialect. The English they speak in London or Delhi is not some inferior corrupted form of the language you were brought up with.
This is not about xenophobia or whatever your trying to make this sound like, this is when a person has paid for support in a language that they know.
You paid for support in "English". If the person really has poor English then you've got a legitimate complaint. If it's just that you can't make the adjustment to a slightly different dialect from yours then that's your problem.
I don't mind speaking to an indian or any other person as long as they speak english clearly when I call the english support line.
They speak English clearly enough. Chances are they were educated entirely in English--they just don't speak the dialect you're used to. There are something like 400 million native English speakers in the world, and most of them weren't brought up with your home dialect.
You can continue to refuse to make any real attempt to communicate with anyone who grew up outside your home town. Or you can take the minimal effort it requires to learn to understand English as it's spoken by literate, educated people from India, or New Zealand, or, for that matter, England. Your choice.
"[big bumbers].... [big numbers]... [more big numbers]... Whatever they do, RoTK is set to be pretty spectacular... [ooh, look, even more big numbers]."
And that, as far as I can tell, is the only message of the article. No information of any real interest. Couldn't we let them do their own advertising?
Quite honestly, I can't understand why science and engineering majors are held to one standard for grades and academics versus humanities majors even in the same school.
Classic! So, *I* worked hard for my grades, but everybody *else* is obviously getting a free ride.
I will ride on the footpath in the city, especially on a Friday or Saturday night, when there are a lot of stupid drivers around. I have been hit by eight cars in my life, starting to get a bit sick of it.
Ouch, yes, I can believe it. But has riding on the footpath prevented you from having accidents with cars? It certainly doesn't sound like it.
The conventional wisdom among cyclists is that riding on sidewlkas increases your chance of having a collision with cars, because you put yourself in places where they just don't expect to see you: even the most contentious drivers usually don't scan sidewalks or crosswalks for bicycle-speed traffic before crossing them. And in fact there are studies which confirm that sidewalk cyclists in general have significantly more bike-car crashes than cyclists who ride in the road.
Even if you're skeptical, I'd highly recommend checking out bicycling street smarts or a local bike safety course if there's one available. I know many people (myself included) who've ridden as vehicles for years without incident, so you can certainly afford to try it for a month or two. And after you do, I suspect you won't want to go back. Nevermind the safety advantages, it's just much faster and more convenient.
Or, here's an even better Idea, Just Don't Ride A Bike on City Streets, ride it on a Bike trail if your city has one.
Unfortunately, bike trails have turned out to have poor safety records. (Here are some pointers to related research.) The main problem is with intersections: try to figure out how to design a path alongide a road so that right-of-way is always clear, cyclists don't always have to stop (if you ask them to stop at every single driveway and intersection, they're just not going to), stoplight cycle times aren't significantly increased (think what'll happen if you try adding extra light phases for the bikes...), etc., etc. Lots of people have attempted this, in this country and elsewhere. The results are not encouraging.
So the moral is: no, as a cyclist, you really *are* better off riding on the city streets. Research has found this to be safest, it works great (I probably ride a couple thousand miles a year on city streets, and have never had a crash), it's fun once you get the hang of it, it gets you where you want to go extremely quickly.... Don't wait for a special bike ghetto before you start riding. Observe the standard traffic rules and be courteous, and you can ride your bike wherever you want right now.
The Segways should have to adhere to the same rules that bikes do. Bikes aren't allowed on the sidewalk either. They have to follow many of the laws that cars do. This includes riding in the street, going with the flow of traffic. So, why can't the Segways use the bike lane (or curb area) too?
This is mostly true, but note that it's not universally true that bicycles are banned from sidewalks; in the US this is usually a matter for local governments (though there may also be a few states with such bans, I'm not sure).
Certainly it's true that, whatever the law says, people on vehicles with nonzero stopping distances (like bicycles) are better off riding with traffic rather than riding on the sidewalks.
well...I know that in 5th grade when I was a crossing guard, my police officer neighbor clocked us with his radar gun and I could sprint at 11mph...
now I am 195lbs and can most likely run faster for longer than I could then.
so doesnt that make me the same as a 120lb person on a segway except they supposedly have better stopping than I would when running and since they arent thinking as much about running they could easily be more observant.
Try this experiment: go to your friendly local downtown sidewalk, and run 3 blocks at a flat-out sprint.
Now ask yourself; did that appear to be safe? From the expressions of the people around you, did they appear to think that what you were doing was safe? If a little old lady turned across your path, or someone opened a door in your face, what would happen? If you do this every day for a year, do you think the cops might start to take an interest in you?
Pedestrians are not *automatically* harmless, and an object that makes it easy to go at the maximum speed of a pedestrian is not necessarily harmless either.
When I ride my bike in a downtown area where there are lots of cars parked on the side of the street, I get on the sidewalk and ride slowly.
The reason is that I can't rely on the drivers watching before they slam open a car door. Technically I'm not supposed to do it but I've had conversations with cops about it and they mostly agree that I'm better off on the sidewalk as long as I'm going slow. Same will probably be true for segway.
You're completely right about the car doors--that's a big risk. There's another way to avoid the accident, though: just stay in the street, and move further away from the cars. This'll put you in the regular car lane, but that's OK. If you're on a street with only one lane and you're holding up people behind you (this'll happen less often than you think), then pull over every now and then and let them by. But don't let them intimidate you out of using the street completely.
If you ride on the sidewalk and ride at walking speed (which is really slow), then you're probably reasonably safe, but there's a lot of unpredictability on the sidewalk--cars pulling in and out of driveways, pedestrians entering and exiting buildings--and none of them are looking out for you, because they don't think they're going to meet anyone with nonzero stopping distance on a sidewalk.
For excellent coverage of these issues, John S. Allen's excellent manual Bicycling Street Smarts is available in its entirety online, or you can order it in print for very cheap. Highly recommended.
Being well rounded is overrated. I say find what you like and read/listen to as much of it as you can.
I'm with you there. But I'd argue that it's important that whatever you do, you try to keep learning, whether you do it in depth or breadth.
I think the source of this guy's dissatisfaction isn't that he's becoming too specialized so much as that he's getting stuck in a rut. He could get out of the rut by reading something new, or by reading the same old stuff in a new way--reading it more carefully, trying to really study it and understand it, going deeper into it, whatever.
The route he seems to want to go in is to just keep adding more similar books to his collection, maybe in an attempt to recapture the experience of that first Heinlein novel he read. I think that's what people are really trying to get him away from.
What I think may end up happening is that the printer companies will find that the public has a distaste for this sort of profit structure and change their ways. The end result? Printer prices will rise, and supply prices will drop. There is an equilibrium that can be reached by making a profit off of supplies and hardware.
Oh great. So when calculating the yearly cost of my alternatives, I've already got to calculate, for every printer I consider,
P/m + n*Q,
where P is the price of printer, m is the number of years I expect it to last, n is the number of cartridges, and P is the price for cartridge. Now you're telling me I also have to factor in the friggin' "profit structure"? So, let's see, I've actually got to calculate
P/m + n*Q_i,
for each year i, where Q_i is the cost I expect a cartridge to have in year i, and I expect the change in Q_i to follow a different curve depending on whether the market for cartidges is competitive or not.
This is ridiculous. No individual can afford to do that. The one entity that can *definitely* afford to do that is the printer company. In practice the market is going to settle on a solution that benefits the narrow interests of printer companies because no-one else can afford to do the cost-benefit calculations.
A bicycle is a vehicle. As such, it is entitled and subject to the same rules of the road as any other vehicle. Specifically, you are entitled to an entire lane of traffic. Don't let a car try and convince you otherwise.
You are correct about that...but would you bet your life on getting some random asshole to believe you?
I'd rather bet on the random asshole not running into someone directly in front of him than I would bet on him not breezing by me on my left and then immediately right-hooking me at the next driveway. The latter accident is more common and hugging the curb puts you at more of a risk for it.
Correct bicycle lane-positioning requires more than a slashdot post to do it justice, though; see John Allen's Bicycling Street Smarts (read it online or order it for cheap) for a good concise summary of the standard advice on this subject.
I don't care what you are, as long as you're going with the flow of traffic. Spot the problem here: 2 lane road, no passing, 35 mph speed limit, and some vehicle (ahem) is fighting to barely make 10 mph. You get a huge line of more capable vehicles behind it.
This is, of course, what everyone is afraid of; in practice I've never seen it happen, and I ride about 2000 miles a year, about half of that in places where I take a full lane. A variety of reasons for this:
With lanes 12 feet or over in width, there's usually space for a cyclist and a car to split the lane, while still giving a few feet between the cyclist and the car and between the cyclist and the lane's edge. Cars will still have to move over a bit, but they don't generally have slow down much if at all.
On non-congested streets with more than one lane in each direction, it's rare for a car to have to wait more than a few seconds for a chance to pass a slow vehicle in one lane.
In urban areas with lots of intersections and traffic, traffic on streets with a single lane in each direction is often not much more than bike speed anyway; the limiting factor is usually intersection capacity, and it usually doesn't matter much whether your vehicle is capable of 19mph or 90mph if all you're doing is rushing to get into the next line.
The case you mention is the hardest: a single lane in your direction that's too narrow to share, with heavy fast traffic. I'll find alternate routes to avoid such roads if I have to, but if I'm stuck on what I do is just wait for people to get stuck behind me and then pull over to let them pass; same thing as any other slow-moving vehicle would do.
Either go faster, or use your toy somewhere else.
Sorry, it's not a toy--it's my main vehicle (no car here), and most of my miles come from commuting to work or running errands. Not that I don't enjoy it; but recreational users (whether in cars or on bikes!) have a right to the road too. We don't expect car-drivers that are driving somewhere for fun to give up the roads either....
Look, most of us are just trying to get from point A to point B with a minimum of hassle and a minimum of time, and most road users--on bikes or in cars--understand this. There's no inherent conflict between the two modes, given adherance to traffic law and some basic courtesy.
The company that employs you is not your friend or family; why do you want it to pretend it is? Wouldn't you rather have reasonable hours, a competetive wage, and a pleasant work environment, instead of silly parties and christmas presents?
I'd prefer just an increase to my annual salary over some random bonus, and if they have to give me a bonus then I'd rather they just give me the money without pretending it's a christmas present.
Oh, great. So now we get the RPSL, the RCSL (the latter available in three tasty flavors!), and more.... Couldn't we please just stick to GPL, LGPL, or BSD? Those three licenses cover most of the free software territory, and while I admit that reading them gives me just as much a headache as reading many other licenses, at least I only have to go through it once....
I don't know, but let's follow the money here and see if we can make an educated guess. Who's going to get the.kids domain first?
Site A, which educates kids about sex.
Site B, which sells kids sugary caffeinated beverages.
It isn't the porn peddlers that are spending the big money to take advantage of kids surfing the net--it's the companies that are trying to sell them stuff.
Oh, but wait, I forget, it's well known that kid's heads will explode if they ever see a picture of a naked person. And all that propaganda about tooth decay is the product of a radical coalition of subversive anti-capitalist dental hygenists. Please forgive this little lapse of mine, and continue to help raising the new generation of clueless little consumers.
Yeah, I do call you paranoid, if you don't mind. This is nothing but speculation. And poor speculation it is.
Hmm, I don't know. Consider; reasons to expect the movie company itself be responsible for the leak:
They certainly have the ability.
They have the motivation: besides establishing the "need" for digital rights management, it also creates buzz about the movie. (Look, Harry Potter got mentioned *again* on Slashdot, and this isn't the only free press they're getting!)
They've got nothing to lose: I haven't tried to download a pirated copy myself, but I'm guessing the quality makes it no substitute for the theatrical release (or even for the VHS release, for that matter).
Slashdot Mirror
- NFSv4 home page
- NFS Version 4 Open Source Reference Implementation, for Linux and OpenBSD
As part of University of Michigan/CITI's work on NFSv4, we're implementing rpcsec_gss on Linux, which uses kerberos to authenticate every NFS request and reply. This applies equally well to earlier versions of NFS, and interoperates with other vendor's NFS implementations. While it's still not sufficiently tested for production use, the code is going in to the 2.5 kernel series (thank-you, Mr. Torvalds, for accepting crypto into 2.5...) and is being actively developed.--Bruce Fields
On the contrary, what I've always been lead to understand is that most starvation is due to temporary, local situations--war, natural disaster, whatever--so most food aid is to communities that can normally feed themselves but that need aid to survive through just a few months.
--Bruce Fields
OK, I checked them out. I'd describe them as extremely conservative, and not the kind of a group I'm interested in. But, that aside, a search for "patriot" and "patriot act" turned up absolutely nothing of any relevance; have they done any work on this?
--Bruce F.
...join in the ACLU.
--Bruce F.
--Bruce F.
Liam Lacey, Globe and Mail:
Jan Stuart, Newsday: Mick LaSalle, San Francisco ChronicleMaybe you could put down the end of that last quote to an "anti-cartoon" bias? But from the paragraph as a whole its clear that the reviewer thinks the animation is actually the only thing that the movie has going for it.
I don't mean to bash the movie. (In fact, I had to read through a lot of positive comments to get to the above quotes. Sounds like it might be a fun movie!) I just question the article's claim that the reviewers disliked the movie just because it's animated. Seems to me that does an injustice to the criticisms raised, criticisms which are actually repeated by a lot of reviewers, and which have less to do with the medium than with the dialog, the story, and the characters.
--Bruce F.
Would you claim that an Indian who speaks English as their native tongue is not "speaking it properly" because the dialect of English that they speak is not your dialect? You're likely to have difficulty understanding an English speaker who is a native speaker from London, for exactly the same reasons; are you also going to try to claim that the English don't speak English properly?
It's not as though the English spoken by, say, the average white native of Michigan, is the One True Dialect. The English they speak in London or Delhi is not some inferior corrupted form of the language you were brought up with.
You paid for support in "English". If the person really has poor English then you've got a legitimate complaint. If it's just that you can't make the adjustment to a slightly different dialect from yours then that's your problem.
They speak English clearly enough. Chances are they were educated entirely in English--they just don't speak the dialect you're used to. There are something like 400 million native English speakers in the world, and most of them weren't brought up with your home dialect.
You can continue to refuse to make any real attempt to communicate with anyone who grew up outside your home town. Or you can take the minimal effort it requires to learn to understand English as it's spoken by literate, educated people from India, or New Zealand, or, for that matter, England. Your choice.
Welcome to the global community.
--Bruce F.
And that, as far as I can tell, is the only message of the article. No information of any real interest. Couldn't we let them do their own advertising?
--Bruce F.
Would it kill them just to ditch the 14-page EULA and admit that I should be able to enjoy the same rights I have when I buy a book?
--Bruce F.
Classic! So, *I* worked hard for my grades, but everybody *else* is obviously getting a free ride.
Yeah, right.
--Bruce F.
Ouch, yes, I can believe it. But has riding on the footpath prevented you from having accidents with cars? It certainly doesn't sound like it.
The conventional wisdom among cyclists is that riding on sidewlkas increases your chance of having a collision with cars, because you put yourself in places where they just don't expect to see you: even the most contentious drivers usually don't scan sidewalks or crosswalks for bicycle-speed traffic before crossing them. And in fact there are studies which confirm that sidewalk cyclists in general have significantly more bike-car crashes than cyclists who ride in the road.
Even if you're skeptical, I'd highly recommend checking out bicycling street smarts or a local bike safety course if there's one available. I know many people (myself included) who've ridden as vehicles for years without incident, so you can certainly afford to try it for a month or two. And after you do, I suspect you won't want to go back. Nevermind the safety advantages, it's just much faster and more convenient.
--Bruce F.
Unfortunately, bike trails have turned out to have poor safety records. (Here are some pointers to related research.) The main problem is with intersections: try to figure out how to design a path alongide a road so that right-of-way is always clear, cyclists don't always have to stop (if you ask them to stop at every single driveway and intersection, they're just not going to), stoplight cycle times aren't significantly increased (think what'll happen if you try adding extra light phases for the bikes...), etc., etc. Lots of people have attempted this, in this country and elsewhere. The results are not encouraging.
So the moral is: no, as a cyclist, you really *are* better off riding on the city streets. Research has found this to be safest, it works great (I probably ride a couple thousand miles a year on city streets, and have never had a crash), it's fun once you get the hang of it, it gets you where you want to go extremely quickly.... Don't wait for a special bike ghetto before you start riding. Observe the standard traffic rules and be courteous, and you can ride your bike wherever you want right now.
--Bruce F.
This is mostly true, but note that it's not universally true that bicycles are banned from sidewalks; in the US this is usually a matter for local governments (though there may also be a few states with such bans, I'm not sure).
Certainly it's true that, whatever the law says, people on vehicles with nonzero stopping distances (like bicycles) are better off riding with traffic rather than riding on the sidewalks.
--Bruce F.
Try this experiment: go to your friendly local downtown sidewalk, and run 3 blocks at a flat-out sprint.
Now ask yourself; did that appear to be safe? From the expressions of the people around you, did they appear to think that what you were doing was safe? If a little old lady turned across your path, or someone opened a door in your face, what would happen? If you do this every day for a year, do you think the cops might start to take an interest in you?
Pedestrians are not *automatically* harmless, and an object that makes it easy to go at the maximum speed of a pedestrian is not necessarily harmless either.
--Bruce F.
You're completely right about the car doors--that's a big risk. There's another way to avoid the accident, though: just stay in the street, and move further away from the cars. This'll put you in the regular car lane, but that's OK. If you're on a street with only one lane and you're holding up people behind you (this'll happen less often than you think), then pull over every now and then and let them by. But don't let them intimidate you out of using the street completely.
If you ride on the sidewalk and ride at walking speed (which is really slow), then you're probably reasonably safe, but there's a lot of unpredictability on the sidewalk--cars pulling in and out of driveways, pedestrians entering and exiting buildings--and none of them are looking out for you, because they don't think they're going to meet anyone with nonzero stopping distance on a sidewalk.
For excellent coverage of these issues, John S. Allen's excellent manual Bicycling Street Smarts is available in its entirety online, or you can order it in print for very cheap. Highly recommended.
--J. Bruce Fields
I'm with you there. But I'd argue that it's important that whatever you do, you try to keep learning, whether you do it in depth or breadth.
I think the source of this guy's dissatisfaction isn't that he's becoming too specialized so much as that he's getting stuck in a rut. He could get out of the rut by reading something new, or by reading the same old stuff in a new way--reading it more carefully, trying to really study it and understand it, going deeper into it, whatever.
The route he seems to want to go in is to just keep adding more similar books to his collection, maybe in an attempt to recapture the experience of that first Heinlein novel he read. I think that's what people are really trying to get him away from.
--Bruce F.
Oh great. So when calculating the yearly cost of my alternatives, I've already got to calculate, for every printer I consider,
P/m + n*Q,
where P is the price of printer, m is the number of years I expect it to last, n is the number of cartridges, and P is the price for cartridge. Now you're telling me I also have to factor in the friggin' "profit structure"? So, let's see, I've actually got to calculate
P/m + n*Q_i,
for each year i, where Q_i is the cost I expect a cartridge to have in year i, and I expect the change in Q_i to follow a different curve depending on whether the market for cartidges is competitive or not.
This is ridiculous. No individual can afford to do that. The one entity that can *definitely* afford to do that is the printer company. In practice the market is going to settle on a solution that benefits the narrow interests of printer companies because no-one else can afford to do the cost-benefit calculations.
--Bruce F.
I'd rather bet on the random asshole not running into someone directly in front of him than I would bet on him not breezing by me on my left and then immediately right-hooking me at the next driveway. The latter accident is more common and hugging the curb puts you at more of a risk for it.
Correct bicycle lane-positioning requires more than a slashdot post to do it justice, though; see John Allen's Bicycling Street Smarts (read it online or order it for cheap) for a good concise summary of the standard advice on this subject.
--Bruce Fields
This is, of course, what everyone is afraid of; in practice I've never seen it happen, and I ride about 2000 miles a year, about half of that in places where I take a full lane. A variety of reasons for this:
- With lanes 12 feet or over in width, there's usually space for a cyclist and a car to split the lane, while still giving a few feet between the cyclist and the car and between the cyclist and the lane's edge. Cars will still have to move over a bit, but they don't generally have slow down much if at all.
- On non-congested streets with more than one lane in each direction, it's rare for a car to have to wait more than a few seconds for a chance to pass a slow vehicle in one lane.
- In urban areas with lots of intersections and traffic, traffic on streets with a single lane in each direction is often not much more than bike speed anyway; the limiting factor is usually intersection capacity, and it usually doesn't matter much whether your vehicle is capable of 19mph or 90mph if all you're doing is rushing to get into the next line.
The case you mention is the hardest: a single lane in your direction that's too narrow to share, with heavy fast traffic. I'll find alternate routes to avoid such roads if I have to, but if I'm stuck on what I do is just wait for people to get stuck behind me and then pull over to let them pass; same thing as any other slow-moving vehicle would do.Sorry, it's not a toy--it's my main vehicle (no car here), and most of my miles come from commuting to work or running errands. Not that I don't enjoy it; but recreational users (whether in cars or on bikes!) have a right to the road too. We don't expect car-drivers that are driving somewhere for fun to give up the roads either....
Look, most of us are just trying to get from point A to point B with a minimum of hassle and a minimum of time, and most road users--on bikes or in cars--understand this. There's no inherent conflict between the two modes, given adherance to traffic law and some basic courtesy.
--Bruce Fields
The company that employs you is not your friend or family; why do you want it to pretend it is? Wouldn't you rather have reasonable hours, a competetive wage, and a pleasant work environment, instead of silly parties and christmas presents?
I'd prefer just an increase to my annual salary over some random bonus, and if they have to give me a bonus then I'd rather they just give me the money without pretending it's a christmas present.
--Bruce F.
Oh, great. So now we get the RPSL, the RCSL (the latter available in three tasty flavors!), and more.... Couldn't we please just stick to GPL, LGPL, or BSD? Those three licenses cover most of the free software territory, and while I admit that reading them gives me just as much a headache as reading many other licenses, at least I only have to go through it once....
--Bruce Fields
I don't know, but let's follow the money here and see if we can make an educated guess. Who's going to get the .kids domain first?
It isn't the porn peddlers that are spending the big money to take advantage of kids surfing the net--it's the companies that are trying to sell them stuff.
Oh, but wait, I forget, it's well known that kid's heads will explode if they ever see a picture of a naked person. And all that propaganda about tooth decay is the product of a radical coalition of subversive anti-capitalist dental hygenists. Please forgive this little lapse of mine, and continue to help raising the new generation of clueless little consumers.
--Bruce F.
Your code snippet has meaningless variable names ("bunny") and random hard-coded constants. In a bunch of otherwise OK code, this'd stand out.--jbf
Hmm, I don't know. Consider; reasons to expect the movie company itself be responsible for the leak:
--Bruce F.