If they'd asked you for such an account before rooting your box would you have given it to them? If not, you don't have much of a complaint because they can't troubleshoot your difficulties without access to both the machine and the appropriate data. (Not your website, or any data you've got stored there, but the config files and logs.)
I don't work for a hosting company, and the only site I control is non-commercial. However, it seems reasonable to me that tech support at a hosting company would have a non-privileged account on each box that they could use to look around and (sometimes) find out what's wrong. If not, it's not unreasonable to ask the client to set one up when they need support. If they need to grovel through your logs to find out what's wrong, they can, as another poster suggested, ask you to tar them up and send them to you. Then, if the only way to fix things needs root access, you can ask for it and remind the client to change the password once things are up and running again.
The whole idea of introducing that Win95 "feature" was one of the more craniorectal decisions on the part of the Gnome developers, and I suspect they knew it.
If they're going to do things because "that's the way Windows does it," I wish they'd copy something that Gatesware does right: it remembers where a window was last time you used it and opens it in the same place. Unless you use a third-party program like Devilspie, Gnome opens everything at the top left corner of the screen. Not exactly convenient.
No, it's not a link farmer, it's the way you form your search. By specifying "site:mywifesdomain.com" in the search, you tell Google to search every page at that domain as well as only that domain. As one of them is a search form, it returns that page and Google lists it.
The problem here has two parts. First, that Google thinks responses like that are valid hits and second (more important) that target.com is so well optimized for search engines that a "hit" like that comes out on top. I doubt your wife's domain is guilty of this because you have to direct Google to search only it to get the result you describe.
Systems are amazingly complex and full of flaws because almost all modern software was built with security as an after-thought.
Please note that Unix was designed from the ground up to be secure, and there've been exploits, root kits and vulnerabilities in it over the years. Not many, compared to some other systems, but enough to show that making a secure system and keeping it that way is a non-trivial exercise.
They may have, but Back In The Day they weren't ever, under any circumstance called an "inline 8." The correct term was and is "straight eight." "Inline 6" and "inline 8" just sound so...so...so...wrong.
When I first saw the option on Slashdot's main page to turn off ads I was a tad croggled. I'd been using Firefox with AdBlock + for so long I'd forgotten that there were ads on Slashdot.
Oooh... what are they going to do, make French one of the official languages?
More likely, they'd try to make the French Canadians pay attention to the diktats of the French Academy and stop using all those perfectly good words the Academy had declared "obsolete."
No, but I think someone who has been shown to be making baseless claims (ie. you) should show a little more humility when shown to be completely wrong.
It doesn't matter how many times you and your droids assert I'm wrong. Argument by assertion doesn't become proof no matter how many times you chant "you're wrong and what you're saying is FUD." Facts are facts, and the facts are that the "climate scientists" twisted the data to "support" their theory, did everything they could to keep the data secret and got caught. Keep telling me wrong, if it gets your rocks off, but the facts are out there and you can't suppress them any longer.
Now, who drank what kool-aid and isn't facing which inconvenient facts?
And do you really think that a website devoted to advocating AGW is to be believed without hesitation? Not only that, I see nothing in what you quote about the fact that not one of the people quoted in the leaked CRU emails has denied that they were trying to hide the inconvenient fact that the data doesn't support their theory. Handwave that away!
And no, they haven't been caught doing that. There has been found an email saying something about a "trick" and you choose to interpret it to suit your own prejudice.
If so, I'm not alone. And, I might add, AFAIK nobody at CRU has denied that interpretation or offered any explanation of the email that doesn't include their trying to deceive people. Face it: they were caught in with their hands in the cookie jar and haven't tried to deny it. Get over it and face the facts. Oh, wait, I forgot. You drank the AGW kool-aid and can't face inconvenient facts, can you?
Well, you can't form a testable hypothesis based on fact.
Idiot!
You form a testable hypothesis that accurately describes the known facts, make new predictions based on it and test them. Then, you modify your hypothesis as needed based on the results. You don't (if you're doing science the way it's supposed to be done) ignore or hide results that don't fit, but that's exactly what the CRU has been caught doing.
"Serious doubt has been cast on the value of trusting these guys" by people who ripped a bunch of email snippets out of contexts, as you just did, and in some cases probably completely misconstrued them.
What I find interesting about the incident is that AFAIK not one of the people at CRU who's email was leaked has claimed that the leaks were forged or altered.
In discussing a scientific subject, questioning an authors credability (sic) by means of peer reviewed articles, is exactly what science is.
No, that's how political/religious activists work, not scientists. Science is done by following the facts wherever they lead, regardless of your theory.
Are you really that stupid, or are you just trolling?
Well, which is it? Are you stupid or just a troll?
For example, if I'm trying to figure out which Ubuntu package contains some program I want to install, I *don't* want to hear from an LFS or Gentoo user;
Exactly. I use Fedora and my sister uses Ubuntu. If I need help with my system, I go to the Fedora Forums; if my sister asks a question I can't answer, I go to Ubuntu for distro-specific answers. (Once in a while, the answer will be more Gnome-specific than distro, and help both of us.)
I live in the desert and we've had to of the largest quakes in recent California History. Landers at 7.1 and Hector at 7.3
Quakes at that level are real E-ticket rides, aren't they? I was less than five miles from "ground zero" for the Northridge Quake at a gaming party that was just starting to break up anyway. Five minutes or so after it ended, we finally got the front door to the apartment open and we could still hear the swimming pool sloshing, but there was no damage except for the stuck door. I only realized how bad it was when I looked up and saw more stars than I'd seen since I was in Tonkin Gulf in '72.
I can say with some authority that any structure built in a tectonically active region that cannot safely handle a 3.4 magnitude earthquake was built improperly.
I live in Southern California, near Los Angeles. Around here, at least, magnitude 3.4 quakes are hardly worth mentioning. Instead of fining this company, the city should thank them for the object lesson they provided about why you don't ignore well-known earthquake safety techniques when you're building over or near a fault line.
Slashdot Mirror
If they'd asked you for such an account before rooting your box would you have given it to them? If not, you don't have much of a complaint because they can't troubleshoot your difficulties without access to both the machine and the appropriate data. (Not your website, or any data you've got stored there, but the config files and logs.)
I don't work for a hosting company, and the only site I control is non-commercial. However, it seems reasonable to me that tech support at a hosting company would have a non-privileged account on each box that they could use to look around and (sometimes) find out what's wrong. If not, it's not unreasonable to ask the client to set one up when they need support. If they need to grovel through your logs to find out what's wrong, they can, as another poster suggested, ask you to tar them up and send them to you. Then, if the only way to fix things needs root access, you can ask for it and remind the client to change the password once things are up and running again.
And while we're at it, let's not forget that all-time Microsoft masterpiece: Clippy!
I see: the Dolphin devs don't pay attention to their user base either?
If they're going to do things because "that's the way Windows does it," I wish they'd copy something that Gatesware does right: it remembers where a window was last time you used it and opens it in the same place. Unless you use a third-party program like Devilspie, Gnome opens everything at the top left corner of the screen. Not exactly convenient.
The problem here has two parts. First, that Google thinks responses like that are valid hits and second (more important) that target.com is so well optimized for search engines that a "hit" like that comes out on top. I doubt your wife's domain is guilty of this because you have to direct Google to search only it to get the result you describe.
The only standard most "journalists" care about is Thou Shalt Not Get Caught. Dan Rather forgot that one and look what happened to him.
I hope every slashdotter reading your comment takes your advice. Target deserves to be slammed for that.
Please note that Unix was designed from the ground up to be secure, and there've been exploits, root kits and vulnerabilities in it over the years. Not many, compared to some other systems, but enough to show that making a secure system and keeping it that way is a non-trivial exercise.
They may have, but Back In The Day they weren't ever, under any circumstance called an "inline 8." The correct term was and is "straight eight." "Inline 6" and "inline 8" just sound so...so...so...wrong.
If so, that's going to make it damned hard to be a phlebotomist. It's a good thing I only plan on leaving one.
When I first saw the option on Slashdot's main page to turn off ads I was a tad croggled. I'd been using Firefox with AdBlock + for so long I'd forgotten that there were ads on Slashdot.
More likely, they'd try to make the French Canadians pay attention to the diktats of the French Academy and stop using all those perfectly good words the Academy had declared "obsolete."
Have you ever tried putting some eggs on a pizza just before it goes into the oven? If not you should; it's great!
It doesn't matter how many times you and your droids assert I'm wrong. Argument by assertion doesn't become proof no matter how many times you chant "you're wrong and what you're saying is FUD." Facts are facts, and the facts are that the "climate scientists" twisted the data to "support" their theory, did everything they could to keep the data secret and got caught. Keep telling me wrong, if it gets your rocks off, but the facts are out there and you can't suppress them any longer.
And do you really think that a website devoted to advocating AGW is to be believed without hesitation? Not only that, I see nothing in what you quote about the fact that not one of the people quoted in the leaked CRU emails has denied that they were trying to hide the inconvenient fact that the data doesn't support their theory. Handwave that away!
No, what I have is facts; what you have is FUD because you're trying to stampede people into spending trillions of dollars on a pig in a poke.
If so, I'm not alone. And, I might add, AFAIK nobody at CRU has denied that interpretation or offered any explanation of the email that doesn't include their trying to deceive people. Face it: they were caught in with their hands in the cookie jar and haven't tried to deny it. Get over it and face the facts. Oh, wait, I forgot. You drank the AGW kool-aid and can't face inconvenient facts, can you?
I'm diabetic, you insensitive clod!
Idiot!
You form a testable hypothesis that accurately describes the known facts, make new predictions based on it and test them. Then, you modify your hypothesis as needed based on the results. You don't (if you're doing science the way it's supposed to be done) ignore or hide results that don't fit, but that's exactly what the CRU has been caught doing.
What I find interesting about the incident is that AFAIK not one of the people at CRU who's email was leaked has claimed that the leaks were forged or altered.
No, that's how political/religious activists work, not scientists. Science is done by following the facts wherever they lead, regardless of your theory.
Are you really that stupid, or are you just trolling?
Well, which is it? Are you stupid or just a troll?
Exactly. I use Fedora and my sister uses Ubuntu. If I need help with my system, I go to the Fedora Forums; if my sister asks a question I can't answer, I go to Ubuntu for distro-specific answers. (Once in a while, the answer will be more Gnome-specific than distro, and help both of us.)
Quakes at that level are real E-ticket rides, aren't they? I was less than five miles from "ground zero" for the Northridge Quake at a gaming party that was just starting to break up anyway. Five minutes or so after it ended, we finally got the front door to the apartment open and we could still hear the swimming pool sloshing, but there was no damage except for the stuck door. I only realized how bad it was when I looked up and saw more stars than I'd seen since I was in Tonkin Gulf in '72.
I live in Southern California, near Los Angeles. Around here, at least, magnitude 3.4 quakes are hardly worth mentioning. Instead of fining this company, the city should thank them for the object lesson they provided about why you don't ignore well-known earthquake safety techniques when you're building over or near a fault line.