Ensure that you have YahooPOPs!/Windows running. Check the IP address and POP3 port that has been configured in YahooPOPs!
Enter the same details as the outgoing/POP3 mail server in your email client. If your mail client does not give you the option of specifying the POP3 port, make sure you use the default POP3 port in YahooPOPs!, i.e., 110.
If your PC is not on a network or you do not want other on the network to use YahooPOPs! on your PC to download emails, set localhost (also known as 127.0.0.1) as the IP address in YahooPOPs!
Enter your Yahoo Mail user id as the username and your Yahoo Mail password as the password in your email client.
Once this configuration is done, simply check your emails using your mail client.
Incidentally, I haven't seen Slashdot render incorrectly with any of the recent releases of Mozilla or Firefox (including the current releases) under Windows. Is this a problem people are running into only under non-Windows platforms, or is mine just a unique case?
The developer loses freedom...but the user gains the freedom to enhance and share any copy that comes to his hands
This makes the user a developer, no?;o) Of course, I know what you mean. The original author, practically speaking, loses most of the opportunity to profit from his work. To me, that seems to be the greatest shortfall of the GPL scheme. It almost makes the author's work a public service, which might not do much for the author personally, but (as you seem to say) does a lot of good for society at large.
Anyone care to comment on how developing GPL software might benefit the developer personally or directly?
Without paper verification evoting has no future here.
Agreed. However, I'm opposed to anything that might allow some party goon to verify how I personally voted. In other words, the paper verification ought to be human readable "backup ballots" and NOT (for example) something that I can take away from the polling place.
"Vote for X or I'll kill your family. Oh, and you can't fool me because I'll also kill your family if you don't bring me your vote verification slip."
It occurred to me that an experiment like this would be the perfect situation to work in weird frames or subliminal messages because everything's blinking by so quickly you can hardly (or not at all) make out individual frames. Remember Fight Club and family films at the movie theater? Anyhow, since I don't feel like trudging the thing frame by frame, I submit to other/.ers: closely examine the scene at some convenience store around the 5:26 - 5:28 time marks.
N.B., I'm not saying he had ulterior motives in making the film (he should get help if he did), but it's something to think about, anyhow.
So he could leave in the frames he wanted to leave in.
It occurred to me that an experiment like this would be the perfect situation to work in weird frames or subliminal messages because everything's blinking by so quickly you can hardly (or not at all) make out individual frames. Remember Fight Club and family films at the movie theater? Anyhow, since I don't feel like trudging the thing frame by frame, I submit to other/.ers: closely examine the scene at some convenience store around the 5:26 - 5:28 time marks.
N.B., I'm not saying he had ulterior motives in making the film (he should get help if he did), but it's something to think about, anyhow.
Someone please mod the parent post +Insightful. I don't think there is anything more insidiously dangerous to civil liberties than the logic that:
"Since you don't need that right, you shouldn't use that right; since you don't use that right, there's no point in you having that right; thus, since there's no point in you having that right, we'll just take that right away from you."
But spending money to turn a city police station into a war room for day to day operations? I know it's crime-ridden New York city and all, but this is beginning to get ridiculous. If they actually need to fund the police that heavily, they have bigger problems than public service deficiencies. Like this one: they're looking less like a democracy and more like a police state...;o)
Not trying to pick on you, tomstdenis, I'm just saying.
Re:Freegis?
on
Open Maps?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The USGS also has maps viewable online. I'm not sure, but FOIA may make their maps part of the public domain. They talk about FOIA on the USGS web site, he might want to check that out. There's a ton of other information there that might be relevant.
Unfortunately, it looks like that one is based on Mandrake 9.2, which, I'm guessing, doesn't have the same 2.6.?-?? kernel version that Mandrake 10.0 does, which is what I would need to test.
...but does it have a Live CD sampler? I'd like to make sure Mandrakes inclusion of kernel 2.6 will work on my hardware before I go and download 3 CDs worth of data.
Do you happen to know if Mandrake has a Live CD to test this out? The latest Knoppix with 2.6.?-?? doesn't work on my machine, and I'd like to test it out before downloading three CDs only to find it doesn't work.
So far as free speech in the United States is concerned it is.
This is just disney trying to suck up to brother bush.
And Michael Moore just has an agenda and Disney doesn't care to be a shill for it. That's all your and Michael Moore's petulant screeching of "censorship" is; you just have your panties in a twist because Disney doesn't have the same kooky ideas as you. Howling "censorship" is just one of your little ways of defaming Disney (accusing Disney of "just trying to suck up to brother bush" is another way). You would be wise not to abuse the word "censorhip," (along with all other grossly hyperbolic terms you likely use) because it's kinda like crying "wolf." When there finally is a case of censorship to be concerned about and you try to raise the alarm, everybody's just going to ignore you and say, "there goes that pissant, screeching little imbecile again" and tune you out. What's more, I wouldn't be suprised if people start using you as a weathervane, except that whatever you indicate, they'll know the opposite is true.
Call it spin if you like, but the point I'm trying to make is that Disney is not "someone with authority." That's the government. So far as the free speech is concerned, the government is the only entity that can do censorship. Sure, Disney may have authority within its own organization, but that's O.K. They should have that authority. They may have influence outside their organization just because they're big and have lots of money, but so what? Disney can't do squat about what I say, think or do (unless I commit some wrong against them, etc., but even then, they can't get to me directly, they would have to go through those that DO have authority, i.e., the government).
Don't you see, if you can force an entity to say something, that's just as bad, if not worse, than forcing them not to say something? The 1st Amendment isn't just about the freedom to put out crazy or stupid ideas, it's also about NOT being forced to say something you don't want to say. That's why I call private censorship free speech (or a form of it, anyhow).
The bit about "it's only censorship if it contradicts your agenda" was just a jab at the folks that screech "censorship" whenever someone (like Disney) doesn't care to support their pet idea, then in turn censors (or attempts to censor) that person for their behavior.:)
Unfortunately, you either missed or intentionally ignored my point. Disney exercising its right to free speech is not censorship according to the logic of the 1st Amendment, which is the obvious context of my post to anyone with an iota of intelligence. According to your quoted definition and absent the obvious Constitutional context, Michael Moore and his True Believers are certainly "examining" Disney's behavior and are attempting to "expurgate" it/make it conform to their agenda. If MM and his minions succeeded in twisting Disney's arm far enough to make it provide a soapbox for MM's hate-Bush speech, would you call that censorship? No, of course you wouldn't, you would call it the triumph of free speech over "censorship."
See, when a legal entity other than those in power "censor" something, it's a form of free speech. Do you stand on the street corner publicly arguing for an increased recognition of gun rights? No? Then you're censoring me! Shame on you, you censoring bigot!
Your weak and ambiguous synonyms (synonym != definition) belie your intent to twist the true meaning of censorship. Keep it up and soon "censorship" will mean nothing, even if it is the latest avant-garde wonder to hit the coffee shops. You should just say, "Disney double-plus bad." That's an impressive standard of "basic linguistic scrutiny" you have there...
Moore is under serious attack for what he is saying. I mean take a look at Slashdot, or all those www.moore-is-a-big-bastard-and-we-wish-he-would-di e.org websites.
In the United States, everybody has the right to free speech, not just leftists/socialists.
And his latest movie can not be distributed to US cinemas as far as i know.
It's not that it "cannot" be distributed, it's that Disney has chosen not to. Shockingly enough, even corporations and other groups, as legal "entities," in the United States have the right to free speech, and therefore cannot be obligated to trumpet someone else's agenda.
No, it's related to free speech. Disney has a right to free speech, too, not just leftist individuals. See the other posts about Disney making a wise business decision based on their customer base, etc. This is just a politically charged topic, nothing more. Your rhetorical and technically improper use of the term "censorship" demonstrates this.
No, it's only censorship if it contradicts your agenda. Ever consider the fact this "censorship" is actually just a private individual/group exercising their right to free speech? It seems sometimes that everything the left says or does is "freedom of expression" and everything the right says or does is "censorship"...
Aristotle defines democracy as the corrupt form of "rule of the many." It's just another form of tyranny: tyranny of the majority.
Incidentally, Aristotle identifies the most stable/least potentially oppressive form of government as that which is a mixture of two corrupt forms of government, oligarchy and democracy. This is sort of how the founding fathers set things up, the federal government structure being the oligarchy looking out for their own interests and their own acquisition of power, and the masses (democracy) being able to censure the oligarchy via elections.
Aristotle would tell us to expect a very mediocre government, neither very wonderful nor very terrible.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, unplug the network cable and don't plug it back in until your firewall is active.
This is how I do it:
1. Obtain Sygate Personal Firewall (free, scroll to bottom) and burn to CD, safe partition, etc.
2. Disconnect from your network and install Windows.
3. Install Sygate.
4. Reconnect to network and get updates from Microsoft.
Using this procedure, not once have I ever had a problem with viruses during an install.Nor with the SHIFT key held down on Windows?
Oh wait, I should have looked around more before asking.
From the YahooPOPS FAQ, How do I send emails?
How do I send emails?
Ensure that you have YahooPOPs!/Windows running. Check the IP address and POP3 port that has been configured in YahooPOPs!
Enter the same details as the outgoing/POP3 mail server in your email client. If your mail client does not give you the option of specifying the POP3 port, make sure you use the default POP3 port in YahooPOPs!, i.e., 110.
If your PC is not on a network or you do not want other on the network to use YahooPOPs! on your PC to download emails, set localhost (also known as 127.0.0.1) as the IP address in YahooPOPs!
Enter your Yahoo Mail user id as the username and your Yahoo Mail password as the password in your email client.
Once this configuration is done, simply check your emails using your mail client.
This is really, really awesome!
That's awesome, but do you know if there's something like a YahooSMTP?
Incidentally, I haven't seen Slashdot render incorrectly with any of the recent releases of Mozilla or Firefox (including the current releases) under Windows. Is this a problem people are running into only under non-Windows platforms, or is mine just a unique case?
The developer loses freedom...but the user gains the freedom to enhance and share any copy that comes to his hands
This makes the user a developer, no? ;o) Of course, I know what you mean. The original author, practically speaking, loses most of the opportunity to profit from his work. To me, that seems to be the greatest shortfall of the GPL scheme. It almost makes the author's work a public service, which might not do much for the author personally, but (as you seem to say) does a lot of good for society at large.
Anyone care to comment on how developing GPL software might benefit the developer personally or directly?Without paper verification evoting has no future here.
Agreed. However, I'm opposed to anything that might allow some party goon to verify how I personally voted. In other words, the paper verification ought to be human readable "backup ballots" and NOT (for example) something that I can take away from the polling place.
"Vote for X or I'll kill your family. Oh, and you can't fool me because I'll also kill your family if you don't bring me your vote verification slip."
An extreme example, but you get the idea.All of the verses are taken from actual spam, and copied directly without modification.
Wow, plagiarizing spam, that's a new low. ;o)
Yeah, it's a joke, but got me thinking...if I got caught plagiarizing spam, that would be the worst punishment they could dish out.
"Pssst, look, there goes the guy that plagiarized spam."
I think I would kill myself.It occurred to me that an experiment like this would be the perfect situation to work in weird frames or subliminal messages because everything's blinking by so quickly you can hardly (or not at all) make out individual frames. Remember Fight Club and family films at the movie theater? Anyhow, since I don't feel like trudging the thing frame by frame, I submit to other /.ers: closely examine the scene at some convenience store around the 5:26 - 5:28 time marks.
N.B., I'm not saying he had ulterior motives in making the film (he should get help if he did), but it's something to think about, anyhow.What's the purpose of removing so many frames?
So he could leave in the frames he wanted to leave in.
It occurred to me that an experiment like this would be the perfect situation to work in weird frames or subliminal messages because everything's blinking by so quickly you can hardly (or not at all) make out individual frames. Remember Fight Club and family films at the movie theater? Anyhow, since I don't feel like trudging the thing frame by frame, I submit to other /.ers: closely examine the scene at some convenience store around the 5:26 - 5:28 time marks.
N.B., I'm not saying he had ulterior motives in making the film (he should get help if he did), but it's something to think about, anyhow.Someone please mod the parent post +Insightful. I don't think there is anything more insidiously dangerous to civil liberties than the logic that:
"Since you don't need that right, you shouldn't use that right; since you don't use that right, there's no point in you having that right; thus, since there's no point in you having that right, we'll just take that right away from you."But spending money to turn a city police station into a war room for day to day operations? I know it's crime-ridden New York city and all, but this is beginning to get ridiculous. If they actually need to fund the police that heavily, they have bigger problems than public service deficiencies. Like this one: they're looking less like a democracy and more like a police state... ;o)
Maybe if they would stop nailing people to the wall for protecting themselves against crime (N.B., there are quite a few other examples of NYC persecuting self defense), there wouldn't be this "need" to make a war room.
Not trying to pick on you, tomstdenis, I'm just saying.The USGS also has maps viewable online. I'm not sure, but FOIA may make their maps part of the public domain. They talk about FOIA on the USGS web site, he might want to check that out. There's a ton of other information there that might be relevant.
Unfortunately, it looks like that one is based on Mandrake 9.2, which, I'm guessing, doesn't have the same 2.6.?-?? kernel version that Mandrake 10.0 does, which is what I would need to test.
...but does it have a Live CD sampler? I'd like to make sure Mandrakes inclusion of kernel 2.6 will work on my hardware before I go and download 3 CDs worth of data.
Do you happen to know if Mandrake has a Live CD to test this out? The latest Knoppix with 2.6.?-?? doesn't work on my machine, and I'd like to test it out before downloading three CDs only to find it doesn't work.
Censorship is not solely government related.
So far as free speech in the United States is concerned it is.
This is just disney trying to suck up to brother bush.
And Michael Moore just has an agenda and Disney doesn't care to be a shill for it. That's all your and Michael Moore's petulant screeching of "censorship" is; you just have your panties in a twist because Disney doesn't have the same kooky ideas as you. Howling "censorship" is just one of your little ways of defaming Disney (accusing Disney of "just trying to suck up to brother bush" is another way). You would be wise not to abuse the word "censorhip," (along with all other grossly hyperbolic terms you likely use) because it's kinda like crying "wolf." When there finally is a case of censorship to be concerned about and you try to raise the alarm, everybody's just going to ignore you and say, "there goes that pissant, screeching little imbecile again" and tune you out. What's more, I wouldn't be suprised if people start using you as a weathervane, except that whatever you indicate, they'll know the opposite is true.
Stop trying to censor Disney!No one (sane) *manually* checks for false positives, just the end user.
Like how Yahoo Mail has their system set up with a bulk mail folder. That system works wonderfully well so far as my experience with it has been.Call it spin if you like, but the point I'm trying to make is that Disney is not "someone with authority." That's the government. So far as the free speech is concerned, the government is the only entity that can do censorship. Sure, Disney may have authority within its own organization, but that's O.K. They should have that authority. They may have influence outside their organization just because they're big and have lots of money, but so what? Disney can't do squat about what I say, think or do (unless I commit some wrong against them, etc., but even then, they can't get to me directly, they would have to go through those that DO have authority, i.e., the government).
Don't you see, if you can force an entity to say something, that's just as bad, if not worse, than forcing them not to say something? The 1st Amendment isn't just about the freedom to put out crazy or stupid ideas, it's also about NOT being forced to say something you don't want to say. That's why I call private censorship free speech (or a form of it, anyhow).
The bit about "it's only censorship if it contradicts your agenda" was just a jab at the folks that screech "censorship" whenever someone (like Disney) doesn't care to support their pet idea, then in turn censors (or attempts to censor) that person for their behavior.Unfortunately, you either missed or intentionally ignored my point. Disney exercising its right to free speech is not censorship according to the logic of the 1st Amendment, which is the obvious context of my post to anyone with an iota of intelligence. According to your quoted definition and absent the obvious Constitutional context, Michael Moore and his True Believers are certainly "examining" Disney's behavior and are attempting to "expurgate" it/make it conform to their agenda. If MM and his minions succeeded in twisting Disney's arm far enough to make it provide a soapbox for MM's hate-Bush speech, would you call that censorship? No, of course you wouldn't, you would call it the triumph of free speech over "censorship."
See, when a legal entity other than those in power "censor" something, it's a form of free speech. Do you stand on the street corner publicly arguing for an increased recognition of gun rights? No? Then you're censoring me! Shame on you, you censoring bigot!
Your weak and ambiguous synonyms (synonym != definition) belie your intent to twist the true meaning of censorship. Keep it up and soon "censorship" will mean nothing, even if it is the latest avant-garde wonder to hit the coffee shops. You should just say, "Disney double-plus bad." That's an impressive standard of "basic linguistic scrutiny" you have there...Moore is under serious attack for what he is saying. I mean take a look at Slashdot, or all those www.moore-is-a-big-bastard-and-we-wish-he-would-di e.org websites.
In the United States, everybody has the right to free speech, not just leftists/socialists.
And his latest movie can not be distributed to US cinemas as far as i know.
It's not that it "cannot" be distributed, it's that Disney has chosen not to. Shockingly enough, even corporations and other groups, as legal "entities," in the United States have the right to free speech, and therefore cannot be obligated to trumpet someone else's agenda.No, it's related to free speech. Disney has a right to free speech, too, not just leftist individuals. See the other posts about Disney making a wise business decision based on their customer base, etc. This is just a politically charged topic, nothing more. Your rhetorical and technically improper use of the term "censorship" demonstrates this.
No, it's only censorship if it contradicts your agenda. Ever consider the fact this "censorship" is actually just a private individual/group exercising their right to free speech? It seems sometimes that everything the left says or does is "freedom of expression" and everything the right says or does is "censorship"...
Aristotle defines democracy as the corrupt form of "rule of the many." It's just another form of tyranny: tyranny of the majority.
Incidentally, Aristotle identifies the most stable/least potentially oppressive form of government as that which is a mixture of two corrupt forms of government, oligarchy and democracy. This is sort of how the founding fathers set things up, the federal government structure being the oligarchy looking out for their own interests and their own acquisition of power, and the masses (democracy) being able to censure the oligarchy via elections.
Aristotle would tell us to expect a very mediocre government, neither very wonderful nor very terrible.