i didn't say you were a fool for your (though i do not agree with it) belief that the flag is sacred - i said you were a fool for holding it up as an example, making the assumption that everyone here (of all places) believed that flag burning was wrong.
my argument was that the flag is not sacred. freedom of speech (including flag burning) is... and that you're a fool for pulling _that_ assumption out on _this_ site.
(the moon, incidentally, is most emphatically _not_.)
In addition to the "wrench" icon for "Modifies the operating system", maybe a less severe ('screwdriver' ?) icon for "updates the operating system" (i.e. installs unmodified components supplied by originally by the OS vendor) - that would allow programs to continue installing directx, etc, when necessary.
he said no _apple_ symbol, not no apple _command_ symbol... i still remember when people used to call that key "open-apple" [though not quite old enough to remember first-hand when its opposite on the keyboard was "closed-apple", a filled-in logo]... try looking at its command key and one on a picture of a real apple keyboard for comparison if you still don't know what i mean
but everyone knows slashdot sucks - Salon shouldn't be taking advantage of that... and anyway, had you googled, you'd know that he's a writer for salon with (to date) 171 articles
> > > And then, maybe, also scold the story submitter > > How does his letter to Salon not accomplish this? > If I wanted to say something to you, would I write > to an entity you *possibly* are a customer of?
that's not what happened... i think that what the poster did was improper enough to justify the great-grandparent poster writing to the poster's _employer_.
if a workstation "certainly IS" a personal computer, can you come up with a concise phrase that describes "personal computers that are not workstations" ?
most of the ones i've seen use a touch-tone phone, but in the same "form factor" (i.e. handset goes down vertically on a bulky trapezoidal box) as the old rotary phones... the "iconographical" symbol for phone is a completely nondescript sillouhette of such a phone, which may be rotary or touch-tone
That bug doesn't apply to the thunderbird 'save' button, which the parent post referred to... mainly because most people's hands aren't yellow with green fingers.
perhaps a third geometry (made of geometric primitives like cylinders and spheres, implemented by checking the distance to a central point / line segment) could be used for this?
or just force downgrading to that of the slowest system
i wasn't saying it was true that it was illegal, but you (or, parent poster, anyway [if you're not then why are you responding]... i don't tend to keep track of who posts what in threads) were arguing that they hadn't said it.
...did you TRY it? clicking your link - 403 - entering in any of http://slashdot.org http://www.slashdot.org/ http://slashdot.org/ : 403 403 403 - your first hint should have been the fact that 403 is _not_ the normal response in this situation - 301 (if i remember correctly) is.
in the set-up you describe, the daemon should authenticate the caller ('client' would make more sense, since presumably the daemon is running all the time, not being called by the client program) by checking that its uid is that of the person whose password is being changed, not that it's root. why do you have to be uid root to be "trusted" to change a user password?
why? it's not illegal to attempt to pay a debt in or purchase a product or service with monopoly money. (well, it may infringe on Hasbro's intellectual property, but that's not the Treasury Department's...er...department.)
my History 356 professor says otherwise. maybe they were "sworn enemies", maybe not, but if so that only means it would have been an alliance of pragmatism.
Slashdot Mirror
private military contractors? what's that?
do you mean like mercenaries?
i didn't say you were a fool for your (though i do not agree with it) belief that the flag is sacred - i said you were a fool for holding it up as an example, making the assumption that everyone here (of all places) believed that flag burning was wrong.
my argument was that the flag is not sacred. freedom of speech (including flag burning) is... and that you're a fool for pulling _that_ assumption out on _this_ site.
(the moon, incidentally, is most emphatically _not_.)
Is flag burning immoral?
no. what do you have to say to that?
In addition to the "wrench" icon for "Modifies the operating system", maybe a less severe ('screwdriver' ?) icon for "updates the operating system" (i.e. installs unmodified components supplied by originally by the OS vendor) - that would allow programs to continue installing directx, etc, when necessary.
he said no _apple_ symbol, not no apple _command_ symbol... i still remember when people used to call that key "open-apple" [though not quite old enough to remember first-hand when its opposite on the keyboard was "closed-apple", a filled-in logo]... try looking at its command key and one on a picture of a real apple keyboard for comparison if you still don't know what i mean
but everyone knows slashdot sucks - Salon shouldn't be taking advantage of that... and anyway, had you googled, you'd know that he's a writer for salon with (to date) 171 articles
> > > And then, maybe, also scold the story submitter
> > How does his letter to Salon not accomplish this?
> If I wanted to say something to you, would I write
> to an entity you *possibly* are a customer of?
that's not what happened... i think that what the poster did was improper enough to justify the great-grandparent poster writing to the poster's _employer_.
if a workstation "certainly IS" a personal computer, can you come up with a concise phrase that describes "personal computers that are not workstations" ?
And then, maybe, also scold the story submitter
How does his letter to Salon not accomplish this?
(who was quite probably another Salon subscriber.)
Yeah, that's one way of saying it.
so, it's ok for aleonard@salon.com to post an article requiring payment (not just free registration) to slashdot?
most of the ones i've seen use a touch-tone phone, but in the same "form factor" (i.e. handset goes down vertically on a bulky trapezoidal box) as the old rotary phones... the "iconographical" symbol for phone is a completely nondescript sillouhette of such a phone, which may be rotary or touch-tone
That bug doesn't apply to the thunderbird 'save' button, which the parent post referred to... mainly because most people's hands aren't yellow with green fingers.
It starts with an open letter...
that wouldn't make sense - you could just log out and post anyway.
but the _wallet_ isn't mass-produced... by your definition nothing is unique because it's made of millions of identical mass-produced molecules
you said it was a week trip.
perhaps a third geometry (made of geometric primitives like cylinders and spheres, implemented by checking the distance to a central point / line segment) could be used for this?
or just force downgrading to that of the slowest system
i wasn't saying it was true that it was illegal, but you (or, parent poster, anyway [if you're not then why are you responding]... i don't tend to keep track of who posts what in threads) were arguing that they hadn't said it.
but the original post / lawyer-letter says that even the "one copy for yourself only" is illegal.
...did you TRY it? clicking your link - 403 - entering in any of http://slashdot.org http://www.slashdot.org/ http://slashdot.org/ : 403 403 403 - your first hint should have been the fact that 403 is _not_ the normal response in this situation - 301 (if i remember correctly) is.
in the set-up you describe, the daemon should authenticate the caller ('client' would make more sense, since presumably the daemon is running all the time, not being called by the client program) by checking that its uid is that of the person whose password is being changed, not that it's root. why do you have to be uid root to be "trusted" to change a user password?
the post you're responding to is talking about the case of a non-existent page on an existing server.
why? it's not illegal to attempt to pay a debt in or purchase a product or service with monopoly money. (well, it may infringe on Hasbro's intellectual property, but that's not the Treasury Department's...er...department.)
my History 356 professor says otherwise. maybe they were "sworn enemies", maybe not, but if so that only means it would have been an alliance of pragmatism.