And i suppose if I had a "broken" gun in my basement and you broke in and stole it, then tried to use it and injured yourself, you could sue me right?
Right. I could. Also, if I were trespassing on your property and, say, slipped on your pool deck and got injured, I could sue you for that too. Shall I go on?
gets() is insecure by definition. From the manpage:
char *gets(char *s);
gets() reads a line from stdin into the buffer pointed to by s until either a terminating newline or EOF, which it replaces with '\0'.
BUGS Never use gets(). Because it is impossible to tell without knowing the data in advance how many characters gets() will read, and because gets() will continue to store characters past the end of the buffer, it is extremely dangerous to use. It has been used to break computer security. Use fgets() instead.
The thing is, gets() does not know how long the buffer is. It just knows where the buffer is. (Where is it? at s.) So, it will start at s (the beginning of the buffer), and if the input is long enough, keep on barreling through past the proper end of the buffer and into whatever's after s: other data, sometimes involving return addresses (which are basically 'bookmarks' which tell the computer where it left off to pursue a subroutine). If you can change the return address, you can point it somewhere else, and you have the computer doing what you want it to do.
Clarification: I'm not blaming it for such, I'm just blaming it for the Catholic Church. And I'm not saying the Democratic Party is doomed, just that it ought to be expressing a reasonable and judicious level of concern over such matters. As should the Republicans, for that matter.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you there in the least. Elitist attitudes have troubled me elsewhere, particularly when I hear some certain Democrats I know denounce the "sheeple" of the world, presumably those who vote Republican. It's curious, I suppose, that the Democrats were historically the party of the South, of the Catholic Church, and of black people. (Yes, we could still call them 'black people' back then). They have lost much of the South, are losing the Catholic Church over issues such as abortion and gay marriage, and I've heard it speculated that they are at risk of losing broad swaths of support from the African-American community. Other curious matters involve a series of contradictions: supporting campaign finance reform and other matters which could be construed as limitations on free speech, supporting the general Islamic Middle-East and 'cultural diversity' over the evil evil evil Americanized West despite the issues of human rights and especially woman's rights which have historically been associated with their party. Not all of these are part of the Democratic Party platform, mind you, but consider it food for thought...
In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.
You seem to misunderstand something, somewhere. The thing is, the Catholic Church is not based on a book. It is based on a tradition of faith, and considers Scripture to be divinely inspired, but the Catholic Church has for a long time explicitly rejected the doctrine of 'sola scriptura' which defines Scripture as the one and only source of truth. That's a purely Protestant notion. (And a fair amount of the argument against it is that Sola Scriptura is not itself defined in Scripture.)
And with regards to homosexuality: The Catholic church has never said anything to the effect that "homosexuality is not wrong". It's in fact staunchly set against it, any little business about how the crimes of Sodom and Gamorah being explictly identified or otherwise aside... What they have said is that homosexuals are not inherently bad and evil people, any more so than the rest of us sinners. "Hate the sin, but love the sinner" -- don't tell them vindictively that they're going to Hell and they deserve it: heck, according to this doctrine of Original Sin here, you deserve it too.
Curiously, I don't find you flamed to extinction. I do, however, see rather more incendiary responses (though few explicit flames) to various people higher in the threads for several people who say that they are Christians and they believe in some type or another of intelligent design. So, thank you, but please stop pretending that athiests are a repressed minority, at least on Slashdot.
Curiously enough, the infamous "Piss Christ" work was supposedly created as some sort of symbolism as to what Society was doing in general to Christ: designed as artistic reporting of a trend, of a sort. Now, what that means with regards to the artists' other works involving bodily fluids.... eh, I won't comment.
You call any of that crap 'Intelligent Design'? God can't figure out how to create a world without disaster or disease?
This is the sort of stuff that you cover in your elementary Intro to Philosophy class. I'd like you to take a moment and consider: Suppose God made a perfect world, where everyone was perfectly happy all the time and frolicked and played in the sunshine and nobody ever died and they all lived forever. Happy happy joy joy. Now, suppose that God created this world in which people suffer their way through various hardships, overcome obstacles, deal with death and loss and such. Which would be more attractive to God? Well, we can't say that we fully comprehend God's mind on such a matter, I'll give a few thoughts on the matter here. First consider playing SimCity with some sort of gazillion-dollar trainer program and building a perfectly-picture-perfect city where you have all the pretty buildings and nobody pays taxes and there is no crime. Next consider playing, oh, Civilization or one of those games with the computer difficulty set to ultra-hard, where everyone gangs up against you... and hey, maybe you don't even win the game, but you still tried, and if you DID win, you know it was really great. Which is more fun for you? Now consider God: would he create a world where everything was perfectly perfect because it could be no other way, or would he create a world in which there were so many reasons NOT to be good, but some people did it anyway, for the sake of doing what is good, or for the love of God, or for some other noble purpose?
I won't begin to criticise the rest of your post where you effectively suggest a holy war against the existance of religion. Have fun drumming up your thought police gestapo.
Of course. The clockmaker hypothesis is a theory of philosophy, not of science. But I wouldn't say that the Catholic Church would go so far as to say that the divine clockmaker stepped away from his work and just left it running, as is traditional in this sort of hypothesis- instead, he tinkers with it occasionally, perhaps adjusting a piece here or there, holding back a pendulum for a few moments, winding a spring or two, and other subtle interventions.
The funniest part is that when I clicked on that link, all I saw was the Firefox ad-block icon-widget. (insert mumbling about how content-free MPAA movies are...)
If you just want to play around with your file-system in a game and not do anything useful with it, and don't necessarily need a FPS, take a look at Inner Space, a little gem dating from the days of 386en and Windows 3.1. It lets you fly around a little spaceship (some of the spaceships are excessively cute, such as the "Rubber Duck", while others are tougher) around your hard drive to capture or destroy icons which it extracts from the programs on your hard drive. You can deal with other ships (decently good AI for a 386-era game, though easy to brainwash) and viruses and all sorts of hazards which shoot fireballs at you...
A couple of workarounds, not fixes. Turn down the CPU speed, if your laptop supports it. Place a large flat ice-pack underneath (you can find some with a grid of square cooling units connected so as to be flexible and fit nicely along the edges of coolers).
that a Slashdot reader has an average (or even below-average) likelihood of vandalising, but due to their sheer number the vandalism count may increase
that people not otherwise affiliated with Slashdot but who enjoy vandalism go to vandalize the page because it is temporarily a high-profile target
Negatory. The Wikimedia foundation is non-profit. The money they get out of this deal will be used for keeping their servers online and for charitable encyclopedia-related projects ("printing out copies for children in Africa").
Or perhaps you were unaware that there were already hundreds of mirrors and forks with tons of ads sitting on Google just to get their operator a few bucks for decidedly NOT nonprofit reasons. Perhaps you should scream at them loudly first, hmm?
That'd be hard. All the actual advertisements will appear on pages at Answers.com - not on actual Wikipedia pages. There will be a link to the software at the Wikipedia Tools page, but there are lots of links to software at the Wikipedia Tools page. They'll also put the Tools page in the sidebar, but they were considering doing something like that anyway.
The deal is not finalized. Nothing is "struck" or required.
Nobody is forced to use the software.
There are no ads/adware/spyware in the software.
Er, surely there must be adverts in the software, or where does the money come from?? Dan100 (Talk) 18:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The software lets you go to a web page, such as http://answer.com/foo - The web page has all the advertisements. -Fennec() 19:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The link to the software will only be at WP:TOOLS, nowhere else.
A link to WP:TOOLS will be placed in the sidebar, not a link to the software.
The tools page already links to non-free software.
Answers.com could have posted their link on the tools page without offering the Foundation a cent.
Bob Rosenschien and Jimbo Wales have been in firm and absolute
agreement from the beginning that the form of link chosen by the
community is up to the community.
The community is free to remove the link from WP:TOOLS, but know that this will stop Wikimedia from receiving additional funds.
Slashdot Mirror
What if I'd like to violate the DCMA and play some of my icky DRMed WMAs? Using the latest WMP10 player DRM updates?
Certain cheif executive officers have been reputed to throw chairs and such around as well.
I'd try to sell a network/email scanning/monitoring package, myself, for the 'enterprise' environment. Company-wide antivirus for the network.
Right. I could. Also, if I were trespassing on your property and, say, slipped on your pool deck and got injured, I could sue you for that too. Shall I go on?
Clarification: I'm not blaming it for such, I'm just blaming it for the Catholic Church. And I'm not saying the Democratic Party is doomed, just that it ought to be expressing a reasonable and judicious level of concern over such matters. As should the Republicans, for that matter.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you there in the least. Elitist attitudes have troubled me elsewhere, particularly when I hear some certain Democrats I know denounce the "sheeple" of the world, presumably those who vote Republican. It's curious, I suppose, that the Democrats were historically the party of the South, of the Catholic Church, and of black people. (Yes, we could still call them 'black people' back then). They have lost much of the South, are losing the Catholic Church over issues such as abortion and gay marriage, and I've heard it speculated that they are at risk of losing broad swaths of support from the African-American community. Other curious matters involve a series of contradictions: supporting campaign finance reform and other matters which could be construed as limitations on free speech, supporting the general Islamic Middle-East and 'cultural diversity' over the evil evil evil Americanized West despite the issues of human rights and especially woman's rights which have historically been associated with their party. Not all of these are part of the Democratic Party platform, mind you, but consider it food for thought...
And with regards to homosexuality: The Catholic church has never said anything to the effect that "homosexuality is not wrong". It's in fact staunchly set against it, any little business about how the crimes of Sodom and Gamorah being explictly identified or otherwise aside... What they have said is that homosexuals are not inherently bad and evil people, any more so than the rest of us sinners. "Hate the sin, but love the sinner" -- don't tell them vindictively that they're going to Hell and they deserve it: heck, according to this doctrine of Original Sin here, you deserve it too.
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.
Curiously enough, the infamous "Piss Christ" work was supposedly created as some sort of symbolism as to what Society was doing in general to Christ: designed as artistic reporting of a trend, of a sort. Now, what that means with regards to the artists' other works involving bodily fluids.... eh, I won't comment.
This is the sort of stuff that you cover in your elementary Intro to Philosophy class. I'd like you to take a moment and consider: Suppose God made a perfect world, where everyone was perfectly happy all the time and frolicked and played in the sunshine and nobody ever died and they all lived forever. Happy happy joy joy. Now, suppose that God created this world in which people suffer their way through various hardships, overcome obstacles, deal with death and loss and such. Which would be more attractive to God? Well, we can't say that we fully comprehend God's mind on such a matter, I'll give a few thoughts on the matter here. First consider playing SimCity with some sort of gazillion-dollar trainer program and building a perfectly-picture-perfect city where you have all the pretty buildings and nobody pays taxes and there is no crime. Next consider playing, oh, Civilization or one of those games with the computer difficulty set to ultra-hard, where everyone gangs up against you... and hey, maybe you don't even win the game, but you still tried, and if you DID win, you know it was really great. Which is more fun for you? Now consider God: would he create a world where everything was perfectly perfect because it could be no other way, or would he create a world in which there were so many reasons NOT to be good, but some people did it anyway, for the sake of doing what is good, or for the love of God, or for some other noble purpose?
I won't begin to criticise the rest of your post where you effectively suggest a holy war against the existance of religion. Have fun drumming up your thought police gestapo.
Of course. The clockmaker hypothesis is a theory of philosophy, not of science. But I wouldn't say that the Catholic Church would go so far as to say that the divine clockmaker stepped away from his work and just left it running, as is traditional in this sort of hypothesis- instead, he tinkers with it occasionally, perhaps adjusting a piece here or there, holding back a pendulum for a few moments, winding a spring or two, and other subtle interventions.
After you've apologized to everyone for your rudeness and ignorance, we MIGHT let you back in!
Dude, we're Slashdotting chick.com. This is kind of awesome. :)
I'm curious: If your belief in the bible is literal, what do you make of John 6:48-58 and other distressingly Catholic passages?
The funniest part is that when I clicked on that link, all I saw was the Firefox ad-block icon-widget. (insert mumbling about how content-free MPAA movies are...)
I thought it was pronounced "leftenant"
Hey, hey, give the guy a break. At least he's not Andrew Orlowski.
If you just want to play around with your file-system in a game and not do anything useful with it, and don't necessarily need a FPS, take a look at Inner Space, a little gem dating from the days of 386en and Windows 3.1. It lets you fly around a little spaceship (some of the spaceships are excessively cute, such as the "Rubber Duck", while others are tougher) around your hard drive to capture or destroy icons which it extracts from the programs on your hard drive. You can deal with other ships (decently good AI for a 386-era game, though easy to brainwash) and viruses and all sorts of hazards which shoot fireballs at you...
A couple of workarounds, not fixes.
Turn down the CPU speed, if your laptop supports it.
Place a large flat ice-pack underneath (you can find some with a grid of square cooling units connected so as to be flexible and fit nicely along the edges of coolers).
Or perhaps you were unaware that there were already hundreds of mirrors and forks with tons of ads sitting on Google just to get their operator a few bucks for decidedly NOT nonprofit reasons. Perhaps you should scream at them loudly first, hmm?
That'd be hard. All the actual advertisements will appear on pages at Answers.com - not on actual Wikipedia pages. There will be a link to the software at the Wikipedia Tools page, but there are lots of links to software at the Wikipedia Tools page. They'll also put the Tools page in the sidebar, but they were considering doing something like that anyway.
Frequently Assumed Quandaries resolved:
- The deal is not finalized. Nothing is "struck" or required.
- Nobody is forced to use the software.
- There are no ads/adware/spyware in the software.
Er, surely there must be adverts in the software, or where does the money come from?? Dan100 (Talk) 18:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The software lets you go to a web page, such as http://answer.com/foo - The web page has all the advertisements. -Fennec () 19:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- The link to the software will only be at WP:TOOLS, nowhere else.
- A link to WP:TOOLS will be placed in the sidebar, not a link to the software.
- The tools page already links to non-free software.
- Answers.com could have posted their link on the tools page without offering the Foundation a cent.
- Bob Rosenschien and Jimbo Wales have been in firm and absolute
agreement from the beginning that the form of link chosen by the
community is up to the community.
- The community is free to remove the link from WP:TOOLS, but know that this will stop Wikimedia from receiving additional funds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Tools