That 15-year-projected surplus doesn't exist yet anywhere except on paper, and only if you trust the accuracy of estimation over that period of time. That's not stopping either major party from rushing to commit money that may never materialize, however, despite the fact that large-scale commitments combined with a decade and a half of unforseen events could change the economy enough to invalidate the numbers... {sigh}
I'd rather that they *not* make any long-range commitments on money they don't have. Sheesh.
Oh, FWIW, it's arguable that el Presidante is no great friend of the war on drugs; witness the repeat certification of the thoroughly corrupt government of our immediate Southern neighbor, for instance.
My suspicion is that with a lot of pages (e.g., hm, business pages, most home pages, etc), you aren't going to be able to find porn until you click *many* *many* times. It's just not *that* common unless you're either searching for pr0n, w4r3z, or anything else that tends to be spelled with annoyingly-mixed letters and digits. It's fairly tough to randomly stumble upon.
Actually, you're idea about the links might be interesting, if you only take it one level deep. In particular, you could probably figure that any site with advertising from various banner companies is almost certainly porn, or doing nothing except linking to porn pages and providing the luser owner money per click (in which case it's equally pointless, and possibly more offensive).
There's that, plus checking to see who owns the domain name. I have no numbers on this, but it frankly wouldn't surprise me if a lot of pay porn sites were really aliases for each other, owned by the same people (presumably to catch those who "guess" random domain names?). That could at least be a warning flag. "Hmmm, this domain name could be considered obscene, and it's owned by the self-proclaimed king of 'net porn..."
And a keyword search might be more effective than you'd think -- probably a lot of pages embed hordes of keywords in order to get flagged in the less discriminating search engines. Any heuristic, though, should still have a list of exceptions just in case some page generates a false positive, in addition to a list of known positives.
That should be far easier and more reliable than image analysis...
Aye, there's actually a pretty high amount of clue on Slashdot, making it a welcome shift from skipping past the headers on the latest OS flamewars in the comp.* hierarchy, and the perpetual spam... {sigh} I remember when even alt.destroy.the.earth was remarkably free of spam, and one could look there and find light-hearted discussions and speculation about a possibly impossible problem. But the level of discourse here is probably due in no small part to moderation; trolls and mass-marketers can find their messages relegated to invisibility faster than cancelbots can patrol Usenet.
I do like the new RH site, also, since it looks like it'll allow speedy navigation. It seems quite clean that way. Of course, I'm not a web designer, (*very rarely* changing my own pages, for instance), and in fact am a frequent Lynx user:-).
Hmmm. Perhaps he meant "little gore"? Off-hand, I believe it struck me as possibly exceeding even "The Killer" and "The Corruptor" in terms of gunplay, but unlike, say, "Braveheart" I don't remember close-ups of injuries, or involuntary non-clinical battlefield amputations, or so forth of the sort that made audiences go, "Ewww". Mostly it was *bang* x (very_high_number) -> down -> *next*...
Heh. Are there any theatre owners that have such a dual policy? In an arrangement similar to that of Disney/Miramax (the owner being known for producing incredibly saccharine animated children's flicks; the Miramax unit labouring under no such restrictions), perhaps a company could operate two chains.
Until the most confused post-Columbine bout of irrationality subsides -- which, one can only hope, would be soon, but... -- it might be profitable to adopt a "family friendly" approach. That could retain a branding different from the main chain, which if the subterfuge outlasted the furor, might be able to be less restrained. *Maybe*. I'm not a businessman.
That's all assuming that the (fed/state/local) governments don't somehow find justification for legislating regulations.
Out of curiousity, what would give the Feds jurisdiction? Apart from cross-state ticket sales, I'm not seeing much interstate commerce between the theatres and patrons; the one bit that comes to mind would be the "necessary and proper" phrase of the "elastic clause". I also don't remember (but I probably wouldn't, not paying much attention to the industry...) federal grants to them or anything else that they could use as a bludgeon -- unless they intended to threaten the state and local governments into passing their own ordinances.
I was referring to his ad hominem attacks on Christians, and his apparent belief that they shouldn't be speaking. Like I said, I don't stand by their beliefs, but it's nothing personal.
I have no issue with movie owners coming up with absurd policies, so long as they are not compelled to, there is no illegality, and there is no collusion: as long as J. Random Entrepreneur can operate a theatre with disregard for the guidelines of others, fine. That's within their rights.
Hey, chill with the personal attacks. Now, I'm an agnostic, but I've studied enough to be roughly aware of where he's coming from. Acceptance of a religion implies accepting *all* of it (I *despise* people who claim a faith, and then pick and choose whatever matches with their politics; spawn off a new sect, instead...), and that usually includes a belief that such a religion is the *truth*, and there is a duty to live by it and spread it.
If you want to oppose religious influence, don't do so simply because of a whim. Who are you to decide that morals include non-inteference with others -- as that is a decision that labels, criticizes and possibly offends others, in itself? If you believe that actions or people can be "right", "wrong", "good" or "evil" -- and I'm including shades of grey, not just absolutes -- then such a belief has to come from somewhere within -- and that place is not logic. Sooner or later, you reach something which is just gut feeling, stuff that you just *know*. For many, that comes from religion. A similar belief drives scientific discovery: a belief that it is *right* for Man to discover, that inherently knowledge is good.
I acknowledge that origin of belief. I still oppose imposition of religion from the State, but my quarrel isn't personal; it's distinctly ideological, and is grounded in my gut-driven cynicism; preference for the temporal versus the spiritual realm; and dislike of coercion without clear (temporal) justification.
FWIW, it's arguable that most of the religious wars were largely driven by temporal concerns, such as power struggles between the Church *as an institution* versus potential threats to loyalty. It is well documented that the infamous Salem witch trials were curiously correlated with property disputes, and that it is very arguable that the whole episode was a sham by which various people acted on their jealousies and avariciousness. That's not much different from innumerable temporal disputes historically or currently waged for far different grounds than are publicized.
Having, at the very minimum, a B.Sci. opens a LOT of doors for you, since a lot of employers really won't look at you twice if you don't have *any* degree. If your job preferences ever change, you'll gain a bit of flexibility. That, plus you might get ample opportunities to look at other aspects of the field. Depending upon your tastes, you may even need a higher degree just so they'll let you in the door and give you the opportunity to prove yourself...
You know, I'd have to pity armed guards that have to protect something at the bottom of the ocean...:-)
Re:XFree86 3.3.4 out 3 days ago. Coincidence?
on
SuSE 6.2 in August
·
· Score: 1
Yeah. Some people gotta feed on conspiracies.
Mmmm. That sig of yours (familiar to be, but I have absolutely no clue to the original attribution), combined w/ a Lord Acton quote:
1. "Knowledge is power." 2. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
3. Therefore, knowledge corrupts, and absolute knowledge corrupts absolutely. This sounds vaguely Lovecraftian/Cthulhuesque.:-) (and for those that have played Chaosium's CoC, substitute "Cthulhu Mythos" knowledge, and "drives insane" for "corrupts"...).
Ya know... I'd be *really* surprised if MS decided to distribute WP or PM with one of their operating systems. That would be something...
I vaguely miss WP5.1/DOS. *That* was lightweight and fast, with all the shortcuts and the ability to configure macros. Pity it didn't ship with a PostScript driver. Ah well, now I've got XEmacs + TeX. Not exactly lightweight, but they'll do...
If they include the LDP docs (especially the User's Guide), then perhaps that's saving duplication of effort. Most distros, after all, can be approached the same way once it's installed: Slackware-style, since all the underlying system is so very similar. Given a good text editor (vi, Emacs, jed... or even the combo of cat, cut, grep, paste, and echo...), you can run the system at as low a level you desire.
The installation differs between distros, however. So it seems fair to concentrate on that. 'sides, perhaps it'll teach users that not all the answers can be found in one book...
Well, yeah. Not everybody today has joined in the deliriously fun exercise of textfile-based configuration.:-) Toss your average user at a DOS 3x system, and tell 'em to use MemMaker and manual tweaking because their latest and greatest app requires a minimum of, say, 560k conventional memory, *but* 64K (or was it 32K?) of otherwise-usable high memory had to be taken by EMS for paging, and add in a requirement for Novell Networking drivers... bwahahahahahahahaha.
Sure, it empowers them -- but only those that know the magic syntax, or are willing to learn. That's why slackware isn't commonly recommended to people who've always thought of themselves as users, not administrators. It's probably why RH bothered to include control-panel type apps. I've never found them useful, but my background is different than that of a novice. eh.
You mean stuff like YaST? If memory serves, SuSE includes a file describing what may or may not (such as everything in a "pay" directory) can be legitimately redistributed. It'd be more of a hassle than, say, Debian, but apparently you'll still have a functional system.
Um, no. I've been using *nix systems quite happily -- of course, since I cut my teeth on DOS 2.1, and text-file hacking is no stranger to me. On the other hand, I am capable of thinking about those that aren't so inclined. Are you?
'sides, for an MS user, I'd recommend Win95 (having a bias 'gainst IE integration). Have you forgotten that pre-9X Windows ran on DOS, and that most novice users would be just as hosed trying to understand what an EMM exclude range is, as they would be adding an account by editing/etc/passwd?
Errrrr, I really, really doubt that SuSE forces users to install the additional packages. It's not like a sane system would impose dependencies upon vmware, say, for everyday work. 'sides, in the past you could get a single-CD GPL'd version of SuSE from Cheapbytes, etc, and there's little reason to think they've broken from that practice. Is one CD bloat, and tomsrbt the ultimate general-purpose distro that matches the bulk of everybody's needs? No.
Suppose, say, you get an InfoMagic several-CD archive with multiple distros and TSX and Sunsite mirrors. Does that force you to install everything? No. It *allows* you to do so, but doesn't *make* you. By bundling w/ the distro, presumably they can use their package manager (an RPM branch, IIRC) and make it easier for you to *choose* to do so.
Then what's the difference, and what are you complaining about?
...because if it's bundled, they can spend the time making sure it works with their configuration? That makes it easier on the less-geeky users who
a) might not have network connections, or find PPP setup confusing
b) have never installed a program in their life (*lots* of people) and really don't want to learn how, particularly when there may be interesting configuration issues.
Think about it. There are people who want to try Linux, but have no idea about how to administer such a system. If they're coming from the Win9X side, they'll probably be expecting things like "InstallShield" -- and even that probably confuses people. These are probably not people who want to learn the ins and outs of package managers, or even what ".tgz" means.
Hmmmm. I do see one possible use: if you're using a laptop with proprietary data in a public place, and you want to avoid
a) casual observers (e.g. people next to you on an airplane). This might be important if you're on a deadline and you need every bit of work time you can get...
b) things like security cameras and such from capturing whatever's on your screen (although, if they see you typin' away on a supposedly perfectly white screen, the more paranoid sec staff might get curious...). This would be an unusual case, perhaps, but possible.
* Where does race come into this? * Bad example. Ramirez was... - a Mexican illegal immigrant (repeatedly) *and* - a serial killer.
Yes, some immigrants do commit crimes, such as crossing without going through INS. 'sides, there are rings which smuggle people in for the primary purpose of either enslaving them for work (indentured servants, basically) or recruiting them into crime (gangs or syndicates). Alternately, some may be trying to escape apprehension in their previous countries of residence.
OTOH, people who meet INS requirements and actually bother to qualify, and have paperwork and some degree of accountability, might be expected to be more reliable than those who apparently feel that they're entitled to enter another nation without obeying that nation's laws in the slightest...
I gotta wonder how the verification would occur. While some business operators are undoubtably capable of picking out forged licenses today, having seen many, how would they verify SSN or fingerprints? The only way I know of that would work -- contact the Gov't, and the Gov't maintains a database for comparison. That implies that such a database would be implemented.
That also means that they'd have the ability to track who, where, when and what...
If memory serves, it's arguable that the ACLU has been quite selective. I don't remember them waging war against, say, the law that defined sexual harrassment completely within the view of the accuser (as in not using a "reasonable person" standard). Where were they during that erosion of the First, and why is that only applied to SH? If the standard of harrassment is "I claim to be uncomfortable with what you're saying/doing/not saying/not doing", then why doesn't it apply to every sphere of life? (shudder)
Slashdot Mirror
That 15-year-projected surplus doesn't exist yet anywhere except on paper, and only if you trust the accuracy of estimation over that period of time. That's not stopping either major party from rushing to commit money that may never materialize, however, despite the fact that large-scale commitments combined with a decade and a half of unforseen events could change the economy enough to invalidate the numbers... {sigh}
I'd rather that they *not* make any long-range commitments on money they don't have. Sheesh.
Oh, FWIW, it's arguable that el Presidante is no great friend of the war on drugs; witness the repeat certification of the thoroughly corrupt government of our immediate Southern neighbor, for instance.
Heh. Hmmm, I wonder if they block the CIA Kids Page.
Perhaps this software would prefer that _all_ web sites should look like:
I luv you,
You luv me,
We're a happy family...
With a...
Noooooooooooo!
Porn from, say, "www.seagate.com"? "www.fbi.gov"? "www.acm.org"? Whatever.
My suspicion is that with a lot of pages (e.g., hm, business pages, most home pages, etc), you aren't going to be able to find porn until you click *many* *many* times. It's just not *that* common unless you're either searching for pr0n, w4r3z, or anything else that tends to be spelled with annoyingly-mixed letters and digits. It's fairly tough to randomly stumble upon.
Actually, you're idea about the links might be interesting, if you only take it one level deep. In particular, you could probably figure that any site with advertising from various banner companies is almost certainly porn, or doing nothing except linking to porn pages and providing the luser owner money per click (in which case it's equally pointless, and possibly more offensive).
There's that, plus checking to see who owns the domain name. I have no numbers on this, but it frankly wouldn't surprise me if a lot of pay porn sites were really aliases for each other, owned by the same people (presumably to catch those who "guess" random domain names?). That could at least be a warning flag. "Hmmm, this domain name could be considered obscene, and it's owned by the self-proclaimed king of 'net porn..."
And a keyword search might be more effective than you'd think -- probably a lot of pages embed hordes of keywords in order to get flagged in the less discriminating search engines. Any heuristic, though, should still have a list of exceptions just in case some page generates a false positive, in addition to a list of known positives.
That should be far easier and more reliable than image analysis...
Aye, there's actually a pretty high amount of clue on Slashdot, making it a welcome shift from skipping past the headers on the latest OS flamewars in the comp.* hierarchy, and the perpetual spam... {sigh} I remember when even alt.destroy.the.earth was remarkably free of spam, and one could look there and find light-hearted discussions and speculation about a possibly impossible problem. But the level of discourse here is probably due in no small part to moderation; trolls and mass-marketers can find their messages relegated to invisibility faster than cancelbots can patrol Usenet.
:-).
I do like the new RH site, also, since it looks like it'll allow speedy navigation. It seems quite clean that way. Of course, I'm not a web designer, (*very rarely* changing my own pages, for instance), and in fact am a frequent Lynx user
Hmmm. Perhaps he meant "little gore"? Off-hand, I believe it struck me as possibly exceeding even "The Killer" and "The Corruptor" in terms of gunplay, but unlike, say, "Braveheart" I don't remember close-ups of injuries, or involuntary non-clinical battlefield amputations, or so forth of the sort that made audiences go, "Ewww". Mostly it was *bang* x (very_high_number) -> down -> *next*...
The directors did carry things a bit far, eh?
Heh. Are there any theatre owners that have such a dual policy? In an arrangement similar to that of Disney/Miramax (the owner being known for producing incredibly saccharine animated children's flicks; the Miramax unit labouring under no such restrictions), perhaps a company could operate two chains.
Until the most confused post-Columbine bout of irrationality subsides -- which, one can only hope, would be soon, but... -- it might be profitable to adopt a "family friendly" approach. That could retain a branding different from the main chain, which if the subterfuge outlasted the furor, might be able to be less restrained. *Maybe*. I'm not a businessman.
That's all assuming that the (fed/state/local) governments don't somehow find justification for legislating regulations.
Out of curiousity, what would give the Feds jurisdiction? Apart from cross-state ticket sales, I'm not seeing much interstate commerce between the theatres and patrons; the one bit that comes to mind would be the "necessary and proper" phrase of the "elastic clause". I also don't remember (but I probably wouldn't, not paying much attention to the industry...) federal grants to them or anything else that they could use as a bludgeon -- unless they intended to threaten the state and local governments into passing their own ordinances.
I was referring to his ad hominem attacks on Christians, and his apparent belief that they shouldn't be speaking. Like I said, I don't stand by their beliefs, but it's nothing personal.
I have no issue with movie owners coming up with absurd policies, so long as they are not compelled to, there is no illegality, and there is no collusion: as long as J. Random Entrepreneur can operate a theatre with disregard for the guidelines of others, fine. That's within their rights.
Hey, chill with the personal attacks. Now, I'm an agnostic, but I've studied enough to be roughly aware of where he's coming from. Acceptance of a religion implies accepting *all* of it (I *despise* people who claim a faith, and then pick and choose whatever matches with their politics; spawn off a new sect, instead...), and that usually includes a belief that such a religion is the *truth*, and there is a duty to live by it and spread it.
If you want to oppose religious influence, don't do so simply because of a whim. Who are you to decide that morals include non-inteference with others -- as that is a decision that labels, criticizes and possibly offends others, in itself? If you believe that actions or people can be "right", "wrong", "good" or "evil" -- and I'm including shades of grey, not just absolutes -- then such a belief has to come from somewhere within -- and that place is not logic. Sooner or later, you reach something which is just gut feeling, stuff that you just *know*. For many, that comes from religion. A similar belief drives scientific discovery: a belief that it is *right* for Man to discover, that inherently knowledge is good.
I acknowledge that origin of belief. I still oppose imposition of religion from the State, but my quarrel isn't personal; it's distinctly ideological, and is grounded in my gut-driven cynicism; preference for the temporal versus the spiritual realm; and dislike of coercion without clear (temporal) justification.
FWIW, it's arguable that most of the religious wars were largely driven by temporal concerns, such as power struggles between the Church *as an institution* versus potential threats to loyalty. It is well documented that the infamous Salem witch trials were curiously correlated with property disputes, and that it is very arguable that the whole episode was a sham by which various people acted on their jealousies and avariciousness. That's not much different from innumerable temporal disputes historically or currently waged for far different grounds than are publicized.
Hmmmm, seriously? ('bout the Swiss?) Interesting.
Having, at the very minimum, a B.Sci. opens a LOT of doors for you, since a lot of employers really won't look at you twice if you don't have *any* degree. If your job preferences ever change, you'll gain a bit of flexibility. That, plus you might get ample opportunities to look at other aspects of the field. Depending upon your tastes, you may even need a higher degree just so they'll let you in the door and give you the opportunity to prove yourself...
You know, I'd have to pity armed guards that have to protect something at the bottom of the ocean... :-)
Yeah. Some people gotta feed on conspiracies.
:-) (and for those that have played Chaosium's CoC, substitute "Cthulhu Mythos" knowledge, and "drives insane" for "corrupts"...).
Mmmm. That sig of yours (familiar to be, but I have absolutely no clue to the original attribution), combined w/ a Lord Acton quote:
1. "Knowledge is power."
2. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
3. Therefore, knowledge corrupts, and absolute knowledge corrupts absolutely. This sounds vaguely Lovecraftian/Cthulhuesque.
A tad off-topic, but I'm in a silly mood...
Ya know... I'd be *really* surprised if MS decided to distribute WP or PM with one of their operating systems. That would be something...
I vaguely miss WP5.1/DOS. *That* was lightweight and fast, with all the shortcuts and the ability to configure macros. Pity it didn't ship with a PostScript driver. Ah well, now I've got XEmacs + TeX. Not exactly lightweight, but they'll do...
If they include the LDP docs (especially the User's Guide), then perhaps that's saving duplication of effort. Most distros, after all, can be approached the same way once it's installed: Slackware-style, since all the underlying system is so very similar. Given a good text editor (vi, Emacs, jed... or even the combo of cat, cut, grep, paste, and echo...), you can run the system at as low a level you desire.
The installation differs between distros, however. So it seems fair to concentrate on that. 'sides, perhaps it'll teach users that not all the answers can be found in one book...
Well, yeah. Not everybody today has joined in the deliriously fun exercise of textfile-based configuration. :-) Toss your average user at a DOS 3x system, and tell 'em to use MemMaker and manual tweaking because their latest and greatest app requires a minimum of, say, 560k conventional memory, *but* 64K (or was it 32K?) of otherwise-usable high memory had to be taken by EMS for paging, and add in a requirement for Novell Networking drivers... bwahahahahahahahaha.
Sure, it empowers them -- but only those that know the magic syntax, or are willing to learn. That's why slackware isn't commonly recommended to people who've always thought of themselves as users, not administrators. It's probably why RH bothered to include control-panel type apps. I've never found them useful, but my background is different than that of a novice. eh.
You mean stuff like YaST? If memory serves, SuSE includes a file describing what may or may not (such as everything in a "pay" directory) can be legitimately redistributed. It'd be more of a hassle than, say, Debian, but apparently you'll still have a functional system.
Um, no. I've been using *nix systems quite happily -- of course, since I cut my teeth on DOS 2.1, and text-file hacking is no stranger to me. On the other hand, I am capable of thinking about those that aren't so inclined. Are you?
/etc/passwd?
'sides, for an MS user, I'd recommend Win95 (having a bias 'gainst IE integration). Have you forgotten that pre-9X Windows ran on DOS, and that most novice users would be just as hosed trying to understand what an EMM exclude range is, as they would be adding an account by editing
Errrrr, I really, really doubt that SuSE forces users to install the additional packages. It's not like a sane system would impose dependencies upon vmware, say, for everyday work. 'sides, in the past you could get a single-CD GPL'd version of SuSE from Cheapbytes, etc, and there's little reason to think they've broken from that practice. Is one CD bloat, and tomsrbt the ultimate general-purpose distro that matches the bulk of everybody's needs? No.
Suppose, say, you get an InfoMagic several-CD archive with multiple distros and TSX and Sunsite mirrors. Does that force you to install everything? No. It *allows* you to do so, but doesn't *make* you. By bundling w/ the distro, presumably they can use their package manager (an RPM branch, IIRC) and make it easier for you to *choose* to do so.
Then what's the difference, and what are you complaining about?
...because if it's bundled, they can spend the time making sure it works with their configuration? That makes it easier on the less-geeky users who
a) might not have network connections, or find PPP setup confusing
b) have never installed a program in their life (*lots* of people) and really don't want to learn how, particularly when there may be interesting configuration issues.
Think about it. There are people who want to try Linux, but have no idea about how to administer such a system. If they're coming from the Win9X side, they'll probably be expecting things like "InstallShield" -- and even that probably confuses people. These are probably not people who want to learn the ins and outs of package managers, or even what ".tgz" means.
Hmmmm. I do see one possible use: if you're using a laptop with proprietary data in a public place, and you want to avoid
a) casual observers (e.g. people next to you on an airplane). This might be important if you're on a deadline and you need every bit of work time you can get...
b) things like security cameras and such from capturing whatever's on your screen (although, if they see you typin' away on a supposedly perfectly white screen, the more paranoid sec staff might get curious...). This would be an unusual case, perhaps, but possible.
"Put on the glasses!"
"No!"
*pow*
*pow*
*pow*
Ahhhhhh, that was a *weird* movie...
* Where does race come into this?
* Bad example. Ramirez was...
- a Mexican illegal immigrant (repeatedly)
*and*
- a serial killer.
Yes, some immigrants do commit crimes, such as crossing without going through INS. 'sides, there are rings which smuggle people in for the primary purpose of either enslaving them for work (indentured servants, basically) or recruiting them into crime (gangs or syndicates). Alternately, some may be trying to escape apprehension in their previous countries of residence.
OTOH, people who meet INS requirements and actually bother to qualify, and have paperwork and some degree of accountability, might be expected to be more reliable than those who apparently feel that they're entitled to enter another nation without obeying that nation's laws in the slightest...
Wait until they opt for dental records.
"Please insert your license in your mouth. Ok, you may now bite down..."
Heh.
I gotta wonder how the verification would occur. While some business operators are undoubtably capable of picking out forged licenses today, having seen many, how would they verify SSN or fingerprints? The only way I know of that would work -- contact the Gov't, and the Gov't maintains a database for comparison. That implies that such a database would be implemented.
That also means that they'd have the ability to track who, where, when and what...
*Ugh*
If memory serves, it's arguable that the ACLU has been quite selective. I don't remember them waging war against, say, the law that defined sexual harrassment completely within the view of the accuser (as in not using a "reasonable person" standard). Where were they during that erosion of the First, and why is that only applied to SH? If the standard of harrassment is "I claim to be uncomfortable with what you're saying/doing/not saying/not doing", then why doesn't it apply to every sphere of life? (shudder)