the point is that since there is no addition of major features, there's less risk involved
Aaargh. A minor nitpick, perhaps, but no reason to muddle what could have been perfectly clear point.
the point is that because there is no addition of major features, there's less risk involved
Even when heard from the mouths of complete illiterates predisposed to bastardised or colloquial usage, since and because should not be considered analogous by anyone, any more so than "way" should be considered anything other than a piss poor if not bizarre unit of quantitative or qualitative measure.
Or for those gentle Slashdot readers preferring crib notes to study, commiting "Since when" and "Because why" to memory should suffice.
But to me, it's like walking into a very feminine beauty parlor, or a lingerie department as a man. It's very alien and uncomfortable
Dear Sir,
I wish to complain on the stronglest possible terms about the previous entry about aliens wearing womens' clothes. Some of my best friends are aliens, and only a FEW of them are transvestites.
Yours faithfully, Brigadier Sir Charles Arthur Strong, Mrs.
Around 2000, I used to carry a small penknife all the time.
Be glad it wasn't a swiss army knife. The bottle opener, screwdriver and toothpick extensions might have justified multiple counts of carrying a concealed weapon.
I still don't understand why people pay $6 for a cup of coffee. Coffee is supposed to be $0.50 and unlimited refills.
Ahh, the great old days when coffee was indeed pennies per cup and unlimited refills were cheerfully served by a blue-haired waitress with a name like Marge or Betty sewn on her uniform. What I wouldn't pay to go back to those days, when the coffee I was served was made from stale low-grade beans and boiled to within an inch of its life in large percolators where it typically sat for hours before the watery, tasteless but occasionally aromatic brew was poured into my waiting cup.
Come to think of it, I do. About 50 cents, and not a penny more.
I've not done the arithmetic, but I would guess that's the cost of a typical cup of coffee in my house. Not factoring in the cost of an espresso machine and a burr grinder (with maintenance contracts on both), and the time required to grind, heat (the machine, utensils, milk, cups, and just about everything else), then brew, prepare, serve, and clean up afterwards, it's a real steal! Even better, I don't have to tip anyone. Mind you, if I wanted to have a chocolate desert blended into my coffee instead of eaten on a plate with a fork like I normally do, it might very well be close to $6 per cup.
The moral to this story, if there is one, is that you get what you pay for. The way I see it is that it took America about 50 years to discover and then catch onto the idea of quality, fresh, personally-prepared coffee that folks in other countries took for granted, so it might take another few years for everyone here to get used the idea that it should cost more. For everyone else, there's those vending machines at your local Quickie Mart, and a restaurant here or there with waitresses named Marge or Betty ready to pour you that 50 cent cup.
Maybe you don't know how terrific GMail's feature set now is...
I'm happy that you're happy with Gmail, but it's worth pointing out that the features you've mentioned are fairly standard things many of have taken for granted for years.
Relative to other webmail offerings, I'm sure Gmail stands head and shoulders above the rest. But webmail is still webmail. And a browser is still a browser. No amount of features or fun interface tricks are going to change those facts, or make the inherent limitations go away.
Put another way, the rest of us don't need to or have any desire to wait for a steadily improving anything. We already have standards-based solutions that work, are transparent as they are feature complete, and I'll wager my last dollar will never be implemented in a browser, or provided via a webpage. And with respect to the subject of this article, we most definitely don't need to worry about what a third party is doing, or not doing.
Well, that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it. Personally I've recently cancelled my newspaper subscription; evening news on the PVR + the web (mainly cnn and craigslist) is simply better, and doesn't pile up in my garage. No fuss, no muss.
Seems to me that such an opinion could be rewritten to read:
I consider news to be a half-hour multimedia event that presents superficial coverage of major events, or events that appeal only to the broadest demographic, and am willing to have the the rest summarised in the form of opinion or commentary, or a ticker along the bottom of my screen, all presented in an entertaining fashion. Never mind that my half-hour event is filled to a large part with commercials, promos of "coming up next" stories, friendly chatter, more promos, and more commercials.
You can get "more" news in a half-hour of NPR than you would find by combining what's presented on all the major networks, CNN, and or offered up and re-interpreted by the cable-channel pundits in a given 24-hour cycle. And that pales by comparison to what a good newspaper offers on a daily basis.
Newspapers offer solid writing, real reporting, context. So next time you pass by that yellowing copy of last month's Sunday edition of The New York Times that you pulled from your snowed-in driveway, stop to consider that it probably has more in it than you you've seen on television, or will see for months to come. And much of it will be just as relevent, informative, and topical.
News isn't just the headlines. It's the stories, events and people behind the headlines, and most of it comes from reporters. Who work at newspapers.
That's funny, every demographic I've ever seen says that between 1 and 2 percent of the US population either lives on a farm or considers farming their occupation. One to two percent of the population has very little sway over the outcome of our national elections.
Allow me to add to your merriment with the following Two Fun Facts:
1. The majority of Slashdot users are American born. 2. The majority of those born in the US and of voting age do not understand their voting system.
For anyone following along and wishes to know more about voting system in the US, the Wiki article on Electoral College should help. The following is a brief but relevant excerpt:
Favors less populous states
As well as to give more voting power to citizens of less populated states, the electoral college gives disproportionate power to those state interests as well. This can further correspond with national political control, since most states tend to go either Republican or Democrat, and the less populous states tending toward the former. Democrats often complain for this reason that the electoral college favors the Republican party, by boosting the electoral weight of Republican states.
Obviously, the elections business is a complex one, irrespective of what part you want to argue about, but the OP's quip of over-religeous farmers remains, for good or worse, valid, and your comments about population densities aren't directly relevant.
Just because you have a banks routing number and a checking account number, this does not mean you can turn that into cash at an ATM
Agreed that such concerns can be over-dramatised or exaggerated, but the current state of affairs is such that the advancement or implementation of new technologies is often a few steps ahead of someone sitting down to analyse all the possible issues, and even more steps ahead of public awareness. That can be too slow a time line, especially when you factor in the time required to initiate changes to public policy, debate and enact legislation to ensure protections or adequate safeguards, debate and enact internal policies and requirements, and finally, get the memos out.
Put another way, if a certain level of public hysteria would get everyone involved to take security issues seriously, then it might not be a bad thing after all.
With respect to bank information and things like routing numbers, that information won't necessarily get you cash at the ATM but should, IIRC, in combination with other information just as easily obtained, allow you to make online purchases with sites like Amazon that offer 'e-check' types of payment methods. Maybe someone with recent experience can correct me or otherwise confirm this.
While I never was on the mailing list, I used to post quite a bit on the USENET newsgroup. And there was (perhaps still is) one expert user who would say those exact things in a very condescending manner to newbies. I'm sure he single-handedly drove many people away from Mutt.
Welcome to USENET.;-) I've got about 1000 articles from that group. By comparison, I have about 10K from the mailing list. That would suggest unless you're on Gmane's servers, you're in the wrong place. Again, the mailing list distinguishes itself above most any I've ever subscribed to for the reasons I outlined.
My biggest complaint is that I can't save outgoing emails to more than one folder based on the list of recipients.
I'm a hyper-organised sort, so reading the above makes my eyes cross for a number of reasons. I wouldn't even consider such a scheme, but if I was so inclined, I'd handle like a distribution list and have procmail handle the "put a copy everywhere" part; if it doesn't merit that level of organisation, then it's probably not worth doing.;-) Sorry I can't help more than to say it's probably possible (save/fcc hooks, send hooks, external scripting, etc.) and that if there is an answer, someone on the mailing list will offer up a definitive response within a day or two.
In fact, out of curiosity, what does Pine/Alpine have that Mutt doesn't and vice versa? (Let's ignore interface issues).
I can't go there. When I fell in love with mutt, I relegated everything else (including nntp clients) to the trash bin and haven't looked back, or needed to consider doing so. If it helps put things in perspective, my needs or requirements are beyond most people's, and all are met with aplomb using mutt alone.
Yeah, but when you start giving enough room between you and the car ahead, an idiot besides you speeds up and steals your place:-/
True. That rudeness is endemic and remains as painful today as it did in days gone by is also true. The alternative to not maintaining a safe distance to prevent others from merging into their own unsafe distance is... wait for it... driving too close. Sounds more like a comedy of errors than a strategy, doesn't it?
What should offer you satisfaction is that you're adopting the only sane approach. This benefits not only you, but also everyone else on the road. So each time it happens, slow down a bit, and don't give it any more thought than it deserves. Your actions will have a negligible effect on your own travel time, and that of everyone behind you. The added bonus for losing giving up some of your ego is that you'll get to where you're going safely, and in a better mood.
I once tried to use mutt to do a number of things an email user agent has no business doing, and all I got was a lousy T-shirt.
If it helps, recent versions of mutt do offer SMTP, IMAP, POP (and even NNTP) support. While occasionaly useful, the additions should placate the complaints of folks who don't understand *nix, can't get past the basics, or otherwise have a desire to see sendmail, mail, fetchmail, procmail, formail, sed, Perl, and spamassassin, along with authentication and encryption (ldap thrown in for good measure), each rewritten into a single, all-singing, all-dancing program.
The mutt mailing list consists almost entirely of friendly, informed, and detailed answers to questions from people of all skill levels, so I think your original comment is unfair and as it disingenuous, particularly for someone who may interested in trying mutt.
For everyone else, the notion that "All mail clients suck. This one just sucks less." remains both valid and funny, just as it did in 1995 when it was first coined. And for the record, I can say that I was once upon a time a Pine user, but only with the same level of uncomfortable embarassment I feel when recalling being initially impressed by the features offered by Outlook and Exchange.
...that patents have jack all to do with innovation. Thanks for the great example!
But not for the reason implicit in such overbroad statements, namely that patents have a one-for-one relationship with innovation. Patents are a function of the work done by a company's legal department, whose decisions are made (or at least carefully reviewed and coordinated) at the board room level. It's a stretch to suggest that the folks directly responsible for innovation would, in the normal course of their work, have more than a parenthetical involvement with any of this.
Put another way, the large number of patents is indicative of an aggressive and successful legal strategy, and anything more is suggestive at best, or marketing or spin at worst.
Why the hell are we paying for "mass communications officers" in the first place?
Public relations? Winning of hearts and minds? Press liaison?
All are fairly legit functions of any administration, as is outright propaganda. You don't think Congress funds Voice of America because they listen to it on their car radios on the way to work in the morning?
With respect to the hearts and minds angle, there was a big push on this during the time of the Iraq invasion. The cynical interpretation was that the effort was made only to mollify the critics, but my guess is that the Bush folks actually believed it would help, and believed in whatever message they were trying to spread. Don't recall her name at the moment, but Bush put one of his loyal, long-time staffers in charge of overseeing what was to be a wide-ranging series of programs that would include public, private and military initiatives. As to what effect a PR campaign run by middle-aged woman from Texas could have on the popular sentiments of the Muslim world and those listening on elsewhere is left to the reader to decide, but FWIW, she left the Bush administration a few months ago.
People would look at my keyboard and display and ask me where the computer was. It was right there on the floor in front of them, but since it was almost a perfect match for my desk it blended right in and they didn't see it.
Well, that's a start, isn't it?
I'm thoroughly impressed by people who have the time and skill to do what the guy in the article did, but my compromise approach has always been to put everything in a cabinet and hide it. It's a shame the desktop computer hasn't evolved into something that's rack mountable, or alternatively, something that resembles audio equipment. I don't think I've ever seen a piece of audio equipment that I wouldn't mind putting anywhere in a living room or even a bedroom, but a plastic/metal box with a big stupid DELL logo that's plastered with cheap assed "Intel Inside" stickers?
There are alternatives, of course. But typically such an approach would require building everything yourself and not objecting to paying premium prices for specialty components and/or cases.
And then there's those folks who live in an alternate universe. I've always wondered whether long term Mac users all live in post modern looking New York lofts, or whether they live in crappy apartments and houses with popcorn ceilings, beige walls, beige carpeting and cheap fake wood furniture like the rest of us, and don't really notice or mind the fact that their white plastic devices don't really go with anything other than more white plastic, plastic in other colors, or metal.
It is penetrating my space purposefully and unavoidably to sell me a product that I do not want.
As do any and all of billboards, store signage, window displays, the front, back, sides or rooftops of buildings, bus benches, municipal trash cans, city buses (inside and out), chartered and private buses, subways, taxi cabs, commerical vehicles, T-shirts, baseball caps, designer clothing, street vendors (with or without wearable billboards), shopping bags, and, on rare occasions, tatoos. And that's just the outside. The only exception I can think of is a tree.
We're awash in the stuff. And if any of the newer entertainment or sports arenas are an example, we're only too happy to build monuments to it.
The real question is not whether something is sufficently intrusive, or whether it's trying to sell you something unwanted, but whether we're so numbed to the onslaught that we don't notice. Or worse, that we don't care
Phew. For a minute, there, I thought you were going to include Democrats!
Seriously, though, what I'm wondering is how this whole things got started. They guy is charged with "transporting" illegal pornography on a laptop. Do people crossing the border get the contents of their hard drives examined by customs agents? I can't imagine someone offering up and then justifying their browser history, for example, to someone wearing a uniform, let alone to a friend or family member. It's bad enough these guys can ask you take off your shoes, or rifle through your underwear looking for something that you might keep your weed in.
Never accept advice or well-meaning suggestions unless you want to end up on the Dr. Phil Show.;-)
Here's another tip: don't ever just look up words. Learn their etymology. In the unlikely event you don't pick up some French, German, or Latin along the way, you'll have a better understanding of what words "really" mean[1], how they're formed, and gain the practical advantage of relegating the spell czecher to a typo checker. Can't promise you'll be a hit at parties, but if you ask me, mediocrity is overrated.
You can spend a lifetime learning this shit, so pat yourself on the back for stepping above the rabble.
---- 1. Redundant. But not for those who just look up definitions.
Operatic. I hope this brings about an Operatic deneument to the internet exploder...
I'd offer the suggestion that pithy comments meant to appeal to the erudite Slashdot reader will, when containing spelling errors, most likely miss their target audience, but first, I'd have to resolve the paradox of your "operatic denouement" construct, or entertain the grim prospects of my head exploding.
Still, covering 1/4 of the screen sure didn't take much memory!
Speaking of wasted space and distractions, and not to be trollish, but I've always wondered why it is that KDE and Gnome insist on using large-to-oversized-to-supersized icons for everything, KDE being notable in that it traditionally distinguishes itself with icons of brighter colors, in wilder designs, and offers greater customisability?
Seems to me that the term eye-candy, while often used in a disparaging fashion, should refer to a certain kewl aesthetic, rather than literal candy of the M&M variety. It's almost the inverse of a Queer Eye for the Straight Guy episode -- instead of getting a great design from three flaming queers, you get a flaming queer design from a bunch of straight guys. Well, maybe not that bad, but still.
I mean, really, do people really need toolbars that takes up a 1/3 of the space of an application window? Is the boredom threshold so low that everything has to be decorated with bright colours, or is it that people find it hard to to hit things with their mouse? Sure, both KDE and Gnome are better than Windows, but by the time you've customised things to be less... well, goofy, you might as well have installed something like Fluxbox or go back to using nothing but xterms, learning to do without the more subtle but useful effects available or being developed elsewhere.
The story reminds of studies that were done to investigate why, in heavy fog conditions, massive car pileups of epic proportions could occur. Maybe someone else can cite something specific, but the findings were that in test conditions they discovered that people who would normally slow their speed when driving in dangerous conditions, ended up doing the exact opposite. The lower the visibility, the more they would accelerate, while being unaware, or unable to tell, that they were doing so. In the real world, this would mean that the driver would end up in some Prufrockian universe where he or she would be unable to do anything but smash into the car in front as fast and as hard as possible.
Racing to a red light is definitely dumb, but doing 50MPH on a highway not only "annoys" other people, it contibutes towards more congestion and hence more total fuel usage.
Maybe yes, maybe no. Here in the US where the speed limit is now 65mph, people still speed 15-20 over the limit. So what's the problem? Most cars will get better mileage when driving below that limit. And they'll be safer drivers, not only for themselves, but also for everyone else sharing the road. And they'll generate far less noise and pollution than their "I have a right to speed" counterparts, which, at least here in California, seems to include just about everyone.
I'm conflicted. On the one hand I'm against these databases; once you've served your time you should be a free man in every way.
What people should take note from the story is that the term registered sex offender could pretty much refer to anyone. Getting caught making out with your significant other in parked car could get you registered, as would mooning passersby while taking a Friday night ride in that rented limo, or taking a drunken piss in the alleyway on the way home from the pub.
My guess is that the justification for maintaining such databases, along with their public availability, has to do with the prevailing wisdom, at least with respect to sex crimes against children, that those attracted to children are, by their nature, attracted to children, and no amount of punishment or rehabilitation is going to change that. But here we get into the use of terminology that few, even the most intelligent among us, take the time to consider WTF, if anything, they really mean by the words they're using.
Take the term "child". Is that someone under 5? Or someone who's a day short of their 18th birthday. Or someone even older, but younger than you are, but isn't especially mature? People regularly use the term to suit the purposes (not unlike the way the term "theory" is abused), don't they? The term "pedophile" (like terms audiophile, bibliophile, Russophile, etc.) is meant to refer to someone who likes or is strongly attracted to children (there's a different word for someone attracted to teenagers). The term "pedophile", does not, nor was it ever intended to mean, baby rapist; the word for that is... baby rapist.
And then, what do mean by "sex crime"? Are we talking about looking at dirty pictures, or maybe showing someone dirty pictures, inadvertently or otherwise? How about groping or fondling? Or rape and torture? If they're all the same, then hell, let's just kill them all and let God sort it out. We'll just bury the guy who pissed in an alleyway on his way home from the pub next to the guy who had really rough sex with his girlfriend.
If people are inclined to believe that "sex crime" equals "registered sex offender" equals "pedophile" equals "baby rapist", I don't see much hope of intelligent public discourse, and human nature being what it is, we should expect all manner of vigilantism against anyone whose name appears in a public database. At least until the hysteria dies down, or the Supreme Court rules on the issue of extra-punishment punishments which, IIRC, they haven't done.
Personally, I doubt the Supreme Court wants to go anywhere near the issue. For everyone else, participating in the public hysteria is the easier approach. Considering the fact that the majority of crimes against children (irrespective of how you define crimes, or children) are perpetrated by family members or close relatives, just make us feel too uncomfortable.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only person here who's never seen ANY of these videos? Hell, I'd never heard of Chocolate Rain till I read this story.
If it helps, I'm still working on the "net roots community" reference. I used to be big reggae fan, but that was years ago.
the point is that since there is no addition of major features, there's less risk involved
Aaargh. A minor nitpick, perhaps, but no reason to muddle what could have been perfectly clear point.
the point is that because there is no addition of major features, there's less risk involved
Even when heard from the mouths of complete illiterates predisposed to bastardised or colloquial usage, since and because should not be considered analogous by anyone, any more so than "way" should be considered anything other than a piss poor if not bizarre unit of quantitative or qualitative measure.
Or for those gentle Slashdot readers preferring crib notes to study, commiting "Since when" and "Because why" to memory should suffice.
But to me, it's like walking into a very feminine beauty parlor, or a lingerie department as a man. It's very alien and uncomfortable
Dear Sir,
I wish to complain on the stronglest possible terms about the previous entry about aliens wearing womens' clothes. Some of my best friends are aliens, and only a FEW of them are transvestites.
Yours faithfully,
Brigadier Sir Charles Arthur Strong, Mrs.
P.S. Lingerie is actually VERY comfortable.
Around 2000, I used to carry a small penknife all the time.
Be glad it wasn't a swiss army knife. The bottle opener, screwdriver and toothpick extensions might have justified multiple counts of carrying a concealed weapon.
I still don't understand why people pay $6 for a cup of coffee. Coffee is supposed to be $0.50 and unlimited refills.
Ahh, the great old days when coffee was indeed pennies per cup and unlimited refills were cheerfully served by a blue-haired waitress with a name like Marge or Betty sewn on her uniform. What I wouldn't pay to go back to those days, when the coffee I was served was made from stale low-grade beans and boiled to within an inch of its life in large percolators where it typically sat for hours before the watery, tasteless but occasionally aromatic brew was poured into my waiting cup.
Come to think of it, I do. About 50 cents, and not a penny more.
I've not done the arithmetic, but I would guess that's the cost of a typical cup of coffee in my house. Not factoring in the cost of an espresso machine and a burr grinder (with maintenance contracts on both), and the time required to grind, heat (the machine, utensils, milk, cups, and just about everything else), then brew, prepare, serve, and clean up afterwards, it's a real steal! Even better, I don't have to tip anyone. Mind you, if I wanted to have a chocolate desert blended into my coffee instead of eaten on a plate with a fork like I normally do, it might very well be close to $6 per cup.
The moral to this story, if there is one, is that you get what you pay for. The way I see it is that it took America about 50 years to discover and then catch onto the idea of quality, fresh, personally-prepared coffee that folks in other countries took for granted, so it might take another few years for everyone here to get used the idea that it should cost more. For everyone else, there's those vending machines at your local Quickie Mart, and a restaurant here or there with waitresses named Marge or Betty ready to pour you that 50 cent cup.
Maybe you don't know how terrific GMail's feature set now is ...
I'm happy that you're happy with Gmail, but it's worth pointing out that the features you've mentioned are fairly standard things many of have taken for granted for years.
Relative to other webmail offerings, I'm sure Gmail stands head and shoulders above the rest. But webmail is still webmail. And a browser is still a browser. No amount of features or fun interface tricks are going to change those facts, or make the inherent limitations go away.
Put another way, the rest of us don't need to or have any desire to wait for a steadily improving anything. We already have standards-based solutions that work, are transparent as they are feature complete, and I'll wager my last dollar will never be implemented in a browser, or provided via a webpage. And with respect to the subject of this article, we most definitely don't need to worry about what a third party is doing, or not doing.
Well, that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it. Personally I've recently cancelled my newspaper subscription; evening news on the PVR + the web (mainly cnn and craigslist) is simply better, and doesn't pile up in my garage. No fuss, no muss.
Seems to me that such an opinion could be rewritten to read:
I consider news to be a half-hour multimedia event that presents superficial coverage of major events, or events that appeal only to the broadest demographic, and am willing to have the the rest summarised in the form of opinion or commentary, or a ticker along the bottom of my screen, all presented in an entertaining fashion. Never mind that my half-hour event is filled to a large part with commercials, promos of "coming up next" stories, friendly chatter, more promos, and more commercials.
You can get "more" news in a half-hour of NPR than you would find by combining what's presented on all the major networks, CNN, and or offered up and re-interpreted by the cable-channel pundits in a given 24-hour cycle. And that pales by comparison to what a good newspaper offers on a daily basis.
Newspapers offer solid writing, real reporting, context. So next time you pass by that yellowing copy of last month's Sunday edition of The New York Times that you pulled from your snowed-in driveway, stop to consider that it probably has more in it than you you've seen on television, or will see for months to come. And much of it will be just as relevent, informative, and topical.
News isn't just the headlines. It's the stories, events and people behind the headlines, and most of it comes from reporters. Who work at newspapers.
Allow me to add to your merriment with the following Two Fun Facts:
1. The majority of Slashdot users are American born.
2. The majority of those born in the US and of voting age do not understand their voting system.
For anyone following along and wishes to know more about voting system in the US, the Wiki article on Electoral College should help. The following is a brief but relevant excerpt:
Obviously, the elections business is a complex one, irrespective of what part you want to argue about, but the OP's quip of over-religeous farmers remains, for good or worse, valid, and your comments about population densities aren't directly relevant.
Just because you have a banks routing number and a checking account number, this does not mean you can turn that into cash at an ATM
Agreed that such concerns can be over-dramatised or exaggerated, but the current state of affairs is such that the advancement or implementation of new technologies is often a few steps ahead of someone sitting down to analyse all the possible issues, and even more steps ahead of public awareness. That can be too slow a time line, especially when you factor in the time required to initiate changes to public policy, debate and enact legislation to ensure protections or adequate safeguards, debate and enact internal policies and requirements, and finally, get the memos out.
Put another way, if a certain level of public hysteria would get everyone involved to take security issues seriously, then it might not be a bad thing after all.
With respect to bank information and things like routing numbers, that information won't necessarily get you cash at the ATM but should, IIRC, in combination with other information just as easily obtained, allow you to make online purchases with sites like Amazon that offer 'e-check' types of payment methods. Maybe someone with recent experience can correct me or otherwise confirm this.
While I never was on the mailing list, I used to post quite a bit on the USENET newsgroup. And there was (perhaps still is) one expert user who would say those exact things in a very condescending manner to newbies. I'm sure he single-handedly drove many people away from Mutt.
;-) I've got about 1000 articles from that group. By comparison, I have about 10K from the mailing list. That would suggest unless you're on Gmane's servers, you're in the wrong place. Again, the mailing list distinguishes itself above most any I've ever subscribed to for the reasons I outlined.
;-) Sorry I can't help more than to say it's probably possible (save/fcc hooks, send hooks, external scripting, etc.) and that if there is an answer, someone on the mailing list will offer up a definitive response within a day or two.
Welcome to USENET.
My biggest complaint is that I can't save outgoing emails to more than one folder based on the list of recipients.
I'm a hyper-organised sort, so reading the above makes my eyes cross for a number of reasons. I wouldn't even consider such a scheme, but if I was so inclined, I'd handle like a distribution list and have procmail handle the "put a copy everywhere" part; if it doesn't merit that level of organisation, then it's probably not worth doing.
In fact, out of curiosity, what does Pine/Alpine have that Mutt doesn't and vice versa? (Let's ignore interface issues).
I can't go there. When I fell in love with mutt, I relegated everything else (including nntp clients) to the trash bin and haven't looked back, or needed to consider doing so. If it helps put things in perspective, my needs or requirements are beyond most people's, and all are met with aplomb using mutt alone.
Yeah, but when you start giving enough room between you and the car ahead, an idiot besides you speeds up and steals your place :-/
... wait for it ... driving too close. Sounds more like a comedy of errors than a strategy, doesn't it?
True. That rudeness is endemic and remains as painful today as it did in days gone by is also true. The alternative to not maintaining a safe distance to prevent others from merging into their own unsafe distance is
What should offer you satisfaction is that you're adopting the only sane approach. This benefits not only you, but also everyone else on the road. So each time it happens, slow down a bit, and don't give it any more thought than it deserves. Your actions will have a negligible effect on your own travel time, and that of everyone behind you. The added bonus for losing giving up some of your ego is that you'll get to where you're going safely, and in a better mood.
I tried mutt once, it went like this:
Allow me to fix that for you:
I once tried to use mutt to do a number of things an email user agent has no business doing, and all I got was a lousy T-shirt.
If it helps, recent versions of mutt do offer SMTP, IMAP, POP (and even NNTP) support. While occasionaly useful, the additions should placate the complaints of folks who don't understand *nix, can't get past the basics, or otherwise have a desire to see sendmail, mail, fetchmail, procmail, formail, sed, Perl, and spamassassin, along with authentication and encryption (ldap thrown in for good measure), each rewritten into a single, all-singing, all-dancing program.
The mutt mailing list consists almost entirely of friendly, informed, and detailed answers to questions from people of all skill levels, so I think your original comment is unfair and as it disingenuous, particularly for someone who may interested in trying mutt.
For everyone else, the notion that "All mail clients suck. This one just sucks less." remains both valid and funny, just as it did in 1995 when it was first coined. And for the record, I can say that I was once upon a time a Pine user, but only with the same level of uncomfortable embarassment I feel when recalling being initially impressed by the features offered by Outlook and Exchange.
...that patents have jack all to do with innovation. Thanks for the great example!
But not for the reason implicit in such overbroad statements, namely that patents have a one-for-one relationship with innovation. Patents are a function of the work done by a company's legal department, whose decisions are made (or at least carefully reviewed and coordinated) at the board room level. It's a stretch to suggest that the folks directly responsible for innovation would, in the normal course of their work, have more than a parenthetical involvement with any of this.
Put another way, the large number of patents is indicative of an aggressive and successful legal strategy, and anything more is suggestive at best, or marketing or spin at worst.
Why the hell are we paying for "mass communications officers" in the first place?
Public relations? Winning of hearts and minds? Press liaison?
All are fairly legit functions of any administration, as is outright propaganda. You don't think Congress funds Voice of America because they listen to it on their car radios on the way to work in the morning?
With respect to the hearts and minds angle, there was a big push on this during the time of the Iraq invasion. The cynical interpretation was that the effort was made only to mollify the critics, but my guess is that the Bush folks actually believed it would help, and believed in whatever message they were trying to spread. Don't recall her name at the moment, but Bush put one of his loyal, long-time staffers in charge of overseeing what was to be a wide-ranging series of programs that would include public, private and military initiatives. As to what effect a PR campaign run by middle-aged woman from Texas could have on the popular sentiments of the Muslim world and those listening on elsewhere is left to the reader to decide, but FWIW, she left the Bush administration a few months ago.
People would look at my keyboard and display and ask me where the computer was. It was right there on the floor in front of them, but since it was almost a perfect match for my desk it blended right in and they didn't see it.
Well, that's a start, isn't it?
I'm thoroughly impressed by people who have the time and skill to do what the guy in the article did, but my compromise approach has always been to put everything in a cabinet and hide it. It's a shame the desktop computer hasn't evolved into something that's rack mountable, or alternatively, something that resembles audio equipment. I don't think I've ever seen a piece of audio equipment that I wouldn't mind putting anywhere in a living room or even a bedroom, but a plastic/metal box with a big stupid DELL logo that's plastered with cheap assed "Intel Inside" stickers?
There are alternatives, of course. But typically such an approach would require building everything yourself and not objecting to paying premium prices for specialty components and/or cases.
And then there's those folks who live in an alternate universe. I've always wondered whether long term Mac users all live in post modern looking New York lofts, or whether they live in crappy apartments and houses with popcorn ceilings, beige walls, beige carpeting and cheap fake wood furniture like the rest of us, and don't really notice or mind the fact that their white plastic devices don't really go with anything other than more white plastic, plastic in other colors, or metal.
Yeah, but it DOES run Linux. ;-)
It is penetrating my space purposefully and unavoidably to sell me a product that I do not want.
As do any and all of billboards, store signage, window displays, the front, back, sides or rooftops of buildings, bus benches, municipal trash cans, city buses (inside and out), chartered and private buses, subways, taxi cabs, commerical vehicles, T-shirts, baseball caps, designer clothing, street vendors (with or without wearable billboards), shopping bags, and, on rare occasions, tatoos. And that's just the outside. The only exception I can think of is a tree.
We're awash in the stuff. And if any of the newer entertainment or sports arenas are an example, we're only too happy to build monuments to it.
The real question is not whether something is sufficently intrusive, or whether it's trying to sell you something unwanted, but whether we're so numbed to the onslaught that we don't notice. Or worse, that we don't care
How much fun would it be to beam things at politicos speaking at rallies? Confuse them and make them say things they didn't mean?
I take it you haven't stayed long enough at those rallies to hear the campaign promises?
Worse!
Liberals!
Phew. For a minute, there, I thought you were going to include Democrats!
Seriously, though, what I'm wondering is how this whole things got started. They guy is charged with "transporting" illegal pornography on a laptop. Do people crossing the border get the contents of their hard drives examined by customs agents? I can't imagine someone offering up and then justifying their browser history, for example, to someone wearing a uniform, let alone to a friend or family member. It's bad enough these guys can ask you take off your shoes, or rifle through your underwear looking for something that you might keep your weed in.
Never accept advice or well-meaning suggestions unless you want to end up on the Dr. Phil Show. ;-)
Here's another tip: don't ever just look up words. Learn their etymology. In the unlikely event you don't pick up some French, German, or Latin along the way, you'll have a better understanding of what words "really" mean[1], how they're formed, and gain the practical advantage of relegating the spell czecher to a typo checker. Can't promise you'll be a hit at parties, but if you ask me, mediocrity is overrated.
You can spend a lifetime learning this shit, so pat yourself on the back for stepping above the rabble.
----
1. Redundant. But not for those who just look up definitions.
Operatic. I hope this brings about an Operatic deneument to the internet exploder...
I'd offer the suggestion that pithy comments meant to appeal to the erudite Slashdot reader will, when containing spelling errors, most likely miss their target audience, but first, I'd have to resolve the paradox of your "operatic denouement" construct, or entertain the grim prospects of my head exploding.
Nice try, though. Seriously.
Still, covering 1/4 of the screen sure didn't take much memory!
... well, goofy, you might as well have installed something like Fluxbox or go back to using nothing but xterms, learning to do without the more subtle but useful effects available or being developed elsewhere.
Speaking of wasted space and distractions, and not to be trollish, but I've always wondered why it is that KDE and Gnome insist on using large-to-oversized-to-supersized icons for everything, KDE being notable in that it traditionally distinguishes itself with icons of brighter colors, in wilder designs, and offers greater customisability?
Seems to me that the term eye-candy, while often used in a disparaging fashion, should refer to a certain kewl aesthetic, rather than literal candy of the M&M variety. It's almost the inverse of a Queer Eye for the Straight Guy episode -- instead of getting a great design from three flaming queers, you get a flaming queer design from a bunch of straight guys. Well, maybe not that bad, but still.
I mean, really, do people really need toolbars that takes up a 1/3 of the space of an application window? Is the boredom threshold so low that everything has to be decorated with bright colours, or is it that people find it hard to to hit things with their mouse? Sure, both KDE and Gnome are better than Windows, but by the time you've customised things to be less
This just in: Perception is Reality!
Hardly something to dismiss, doncha think?
The story reminds of studies that were done to investigate why, in heavy fog conditions, massive car pileups of epic proportions could occur. Maybe someone else can cite something specific, but the findings were that in test conditions they discovered that people who would normally slow their speed when driving in dangerous conditions, ended up doing the exact opposite. The lower the visibility, the more they would accelerate, while being unaware, or unable to tell, that they were doing so. In the real world, this would mean that the driver would end up in some Prufrockian universe where he or she would be unable to do anything but smash into the car in front as fast and as hard as possible.
Racing to a red light is definitely dumb, but doing 50MPH on a highway not only "annoys" other people, it contibutes towards more congestion and hence more total fuel usage.
Maybe yes, maybe no. Here in the US where the speed limit is now 65mph, people still speed 15-20 over the limit. So what's the problem? Most cars will get better mileage when driving below that limit. And they'll be safer drivers, not only for themselves, but also for everyone else sharing the road. And they'll generate far less noise and pollution than their "I have a right to speed" counterparts, which, at least here in California, seems to include just about everyone.
I'm conflicted. On the one hand I'm against these databases; once you've served your time you should be a free man in every way.
... baby rapist.
What people should take note from the story is that the term registered sex offender could pretty much refer to anyone. Getting caught making out with your significant other in parked car could get you registered, as would mooning passersby while taking a Friday night ride in that rented limo, or taking a drunken piss in the alleyway on the way home from the pub.
My guess is that the justification for maintaining such databases, along with their public availability, has to do with the prevailing wisdom, at least with respect to sex crimes against children, that those attracted to children are, by their nature, attracted to children, and no amount of punishment or rehabilitation is going to change that. But here we get into the use of terminology that few, even the most intelligent among us, take the time to consider WTF, if anything, they really mean by the words they're using.
Take the term "child". Is that someone under 5? Or someone who's a day short of their 18th birthday. Or someone even older, but younger than you are, but isn't especially mature? People regularly use the term to suit the purposes (not unlike the way the term "theory" is abused), don't they? The term "pedophile" (like terms audiophile, bibliophile, Russophile, etc.) is meant to refer to someone who likes or is strongly attracted to children (there's a different word for someone attracted to teenagers). The term "pedophile", does not, nor was it ever intended to mean, baby rapist; the word for that is
And then, what do mean by "sex crime"? Are we talking about looking at dirty pictures, or maybe showing someone dirty pictures, inadvertently or otherwise? How about groping or fondling? Or rape and torture? If they're all the same, then hell, let's just kill them all and let God sort it out. We'll just bury the guy who pissed in an alleyway on his way home from the pub next to the guy who had really rough sex with his girlfriend.
If people are inclined to believe that "sex crime" equals "registered sex offender" equals "pedophile" equals "baby rapist", I don't see much hope of intelligent public discourse, and human nature being what it is, we should expect all manner of vigilantism against anyone whose name appears in a public database. At least until the hysteria dies down, or the Supreme Court rules on the issue of extra-punishment punishments which, IIRC, they haven't done.
Personally, I doubt the Supreme Court wants to go anywhere near the issue. For everyone else, participating in the public hysteria is the easier approach. Considering the fact that the majority of crimes against children (irrespective of how you define crimes, or children) are perpetrated by family members or close relatives, just make us feel too uncomfortable.