i'd have thought blocking a national RIFLE association site when 'weapons'-site blocking is requested would be quite un-shocking. whether it's legal or not is immaterial - you want weapon sites blocked, it blocks weapon sites. want porn sites blocked? it blocks porn sites. seems like a "no-brainer" to me.
anyway, AFAIK the bill of rights doesn't give you the right to own a gun, merely to "bear arms". which can be interpreted in a whole host of ways. such as an arsenal of nuclear warheads, if you want to be pedantic.
"To my surprise I found the every NRA site was blocked and was in the category 'weapons.'"
--
bloody hell, that IS shocking. I also tried it, and some of the results i got are even MORE shocking.
the national porn assoc's website was blocked and was in the category 'sex' !?
drugpushers.com was blocked and - don't ask me how - was in the 'narcotics' category. ffs.
how the national rifle association can be classed as a weapons site I'll never know. i'm going to check dubya's website now - if it's blocked in the "dangerous chimps of the world" category i'm gonna be soooo mad:(
yeah, five or six is much better for kids to start shooting - after all they need to take care of themselves in the playground these days. I plan to teach my 7-year old how to smother people in their sleep - he's already practising on small mammals and doing pretty well. Can't be too careful these days.
My little girl is a problem though - she's only 14 and I caught her with a bottle of budweiser. FOURTEEN! disgusting.
Re:Much of this could be done in linux...
on
Microsoft's new CLI
·
· Score: 0
agreed, but much of perl's power lies in regexp's and string manipulation, which are (often) inherently unreadable, at least to the untrained eye. if you're only doing loops and prints you could be using bash anyway, and it would be no less readable
it does sound kind of cool, but why exactly are they doing it? it's not likely to be used at all by your average home user, so are they trying to improve their server/geeky client-base? and if so,when we get new windows boxes with fancy nextgen CLI's, will they still be called 'windows', or will they change it to "Microsoft Lines" or something?
Kind of seems like the wrong way to be doing things - surely you should get the basic tools in place BEFORE you add on a GUI? or are they (finally) building the whole of longhorn from scratch rather than bolting new bits on as usual? i'll believe it when i see it.
it also seems too much of a 'one-size-fits-everything' solution for my liking; typically microsoft, but overkill for many things. the beauty of the *nix way of things, IMO, is that you have several different tools to choose from, each doing a few things best, that you can easily link together. don't like one shell? use another. can't do what you want in one line of perl? pipe bash and perl together. with this new object-ified approach that will apparently do everything, what happens when all you want is aliases and filename completion? and if it does, eg, regexps as well as perl, does that mean that they're going to rebuild the whole of perl's functionality within CLI in the next couple of years? and that the CLI will be correspondingly large? imagine if you had to invoke a new perl interpreter (and a bash shell, and a python interpreter, etc etc) everytime you wanted a dir listing...
Re:Much of this could be done in linux...
on
Microsoft's new CLI
·
· Score: 0
I love perl, but trying to compare it's *syntax* favourably to sh seems a bit daft; it may be powerful and adapatable, but i wouldn't say it's particularly readable much of the time.
the thing that bothers me about how we (the 'west') conducts itself these days is how we pick and choose what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. it seems we either choose the moral or legal argument depending on how it suits us, and flout one as long as we can argue the other, but criticize other countries carte-blanche.
for instance: war on iraq was illegal under international law, so it's justified morally (however debatable that was) with "it's the right thing to do, saddam is a dictator". using depleted uranium shells and cluster-bombs in civilian areas is pretty immoral, but as it's not specifically illegal then that's OK, cos it's us. pick and choose, as long as we can quote one argument, forget about the other.
however when it's another country we don't like, it's a different story. if they're not squeaky-clean on both counts, OR if we don't like what they're doing, they're wrong, and evil, and must be stopped. there are traces of chemicals in iran!? my god, invade, quick! but don't stop our research into super-killer viruses, cos we're incapable of wrongdoing. and don't worry about guantanamo, because it's for our safety. but if (eg) north korea took some of our guys prisoner, claiming some technicality from international law ('they're illegal combatants because we don't recognise them as legal ones'), there would be outrage.
it seems our measure of 'right' and 'wrong' is based completely and exclusively on us - if it's ok for us, it's ok, period. if it's bad for us, it's bad, period. nevermind what's good for anyone else, we don't care, and we're right because, well, we're us!
one rule for us...
...and eventually the rules are ignored by everyone, cue anarchy.
i certainly don't agree with pulling troops out now; I wouldn't have sent them there to begin with, but now they are there, they have to stay till it's all sorted out. unfortunately that could be a very long time - which does the USA and UK no good at all, nevermind the iraqis.
i'm not saying there's no good going on, obviously any country is better off sans-dictator, but there's plenty of bad. or are all the bombings made up by the "liberal, filtered, US media machine"? (which, by the way, i have no access to as I live in England)
yes, the citizens of Iraq are dancing in the streets as we speak. they used to get shot for saying the wrong thing, now they get bombed and shot for no reason. oh, happy day.
still, at least it's better now than it was 15 years ago. they had free education, free health care, plenty of money from oil revenue and annual visits from western statesmen. the poor bastards.
(yeah i know about the kurds et.al, but don't make out like everything's rosy now saddam's gone, cos for most Iraqis times are much worse now than they were at any time under Hussein)
why communism caught on so well in europe?
could it be something to do with the soviet union invading half of europe after WWII and forcing communism upon those countries?
as for christianity/communism similarities... hhmm, not sure i see that one. one is supposed to be a brotherhood of man joining together to create a better world but in actual fact is always corrupt and abused by those in power, whereas the other is-
oh, hang on...
forgive my innocence, but when exactly was constantinople communist? the way i understand it, last time it was a christian city communism as a concept was still several centuries away
and as for it being 'idelic' (sic), you must have been reading different history books to me - or is your emperor(s) being murdered twice a year your idea of heaven?
Slashdot Mirror
i'd have thought blocking a national RIFLE association site when 'weapons'-site blocking is requested would be quite un-shocking. whether it's legal or not is immaterial - you want weapon sites blocked, it blocks weapon sites. want porn sites blocked? it blocks porn sites. seems like a "no-brainer" to me. anyway, AFAIK the bill of rights doesn't give you the right to own a gun, merely to "bear arms". which can be interpreted in a whole host of ways. such as an arsenal of nuclear warheads, if you want to be pedantic.
the national porn assoc's website was blocked and was in the category 'sex' !?
drugpushers.com was blocked and - don't ask me how - was in the 'narcotics' category. ffs.
how the national rifle association can be classed as a weapons site I'll never know. i'm going to check dubya's website now - if it's blocked in the "dangerous chimps of the world" category i'm gonna be soooo mad :(
yeah, five or six is much better for kids to start shooting - after all they need to take care of themselves in the playground these days. I plan to teach my 7-year old how to smother people in their sleep - he's already practising on small mammals and doing pretty well. Can't be too careful these days. My little girl is a problem though - she's only 14 and I caught her with a bottle of budweiser. FOURTEEN! disgusting.
agreed, but much of perl's power lies in regexp's and string manipulation, which are (often) inherently unreadable, at least to the untrained eye. if you're only doing loops and prints you could be using bash anyway, and it would be no less readable
Kind of seems like the wrong way to be doing things - surely you should get the basic tools in place BEFORE you add on a GUI? or are they (finally) building the whole of longhorn from scratch rather than bolting new bits on as usual? i'll believe it when i see it.
it also seems too much of a 'one-size-fits-everything' solution for my liking; typically microsoft, but overkill for many things. the beauty of the *nix way of things, IMO, is that you have several different tools to choose from, each doing a few things best, that you can easily link together. don't like one shell? use another. can't do what you want in one line of perl? pipe bash and perl together. with this new object-ified approach that will apparently do everything, what happens when all you want is aliases and filename completion? and if it does, eg, regexps as well as perl, does that mean that they're going to rebuild the whole of perl's functionality within CLI in the next couple of years? and that the CLI will be correspondingly large? imagine if you had to invoke a new perl interpreter (and a bash shell, and a python interpreter, etc etc) everytime you wanted a dir listing...
I love perl, but trying to compare it's *syntax* favourably to sh seems a bit daft; it may be powerful and adapatable, but i wouldn't say it's particularly readable much of the time.
for instance: war on iraq was illegal under international law, so it's justified morally (however debatable that was) with "it's the right thing to do, saddam is a dictator". using depleted uranium shells and cluster-bombs in civilian areas is pretty immoral, but as it's not specifically illegal then that's OK, cos it's us. pick and choose, as long as we can quote one argument, forget about the other.
however when it's another country we don't like, it's a different story. if they're not squeaky-clean on both counts, OR if we don't like what they're doing, they're wrong, and evil, and must be stopped. there are traces of chemicals in iran!? my god, invade, quick! but don't stop our research into super-killer viruses, cos we're incapable of wrongdoing. and don't worry about guantanamo, because it's for our safety. but if (eg) north korea took some of our guys prisoner, claiming some technicality from international law ('they're illegal combatants because we don't recognise them as legal ones'), there would be outrage.
it seems our measure of 'right' and 'wrong' is based completely and exclusively on us - if it's ok for us, it's ok, period. if it's bad for us, it's bad, period. nevermind what's good for anyone else, we don't care, and we're right because, well, we're us!
one rule for us...
agent orange, anyone?
i certainly don't agree with pulling troops out now; I wouldn't have sent them there to begin with, but now they are there, they have to stay till it's all sorted out. unfortunately that could be a very long time - which does the USA and UK no good at all, nevermind the iraqis.
of course i agree with that. but i also don't think people really care *who* blows them up - most would rather not get blown up at all.
i'm not saying there's no good going on, obviously any country is better off sans-dictator, but there's plenty of bad. or are all the bombings made up by the "liberal, filtered, US media machine"? (which, by the way, i have no access to as I live in England)
yes, the citizens of Iraq are dancing in the streets as we speak. they used to get shot for saying the wrong thing, now they get bombed and shot for no reason. oh, happy day. still, at least it's better now than it was 15 years ago. they had free education, free health care, plenty of money from oil revenue and annual visits from western statesmen. the poor bastards. (yeah i know about the kurds et.al, but don't make out like everything's rosy now saddam's gone, cos for most Iraqis times are much worse now than they were at any time under Hussein)
why communism caught on so well in europe? could it be something to do with the soviet union invading half of europe after WWII and forcing communism upon those countries? as for christianity/communism similarities... hhmm, not sure i see that one. one is supposed to be a brotherhood of man joining together to create a better world but in actual fact is always corrupt and abused by those in power, whereas the other is- oh, hang on...
forgive my innocence, but when exactly was constantinople communist? the way i understand it, last time it was a christian city communism as a concept was still several centuries away
;)
and as for it being 'idelic' (sic), you must have been reading different history books to me - or is your emperor(s) being murdered twice a year your idea of heaven?
come to think of it...