Why should she lower her expectations one bit? If Leah is looking to date, she just needs to look somewhere else where the options are broader than "attractive asshole" and "unattractive geek."
What you have proposed is a false dichotomy (and a philosophical error) that most people ("Nice Guys") apply to women: they can choose between attractive assholes (corollary: "...and deserve what they get") or unattractive guys who are "nice" (which really only means "inoffensive"). The problem is, this is usually a pretty bitter attitude, and it doesn't imply any additional respect on the part of the Nice Guys (typically, quite the opposite).
The thing to do is not be nice...just be a good guy.
It means you feel you deserve something from attractive women, and that you will start treating them like human beings as soon as they give you what you want. So what do you want? What does "play fair" mean? Do you want to get laid, or maybe the occasional blowjob under the desk?
I think you're going to find that, while women believe they should be treated equally, they're not too keen on acting subservient just in order to get basic respect, and c'mon--be honest now--you won't respect them any more when they start putting out, will you? So on those grounds, your little "peace offering" is likely to fail.
When I converted my DVD collection to use with MythTV, I had to circumvent copy protection in numerous cases to get a final 2-hour high-quality (well, not too shabby) MPEG.
My other option was to simply make a 7-gig copy of the entire disc, which also preserves surround sound, menus, and so forth.
Yah. VOD is ok except for the limited choices available. On that note, I read sometime in the past year that the BBC was opening the doors to all of its content on some kind of subscriber/a-la-carte basis. That sounds hopeful. It would be great to put together a Doctor Who marathon using only the remote.
That all sounds very reasonable. I have a whole 'nother world of complaints about cable companies, though, so I'm going to continue to dick them over with every opportunity.
What we need is true subscriber/a-la-carte programming. Can you explain to me why I have to pay $40 a month for cable...which then has advertisements? I'm pretty sure that we have the technology so that, say, if I JUST want to watch Stargate or Rome or South Park then I should be able to pay for specifically what I want. Hell, I would pay the same price if I could just stream the shows I want to see...without ads, that is.
First, you need to learn the difference between "theft" and "violation of access controls."
Second, I pay for cable and regularly download shows that I miss.
Think about it: You pay for Comedy Central. They show South Park. You missed it last night, but you can just download it from somewhere. Comcast is not losing revenue, especially since I also paid for their internet service to download the episode.
Now, they believe that what I'm paying for is the right to view shows on their schedule. This is bullshit, and I see nothing wrong with going elsewhere for content for which I've already paid (read: I may get the DVD for the sake of convenience or to support a show I like, but otherwise, yeah, I'm going to go "steal" it).
I know it sucks when you are understaffed, underfunded, etc. Everyone has been there. But did you read the parent? Third-party review of the IT department revealed that they were, in fact, lazy and incompetent. If that's anyone's "fault" it's the recruiter who hired those bozos. But the fact remains that they were a bunch of self-important dicks who realized all too late that IT guys are not exactly a scarce commodity.
Now, I say "please" and "thank you" to my DBAs and server jockeys all the time. I take them out to lunch, I sent three of them to DEFCON this year (and I glossed over some, shall we say, questionable items on their expense reports), I do everything I can to A) make them happy and B) make them successful. By definition, when they are successful, I am successful. But among the many words they can say to me, including "Fuck off" and "You're out of your mind," "No" and "I can't do that" are not among them.
Of course, IT works for columnists, marketeers, and everyone else at the company, most especially the weirdos...rather than the other way around. So if someone takes a look at wikipedia and says "It would be great to build our knowledgebase like THAT!" then it's not your job to say "Well, y'know, it's complicated, and between slashdot and fark there just aren't enough (billable) hours in a day to roll that out this quarter."
Your job is to say "Yessir, right away sir," and do your damned job, regardless of how pointy you think his hair is.
So...you "have a life" (consisting of such amazing feats as sleeping and eating) as an alternative to talking? And women don't because they talk a lot. Wow.
I think the icing on the cake here is that you just became a slashdotter. My friend, I don't think you'll have to worry about encountering women anytime soon.
They were getting good reviews in the 90s. This was also back when people thought HampsterDance was cool, c|net was worth reading, and everyone was, in general, gaga over how nifty the internet was.
It's kind of like how in the 70s people thought vinyl suits were neat, but now we generally know better, about everything.
Oi, Dr. Stickinthemud. All of those are valid questions but come on, this is cool even if it doesn't yet apply to every area of research or is several hundred times the size of your grant:)
Anyway, chemotaxis is fascinating to me. Have you read any Brian Goodwin?
Collections agencies sometimes are a part of the creditor (e.g. the entity that collects for Verizon is just another department of Verizon) but generally are firms that "buy" debt, for say 5% of the owed amount, and then try to get you to pay them. I'm not sure it's 100% legal; they are not collecting "on behalf of" your original creditor, they have only convinced the original creditor to write off the debt. So since you have no contract with the collections agency I'm not sure they can do anything but waste their breath.
OTOH I do know companies can transfer contracts (which happens if your creditor is bought); so there is probably some legal mumbo-jumbo that says they can sell your debt.
Re:This is the last time I'm explaining it to you.
on
Hardening Linux
·
· Score: 1
all an nmap on your external interface will show you is what an external entity might be able to see.. not what they can see
The reason you keep saying this is, as has been observed by others, that you do not understand networking. Seriously, you. are. wrong.
Re:I'm not sure what this is doing on /.
on
Hardening Linux
·
· Score: 1
Maybe they don't want to take your challenge because they can't parse your post.
I mean, it just took me about 15 minutes.
Just sayin'.
Re:This is the last time I'm explaining it to you.
on
Hardening Linux
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, you're wrong.
From the local machine, if you nmap the externally-facing IP address, you will get different results than if you scan the loopback IP address. That is, you will only see services and ports that will roger up to a SYN (or whatever nmap is set to send) packet received by that IP.
For this reason, scanning from a distant computer is unnecessary.
Claiming otherwise, when several security professional are telling you are wrong, is asinine. Telling them that you have specific anecdata that proves them wrong is a lie.
You're talking to people who have probably been doing this since before you knew what the internet was. This is a good time for you to take a seat and learn something, sonny jim.
Mea culpa--for some reason I constantly forget that Canonical is available to support FOSS solutions. I think that this is really the key to getting FOSS into the corporate world.
You don't pay for the updates. You pay for support. No corporation is going to populate a 10k seat network with Ubuntu because when Ubuntu breaks you have to go to the Ubuntu forums and beg for help. But they will consider a desktop solution that has significant support.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, you're blind to the fact that the playing field is not level. Women have far more obstacles than you do.
In fact, YOU are one of the obstacles, since you feel as if your stereotyping is justified by the selection bias in your data acq.
Yeah, but it's all a part of the same culture.
Just because some women work to keep other women down doesn't mean it's cool, in the same way that black-on-black crime doesn't justify the Klan.
Put differently, right and wrong as concepts don't depend on your gender.
Why should she lower her expectations one bit? If Leah is looking to date, she just needs to look somewhere else where the options are broader than "attractive asshole" and "unattractive geek."
What you have proposed is a false dichotomy (and a philosophical error) that most people ("Nice Guys") apply to women: they can choose between attractive assholes (corollary: "...and deserve what they get") or unattractive guys who are "nice" (which really only means "inoffensive"). The problem is, this is usually a pretty bitter attitude, and it doesn't imply any additional respect on the part of the Nice Guys (typically, quite the opposite).
The thing to do is not be nice...just be a good guy.
This is called "entitlement."
It means you feel you deserve something from attractive women, and that you will start treating them like human beings as soon as they give you what you want. So what do you want? What does "play fair" mean? Do you want to get laid, or maybe the occasional blowjob under the desk?
I think you're going to find that, while women believe they should be treated equally, they're not too keen on acting subservient just in order to get basic respect, and c'mon--be honest now--you won't respect them any more when they start putting out, will you? So on those grounds, your little "peace offering" is likely to fail.
So sorry.
When I converted my DVD collection to use with MythTV, I had to circumvent copy protection in numerous cases to get a final 2-hour high-quality (well, not too shabby) MPEG.
My other option was to simply make a 7-gig copy of the entire disc, which also preserves surround sound, menus, and so forth.
Yah. VOD is ok except for the limited choices available.
On that note, I read sometime in the past year that the BBC was opening the doors to all of its content on some kind of subscriber/a-la-carte basis. That sounds hopeful. It would be great to put together a Doctor Who marathon using only the remote.
That all sounds very reasonable. I have a whole 'nother world of complaints about cable companies, though, so I'm going to continue to dick them over with every opportunity.
What we need is true subscriber/a-la-carte programming. Can you explain to me why I have to pay $40 a month for cable...which then has advertisements? I'm pretty sure that we have the technology so that, say, if I JUST want to watch Stargate or Rome or South Park then I should be able to pay for specifically what I want. Hell, I would pay the same price if I could just stream the shows I want to see...without ads, that is.
First, you need to learn the difference between "theft" and "violation of access controls."
Second, I pay for cable and regularly download shows that I miss.
Think about it: You pay for Comedy Central. They show South Park. You missed it last night, but you can just download it from somewhere. Comcast is not losing revenue, especially since I also paid for their internet service to download the episode.
Now, they believe that what I'm paying for is the right to view shows on their schedule. This is bullshit, and I see nothing wrong with going elsewhere for content for which I've already paid (read: I may get the DVD for the sake of convenience or to support a show I like, but otherwise, yeah, I'm going to go "steal" it).
I know it sucks when you are understaffed, underfunded, etc. Everyone has been there. But did you read the parent? Third-party review of the IT department revealed that they were, in fact, lazy and incompetent. If that's anyone's "fault" it's the recruiter who hired those bozos. But the fact remains that they were a bunch of self-important dicks who realized all too late that IT guys are not exactly a scarce commodity.
Now, I say "please" and "thank you" to my DBAs and server jockeys all the time. I take them out to lunch, I sent three of them to DEFCON this year (and I glossed over some, shall we say, questionable items on their expense reports), I do everything I can to A) make them happy and B) make them successful. By definition, when they are successful, I am successful. But among the many words they can say to me, including "Fuck off" and "You're out of your mind," "No" and "I can't do that" are not among them.
This is undoubtedly true.
Of course, IT works for columnists, marketeers, and everyone else at the company, most especially the weirdos...rather than the other way around. So if someone takes a look at wikipedia and says "It would be great to build our knowledgebase like THAT!" then it's not your job to say "Well, y'know, it's complicated, and between slashdot and fark there just aren't enough (billable) hours in a day to roll that out this quarter."
Your job is to say "Yessir, right away sir," and do your damned job, regardless of how pointy you think his hair is.
...that Google passes for "literature review" these days.
Nah. Look at the direction we're going with AppleTV and so forth...I bet on-demand video over fiber obviates DVDs pretty soon.
So...you "have a life" (consisting of such amazing feats as sleeping and eating) as an alternative to talking? And women don't because they talk a lot. Wow.
I think the icing on the cake here is that you just became a slashdotter. My friend, I don't think you'll have to worry about encountering women anytime soon.
Those must be some sour, sour grapes you're sucking on, my friend.
They were getting good reviews in the 90s.
This was also back when people thought HampsterDance was cool, c|net was worth reading, and everyone was, in general, gaga over how nifty the internet was.
It's kind of like how in the 70s people thought vinyl suits were neat, but now we generally know better, about everything.
I have six of those giant CD wallets full of CDs.
It took me several weeks but I eventually ripped them all to my media server as FLACs.
It took a few days straight for my shell script to conver them all to MP3s.
Now I have files that play on my ipod (with shitty headphones) and I have files that play on my Myth box over my ridiculously overpriced stereo.
To me this is win-win, but I also recognize not everyone feels like building a mutli-terabyte SAN in their guest bedroom just to serve music.
Oi, Dr. Stickinthemud. All of those are valid questions but come on, this is cool even if it doesn't yet apply to every area of research or is several hundred times the size of your grant :)
Anyway, chemotaxis is fascinating to me. Have you read any Brian Goodwin?
Collections agencies sometimes are a part of the creditor (e.g. the entity that collects for Verizon is just another department of Verizon) but generally are firms that "buy" debt, for say 5% of the owed amount, and then try to get you to pay them. I'm not sure it's 100% legal; they are not collecting "on behalf of" your original creditor, they have only convinced the original creditor to write off the debt. So since you have no contract with the collections agency I'm not sure they can do anything but waste their breath.
OTOH I do know companies can transfer contracts (which happens if your creditor is bought); so there is probably some legal mumbo-jumbo that says they can sell your debt.
all an nmap on your external interface will show you is what an external entity might be able to see.. not what they can see
The reason you keep saying this is, as has been observed by others, that you do not understand networking.
Seriously, you. are. wrong.
Maybe they don't want to take your challenge because they can't parse your post.
I mean, it just took me about 15 minutes.
Just sayin'.
Sorry, you're wrong.
From the local machine, if you nmap the externally-facing IP address, you will get different results than if you scan the loopback IP address. That is, you will only see services and ports that will roger up to a SYN (or whatever nmap is set to send) packet received by that IP.
For this reason, scanning from a distant computer is unnecessary.
Claiming otherwise, when several security professional are telling you are wrong, is asinine.
Telling them that you have specific anecdata that proves them wrong is a lie.
You're talking to people who have probably been doing this since before you knew what the internet was. This is a good time for you to take a seat and learn something, sonny jim.
Ok. Let's talk about Valerie Plame next.
(I have to laugh: the CAPTCHA phrase is "shutdown")
Mea culpa--for some reason I constantly forget that Canonical is available to support FOSS solutions. I think that this is really the key to getting FOSS into the corporate world.
You don't pay for the updates. You pay for support. No corporation is going to populate a 10k seat network with Ubuntu because when Ubuntu breaks you have to go to the Ubuntu forums and beg for help. But they will consider a desktop solution that has significant support.
You're an unusually empowered helpdesk jockey if you have the ability to choose solutions.