I am trying to gain support to put together an organization I plan to call "Boxcutter Control, INC."
The role of the unregulated boxcutter supply has been downplayed for far to long. Perhaps the one good thing to come out of this tragedy will be that we will reach the long over due conclusion that there just isn't a place for private boxcutter ownership in our society.
I am also concerned about the baseball bat situation. Are you aware that in many areas a CHILD can purchase a THREE POUND baseball bat? There is NO purpose for such a heavy bat except for hitting things VERY hard. Now, I wouldn't interfere with people using a bat for sporting purposes, but they should be carefully regulated as well.
Sure, this might be inconvenient, but if just ONE CHILD is saved, won't it be worth it?
Can you imagine how polite Mr. Air Rage would be if he was but one of FOUR armed people on the plane?
I think that it reflects very poorly on us that we'd collectively rather be a the mercy of armed criminals than in the company of an armed citizenry. If the former is truly preferable to the latter then we are surely lost.
Moreover, you seem to think that only "special" people (police) and those who disregard the law should carry guns. This reveals to me that you are incredibly elitist.
I hear this all the time from so-called "liberals" (who seem to believe only in their own liberty, and being liberal with other people's money). "What? ORDINARY citizens with firearms!? Why, they'll shoot the first person who cuts them off in traffic!"
Shall we form "Box Cutter Control, INC.?" Tacitly submit to body cavity searches in exchange for the privilege of leaving our homes? Put up more signs saying "Firearms are not permitted on these premises." in hopes that robbers will feel compelled to walk away and find a different victim?
Firearms are an equalizer. If the citizenry is good, on the balance, then the net result of an armed citizenry must be good.
I am very aware of how dangerous discharging a firearm on an aircraft is[. ..]
Yes, it crossed my mind.
WRT lowering cabin pressure: First, AFAIK there isn't a "drop pressure to ~5psi (who the hell still uses such antiquated units?) button." I think that this would be non-trivial. Second, you've got, what, a good minute of clear headedness, and another couple of "silly time" before you black out. This seems less than ideal.
Allow folks with concealed cary permits to carry on board.
Look, it is now proven that guns are NOT NECESSARRY to hijack an aircraft.
I bullet between the eyes will sure slow down a hijacker though.
I am very aware of how dangerous discharging a firearm on an aircraft is, but it is less dangerous than the current situation, which seems to be "whoever is the most willing to die gets control of the aircraft."
I say, let the hijacker die for his country/god/whatever and let the rest of us get to L.A. on schedule.
Second, you say you don't want to self sign, but you don't say why.
I use a couple of self signed certs, and they work great.
For now the situation is pay, or self sign and your users get nagged. Hopefully there will be a sane "webs of trust" based infrastructure built into browsers in the not-to-far future.
It is far more invasive than a wiretap. A wiretap captures information being transmitted out of the "suspect's" property.
-Peter
Re:Very, very difficult problem: Designing cheap..
on
E-Paper Moves Closer
·
· Score: 2
Someone already address that the fact it is monochrome makes a big difference.
There is an even bigger factor, though. I could live with a refresh of, like, once per minute. Basically, as long as it can render a line of text faster than I can read it, we're good.
So, we are talking more like an original Hercules mono display at 100 times the res and 100th the refresh or something. (or whatever) Probably not hard to do that without a fan;-)
Oh, and the conversion to analog is an EXTRA step.
I am a huge fan of the concept of webmail, particularly IMAP based webmail, because your messages don't get "stuck" in the webmail client('s database). In other words, just because you view a message in SquirrelMail</plug> today, doesn't mean you can't reply to it in Mozilla Mail tomorrow.
And it works from any box with access to your webserver (use of SSL is highly recommended).
Doesn't answer the ISP question, I know, but might be an answer to your SMTP woes.
And we all know what happens when the beams cross.
Wait, I'm confused.
Do you mean total plutonic reversal? Or do you mean Zeul (minion of Gozer) is confined to the 7th plane of hell and Dana and Lewis are turned back into people?
Then, once the spam starts pouring in you can procmail that address (real+bogus@domain.tld) to/dev/null, and your real@domain.tld mail still comes through!
I didn't say name it "The KDE Illustrator." I said name it KWoozleWazzle, and describe it as The KDE illustrator. (Like Kword is the KDE word processor) The point being, can someone stop me describing my "product" based on what it does because they have trademarked a (common) word (!)?
For example, can MS stop Corel using the word "word" in descriptions of WordPerfect (of course, from the beginning, I have been using the Word/WP analogy to illuminate how stupid this whole thing is.)
Or another, more concrete, example: If I have a farm equipment company, and I trademark my "Thresher" brand of threshers (whatever they are . ..) can I sue John Deere for calling their "Big Green" line of threshers "Big Green threshers"? (Pay close attention to the caps.) Assuming that they hadn't actually referred to their threshers in past literature as "threshers"?
So can I trademark "wordprocessor" and then sue MS, Corel, etc, to not describe Word, WordPerfect, etc, as "word processor?"
That's asinine.
While I may be misinformed about what is trademarkable, I think I can fall back on the fact that it is illustration software. So can they change the name to KWoozleWozzle and then refer to KWoozleWozzle as the KDE Illustrator?
The bitch here is that it IS an illustrator (little i.)
BTW, I think that adobe is a building material, not a dwelling. Maybe you are thinking abode? (I'm mildly dyslexic, (really) maybe you are too? Those two words alone could be a test in themselves.)
Okay, it is a drawing program. What would you call it? Paint? Taken. Draw? Taken. Illustrator? Taken.
So what, do you call it KWoozleWazzle so no one gets "confused?" That's fucking stupid.
You can't really believe that people are going to install some UNIX, and KDE, and then install Killustrator "thinking" that it is Adobe's product? Can you?
Several years ago, the leading word processor was called "WordPerfect." A competetor came out with "Word." Was that an "obvious attempt to capitalize on the name and market" of the more popular product?
First, I think that the trademark must be on "Adobe Illustrator." I don't think
that you can trademark a common word. So you can trademark two common words like
"Red Hat" or one made up word "Linux."
Second appending a "K" to the word illustrator would yield "IllustratorK"
prepending a "K" gives KIllustrator.
Finally, do you honestly find "Adobe Illustrator" and "KIllustrator" confusingly similar?
I mean, Judges do stupid stuff quite often, but do you really think that one is going to find "Adobe Illustrator" (which must be the trademark, since you can't trademark a common word) and "Killustrator" confusingly similar?
Slashdot Mirror
Finally, someone understands.
I am trying to gain support to put together an organization I plan to call "Boxcutter Control, INC."
The role of the unregulated boxcutter supply has been downplayed for far to long. Perhaps the one good thing to come out of this tragedy will be that we will reach the long over due conclusion that there just isn't a place for private boxcutter ownership in our society.
I am also concerned about the baseball bat situation. Are you aware that in many areas a CHILD can purchase a THREE POUND baseball bat? There is NO purpose for such a heavy bat except for hitting things VERY hard. Now, I wouldn't interfere with people using a bat for sporting purposes, but they should be carefully regulated as well.
Sure, this might be inconvenient, but if just ONE CHILD is saved, won't it be worth it?
-Peter
In the name of all that is decent un-center your paragraphs.
-Peter
Can you imagine how polite Mr. Air Rage would be if he was but one of FOUR armed people on the plane?
I think that it reflects very poorly on us that we'd collectively rather be a the mercy of armed criminals than in the company of an armed citizenry. If the former is truly preferable to the latter then we are surely lost.
Moreover, you seem to think that only "special" people (police) and those who disregard the law should carry guns. This reveals to me that you are incredibly elitist.
I hear this all the time from so-called "liberals" (who seem to believe only in their own liberty, and being liberal with other people's money). "What? ORDINARY citizens with firearms!? Why, they'll shoot the first person who cuts them off in traffic!"
Shall we form "Box Cutter Control, INC.?" Tacitly submit to body cavity searches in exchange for the privilege of leaving our homes? Put up more signs saying "Firearms are not permitted on these premises." in hopes that robbers will feel compelled to walk away and find a different victim?
Firearms are an equalizer. If the citizenry is good, on the balance, then the net result of an armed citizenry must be good.
-Peter
Hmm. Did you READ my post?
.]
I am very aware of how dangerous discharging a firearm on an aircraft is[. .
Yes, it crossed my mind.
WRT lowering cabin pressure: First, AFAIK there isn't a "drop pressure to ~5psi (who the hell still uses such antiquated units?) button." I think that this would be non-trivial. Second, you've got, what, a good minute of clear headedness, and another couple of "silly time" before you black out. This seems less than ideal.
-Peter
I'll do you one better.
Allow folks with concealed cary permits to carry on board.
Look, it is now proven that guns are NOT NECESSARRY to hijack an aircraft.
I bullet between the eyes will sure slow down a hijacker though.
I am very aware of how dangerous discharging a firearm on an aircraft is, but it is less dangerous than the current situation, which seems to be "whoever is the most willing to die gets control of the aircraft."
I say, let the hijacker die for his country/god/whatever and let the rest of us get to L.A. on schedule.
First, FreeSSL is a scam.
Second, you say you don't want to self sign, but you don't say why.
I use a couple of self signed certs, and they work great.
For now the situation is pay, or self sign and your users get nagged. Hopefully there will be a sane "webs of trust" based infrastructure built into browsers in the not-to-far future.
-Peter
It may be true that violence induces more violence. But pacifism induces slavery.
The large portion of Americans would die on their feet before living on their knees.
-Peter
It is far more invasive than a wiretap. A wiretap captures information being transmitted out of the "suspect's" property.
-Peter
Someone already address that the fact it is monochrome makes a big difference.
;-)
There is an even bigger factor, though. I could live with a refresh of, like, once per minute. Basically, as long as it can render a line of text faster than I can read it, we're good.
So, we are talking more like an original Hercules mono display at 100 times the res and 100th the refresh or something. (or whatever) Probably not hard to do that without a fan
Oh, and the conversion to analog is an EXTRA step.
-Peter
Very probably because they make him use their domain (in the from header), which isn't going to work for a small business.
This is a pretty common problem.
-Peter
I am a huge fan of the concept of webmail, particularly IMAP based webmail, because your messages don't get "stuck" in the webmail client('s database). In other words, just because you view a message in SquirrelMail</plug> today, doesn't mean you can't reply to it in Mozilla Mail tomorrow.
And it works from any box with access to your webserver (use of SSL is highly recommended).
Doesn't answer the ISP question, I know, but might be an answer to your SMTP woes.
-Peter
And we all know what happens when the beams cross.
Wait, I'm confused.
Do you mean total plutonic reversal? Or do you mean Zeul (minion of Gozer) is confined to the 7th plane of hell and Dana and Lewis are turned back into people?
-Peter
Wow, that is a great trick.
/dev/null, and your real@domain.tld mail still comes through!
Then, once the spam starts pouring in you can procmail that address (real+bogus@domain.tld) to
-Peter
I'll never understand people, the thought of grizzly, fiery death won't keep them up, but Jerry-freaking-Sinfeld will.
-Peter
Thank you so much for this post! I saw this article, and saw 37 of whatever.
I immediately thought "Surely by now some self righteous asshole has posted something about being a grub user, not a lilo user by now."
It is such an ego boost for me to be right about this sort of thing.
-Peter
PS: This isn't a troll as such, since this is completely true, and not made up just to piss people off.
Have you looked at a Star Trek episode lately? You can't possibly think that the acting was beter than . . . well, anything.
I love the show, but the quality of the acting is not exactly its strong point.
-Peter
Am I the only one who thinks that K. Marx said that?
-Peter
I think that ident is nuts. I think that passing a cert is nearly as nuts.
I've never understood why ident responses aren't all the same "The connection in question has been logged." (or maybe just "0")
Then, if a human actually determines that there is a need for this info, he contacts the admin of the other box and has him get it out of the log.
Something like:
To: postmaster@bad.guy
From: Joe_Admin@good.guy
Subject: What gives?
Hey, postmaster, whoever made the connection from bad.guy to good.guy:23 is a bad guy. You should delete his account.
So, postmaster looks at the log (generated only because good.guy made an "ident request") and sees who the real bad guy is.
In my head I call this shydent.
-Peter
Your post would have been really helpful if it had as many useful links on the subject as it had profanities.
I'll consider posting at 0, like you, so you may be spared my thoughts.
-Peter
I didn't say name it "The KDE Illustrator." I said name it KWoozleWazzle, and describe it as The KDE illustrator. (Like Kword is the KDE word processor) The point being, can someone stop me describing my "product" based on what it does because they have trademarked a (common) word (!)?
For example, can MS stop Corel using the word "word" in descriptions of WordPerfect (of course, from the beginning, I have been using the Word/WP analogy to illuminate how stupid this whole thing is.)
Or another, more concrete, example: If I have a farm equipment company, and I trademark my "Thresher" brand of threshers (whatever they are . .
If so the whole god damned system needs an enema.
-Peter
WTF is XWindows?
MS Windows? Isn't that the X Windowing System ripoff?
Anyway, I'm not clear on what your point is.
-Peter
So can I trademark "wordprocessor" and then sue MS, Corel, etc, to not describe Word, WordPerfect, etc, as "word processor?"
That's asinine.
While I may be misinformed about what is trademarkable, I think I can fall back on the fact that it is illustration software. So can they change the name to KWoozleWozzle and then refer to KWoozleWozzle as the KDE Illustrator?
The bitch here is that it IS an illustrator (little i.)
BTW, I think that adobe is a building material, not a dwelling. Maybe you are thinking abode? (I'm mildly dyslexic, (really) maybe you are too? Those two words alone could be a test in themselves.)
-Peter
Okay, it is a drawing program. What would you call it? Paint? Taken. Draw? Taken. Illustrator? Taken.
So what, do you call it KWoozleWazzle so no one gets "confused?" That's fucking stupid.
You can't really believe that people are going to install some UNIX, and KDE, and then install Killustrator "thinking" that it is Adobe's product? Can you?
Several years ago, the leading word processor was called "WordPerfect." A competetor came out with "Word." Was that an "obvious attempt to capitalize on the name and market" of the more popular product?
-Peter
First, I think that the trademark must be on "Adobe Illustrator." I don't think
that you can trademark a common word. So you can trademark two common words like
"Red Hat" or one made up word "Linux."
Second appending a "K" to the word illustrator would yield "IllustratorK"
prepending a "K" gives KIllustrator.
Finally, do you honestly find "Adobe Illustrator" and "KIllustrator" confusingly similar?
-Peter
I mean, Judges do stupid stuff quite often, but do you really think that one is going to find "Adobe Illustrator" (which must be the trademark, since you can't trademark a common word) and "Killustrator" confusingly similar?
-Peter