I have never found it to be nearly as difficult as people make it out to be.
There is a great number of terms specific to the industry, but they are well-defined and comprehensively documented.
The difficulty tends not to be with the language itself, but with the understanding of how weak or strong a certain claim or position would be if challenged.
The reason you never hear a lawyer say "but the GPL has never been tested in court! waaaah!" is because it is a very simple expression of rights that are guaranteed under copyright law, no different than any other software license based on copyright law.
That really hurt -- I've punched cards. I've corrected them with a hand punch and tape. I've droped a box of cards and had to sort them by hand.
I don't remember anybody ever claiming they liked it:-)
There was a time that I liked paper tape, though. I thought it was really cool to be able to do paper tape on my own punch. (And I've used mylar tape as recently as 1994!)
"I can't fucking wait until someone does that to one of those cunting judges."
Army Special Forces (Kopassus) Second Lieutenant Agus Isrok, oldest son of former Army chief General Subagyo Hadisiswoyo:
Arrested in August 1999 at a West Jakarta hotel for possession of 1.6 kilograms of shabu-shabu (crystal methamphetamine), 6,218 ecstasy pills, 27.9 grams of heroin and 25 packets of Valium pills.
Sentenced in June 2000 sentenced to four years in prison and fined Rp10 million.
Military high court in November 2000 reduced the sentence to two years in jail and a fine of Rp3 million.
"she's guilty because she knew she was commiting a crime"
You're framing your viewpoint in the context of the society you live in, not the target society. In Indonesia, the social contract seems to accept the idea that she is guilty because she arrived at the airport with the dope. It doesn't matter how it got there, whether she knew about it, whether there's a reasonable doubt to the prosecution's case, none of that matters. Your life is forfeit because you arrived in the country after having had contact with the world of illegal drugs, even if it was without your knowlege. And you will be punished severely -- put to death unless it is politically inconvenient to do so -- in support of the vain notion that an absolutely intolerant, ultimately harsh policy on drug smuggling will somehow have the effect of diminishing the drug trade everywhere.
To conservative Indonesian thinking, it would be acceptable to execute Corby (many are demanding exactly this!), on the theory that doing so will send such a strong message to the world that the drug drade is actually reduced.
Stop framing this in your American, Australian, or even your Roman-Dutch value assumptions. It is much simpler than that. Unfortunately, you will come to realize how hopeless Corby's case was from the start, when you do that.
"What i dont get is why on the news they dont seem to inform the public that her sister owns a night club in Indonesia or that her b/f is a convicted drug fellon."
Both of those rumors have legs, but neither is actually true. Can you back up your source?
"The system in Indonesia is the same as the system in Australia"
If you look at the most rough outline, and you don't accept that corruption is at an entirely different order of magnitude, and you forget that the prisons in one country are relatively habitable and in the other country, a dismal prospect that you might not prefer to suicide, even then there are some quite fundamental differences between the Australian system, based on the English tradition, and the Indo system, based on Roman/Dutch law.
What we are seeing here is a government that has chosen to make its drug policy as harsh and intolerant as possible, for whatever reasons they have chosen to do that (to impress the US?) Zero tolerance in this situation, basically requires the summary execution of anyone who, "guilty" or not, makes contact with the world of illegal drugs that the government wishes to eliminate wholesale.
It's the nuclear warfare of the drug war. When you decide to use a nuclear weapon, you have already justified the casualties of the innocent people who are unfortunate enough to live around the city you're going to nuke.
"In other words, that unless the prosecution can prove guilt, the person is innocent."
But the standards for evidence for that court needed nothing more than the presence of the plant matter in the surf bag. There was no obligation on the court to actually prove that the defendant knew about that or put them there herself. In a civilized system, the burden of proof would have extended further than "it was in your bag", and other explanations that were plausible, would have to be considered under the doctrine of "reasonable doubt". This aspect of presumption of innocence was conspicuously absent in the Corby case.
"And just in case anyone wants to shout at me for assuming that indonesia had a presumed-guilt system"
The judge's statements definitely indicate a presumption of guilt, and he certainly did reject her testimony on the basis that it did not prove her innocence.
If that's improper under that system's process, then there's your grounds for appeal.
I really don't like the lack of a double jeapardy provision, even more than the presumption of guilt. You can get 20 years, and then an appeals court can give you a death penalty!
In Indonesia, being found guilty in court makes you guilty, even if you were innocent before.
That's why a person from a civilized, free country, shouldn't travel there.
But I still say the real problem is the prohibition of cannabis itself. It's not inherently dangerous, and the strict prohibition is the only thing that would provide the motivation for someone to attempt this kind of smuggling in the first place.
What a great way to get rid of your political enemies! You don't have to assassinate them anymore, just put a bag of weed in their luggage and let third world justice sort things out.
"The controversy with Corby is because a lot of people here believe she is innocent, not because they think she should be allowed to have or use marajuana."
And my point is, they would be in a much better position if they were not themselves supporting a government that has equally outrageous, morally equivalent laws.
I realize that an Australian prison is more likely to have things like plumbing and food with nominal nutritional value, unlike the hole that Corby is in. But that is beside the point.
She may be innocent, and I expect she probably is.
However, what people seem to be willing to ignore is the fact that, having been tried in the kangaroo court and found guilty, in that country, that makes her guilty. Her innocence, even if it could be proved after the fact, is pretty much irrelevant. I don't personally approve of a system that works that way, but, I have no say in the workings of the government of that country.
Now there is a lot of noise from Australians who want to boycott tourism and trade to that country. So the level of outrage is such that a few people will make noise like that for a little while. All but a few will get tired of the futility of that -- and Schapelle Corby will spend the next decade in that jail, perhaps quietly being pardoned by the next president or something. It will be third page news.
But if the Bali government were to take it to the next level of outrage, like a summary execution or something that's in violation of some human rights treaty, or against their own laws, then perhaps a higher level of outrage could be observed -- one where people actually would be motivated to take action that yields meaningful results. Such as a rebellion and a coup among the Indonesian people. Or a general election that brings in a new, more liberal government. Or a trade and tourism embargo from Australia. Or North Korea style sanctions that cuts them off from the world economy.
But the fact remains that if an Indonesian tourist were in the same predicament in Australia, if we even heard about it, there'd be no hope of emancipation.
I still say that Australia has a beam in it's eye here. It too has completely senseless and unfounded laws governing marijuana. Nobody seems to see this whole incident as a consequence of that. They are all focused on either the idea that that girl is innocent, or on the idea that Indonesian justice is an abomination.
Personally, I believe both are true -- the girl is innocent, and the justice is a total joke. But that's beside the point. The only crime that's been committed here is the prohibition of cannabis. Until that's fixed, nobody is innocent.
It would be better if they executed her, or cut off her hands or something.
Because if they were to let her go, the level of outrage would subside and no changes to the status quo would be forthcoming.
Australia would be in a far superior ethical position on this case, except for the fact that Australia hasn't legalized marijuana either. In fact, you can get 20 years to life in Australia for 4kg of pot too.
This is a problem, because it makes the case nothing more than a pot (the cooking kind) calling a kettle black. The Corby girl is fading from the headlines already. She may end up being Australia's Mumia or their Peltier, but her case won't bring about a revolution, a war against Indonesia, or legalization of marijuana in either country.
The screams of the Australians are falling on my deaf ears, because Australian people are also supporting the big lie that marijuana is as dangerous as heroin and tobacco, and must be banned lest society collapse.
The countries that act on this belief should be averse to show such a weakness, in my opinion. You're so scare of a plant that you must devote a significant part your law enforcement resources to stopping its existence? What country is comfortable displaying that kind of irrational fear and weakness to the world?
Re:Which distros can resize partitions?
on
Test Driving Linux
·
· Score: 1
>Could somebody comment about which Linux distros >now do this for you?
Ubuntu does it, as does Debian Sarge. There are quite a few others. What you're looking for is 'ntfsresize', and if you can run that first (say from a rescue disk), you can install any distro you'd like.
One thing I'd like to do, that I haven't figured out how to do yet, is to take an existing dual-boot (XP/Debian) system, resize the NTFS partition, and also resize the ext3 partition by the corresponding amount.
Um, the front and back doors on my house (in the US, built in the late 1950s, and quite ordinary, also swing outward. Also, most of the windows are the type that open with a crank, and they also open outward.
There is one door on my house that opens inward, but it's of a design that doing otherwise would expose the hinges to the outside, making it insecure.
As I consider this, I can think of as many types of doors that are "pull" as I can that are "push", on businesses and so on. And one very common, standard design that is on many restaurants and similar, open both ways.
All this stuff is nothing more than the set of consequences that we face, because we took an emerging technology from its infancy, and pressed it into service abruptly.
People seem to have some idea that personal computing technology was quickly adopted and was carefully developed over a long period of time with a great deal of focus.
That's true for some parts of the technology, but most of it is the result of sticking with what worked from the beginning.
So much of the personal computing idiom consists of overloaded vestiges that were not really developed, but rather, evolved very quickly from the time (seems like YESTERDAY) when the mention that you had a personal computer would be met with nothing but puzzled expressions and misunderstandings, DIRECTLY to the point where the technology was suddenly presented to the masses as some kind of mature technology that EVERYONE MUST have. There was almost nothing in between!
It really did seem like overnight between the days when university advisors discouraged computer science majors and suggested other fields, because they no future was anticipated in computers, through the whole "dot com bubble", to today. Maybe I'm weird because my perspective allows me to view two decades as "overnight", but I really do think I witnessed a sudden, disorganized shift from "personal computers are a joke" to "personal computers are ubiquitous."
Software quality is just one small part of the phenomenon.
>[D]o we really need a KGB in this country? I hate >to cry "slippery slope," but isn't that what this >is?
That's *exactly* what this is, and my general answer to this kind of question is "yes, we do", but my reasons are a little oblique.
Things aren't bad enough for a lot of people think they are in any danger. If the status quo is to be changed, it will change because change is demanded, or even forced, by the people. But the people aren't motivated, because the situation remains *tolerable*.
History tells us that such things must become intolerable before the breaking point is reached, and people actually take significant actions to reign in or replace their system of government. Before anything of that nature will happen in the US, things would have to ge a LOT worse.
So that's the kernel of my argument for giving Homeland Security as much power as they want. Rignt now, it's still plausible that they have the ability to balance the security of the country with the constitutional rights of the citizens. It's also plausible that the elected officials truly are representing the overall will of the people, that they were elected by a legitimate process, and that the voice of dissent, however emphatic, does not represent the views of the majority.
I'm not saying I believe that. But I do believe that the pressure will not be sufficient for the people to *really* demand changes, as long as it remains tolerable for them to live under the reign. And life in the US appears to be pretty "tolerable", on balance. I wouldn't expect any revolutions to break out under those conditions.
So let them keep pushing. When things get bad enough for folks to notice, they will make up their minds to fix it -- and they won't show any mercy when they do.
I want to see the MTA that can even handle this. His MTA can move a million messages just in spam, but his web server can't stand up to a mild slashdotting?
"You can just try to be wise about it and not spray your email address eveywhere you can. Use your most important email address cautiously, only give it out to respectable trustworthy companies or websites. Use a secondary email as a honeypot for spam."
And your advice for the multitudes who do as you say, but do not observe the same results, is what?
Your argument seems to boil down to "it's not a problem for me, so it shouldn't be a problem for you either.", with a little bit of "it must be your fault, because it hasn't happened to me."
Spamassassin is great, and I use it, but there's a problem still. If you're using Spamassassin on a POP account, the spam still travels to you. If you're dealing with a *lot* of spam, you still have the problem of the spent resource. Even on a very fast broadband connection it can take several minutes to download the messages, and check them for spamness. And then what do you do? Are you brave enough for/dev/null? I am, except for the one account where I happen to get the most spam. So I end up storing it, and spending the time to review it.
I want a solution that stops spam before it even gets into a position for spamassassin to see it. (I know SA can run in the MTA, but for most users, it doesn't).
I'm a big fan of whitelisting, but that's not a popular opinion, fortunately or unfortunately.
Often the PC case is the only illumination. The light from my Antec Sonata puts a nice soft cool blue that appears to emerge from the back of my synthesizer rig. I like it.
Well, I'm still tickled shitless that I can make really detailed, breathtaking 24x36" prints. This is not something I could do AT ALL with 35mm film when I was into that. The new DSLRs are encroaching on the domain that was occupied by medium format.
"...actively hurting their presence in the professional space..."
Uh huh. I'm sure that's exactly what they think, when they see all the photographers with their 1D's and their D2X's at every press event, or when you see all those Canon "L" lenses (white with the red stripe) at every sports event.
The last message they are getting is that their presence in the professional space is in any sort of jeopardy!
"OS X running on Intel will not have any impact on Linux whatsoever."
I'm guessing that it will, in the sense that it will provide Linux with one more porting target. (I don't expect the IntApple chipset to be a regular x86, does anyone?)
It'll be another platform of consumer level hardware that Linux can target.
Maybe I've misread the news, but I haven't seen anything to indicate a scenario where you'll have OSX running on Dells, Asus motherboards, etc.
"We have nice lossy and lossless image compression formats. There is NO reason ever to bother with raw camera images for archival storage."
There is a reason, however, to want to perform the conversion, and that won't be easy to do with an inscrutable file format. TIFF and Lossless JPEG is fine, but getting there in the first place may be a problem. The white balance and colorspace stuff are not as esoteric as they are made out to be by people who don't use them. The WB controls on my Canon are indispensible now that I've started using them. I do realize there's a lot that can be done after the fact, but there's nothing quite as satisfying as getting an image perfect, straight from the camera.
Slashdot Mirror
>I absolutely hate reading legalese.
I have never found it to be nearly as difficult as people make it out to be.
There is a great number of terms specific to the industry, but they are well-defined and comprehensively documented.
The difficulty tends not to be with the language itself, but with the understanding of how weak or strong a certain claim or position would be if challenged.
The reason you never hear a lawyer say "but the GPL has never been tested in court! waaaah!" is because it is a very simple expression of rights that are guaranteed under copyright law, no different than any other software license based on copyright law.
That really hurt -- I've punched cards. I've corrected them with a hand punch and tape. I've droped a box of cards and had to sort them by hand.
:-)
I don't remember anybody ever claiming they liked it
There was a time that I liked paper tape, though. I thought it was really cool to be able to do paper tape on my own punch. (And I've used mylar tape as recently as 1994!)
But I never claimed to not be an old crank...
"I can't fucking wait until someone does that to one of those cunting judges."
Army Special Forces (Kopassus) Second Lieutenant Agus Isrok, oldest son of former Army chief General Subagyo Hadisiswoyo:
Arrested in August 1999 at a West Jakarta hotel for possession of 1.6 kilograms of shabu-shabu (crystal methamphetamine), 6,218 ecstasy pills, 27.9 grams of heroin and 25 packets of Valium pills.
Sentenced in June 2000 sentenced to four years in prison and fined Rp10 million.
Military high court in November 2000 reduced the sentence to two years in jail and a fine of Rp3 million.
"she's guilty because she knew she was commiting a crime"
You're framing your viewpoint in the context of the society you live in, not the target society. In Indonesia, the social contract seems to accept the idea that she is guilty because she arrived at the airport with the dope. It doesn't matter how it got there, whether she knew about it, whether there's a reasonable doubt to the prosecution's case, none of that matters. Your life is forfeit because you arrived in the country after having had contact with the world of illegal drugs, even if it was without your knowlege. And you will be punished severely -- put to death unless it is politically inconvenient to do so -- in support of the vain notion that an absolutely intolerant, ultimately harsh policy on drug smuggling will somehow have the effect of diminishing the drug trade everywhere.
To conservative Indonesian thinking, it would be acceptable to execute Corby (many are demanding exactly this!), on the theory that doing so will send such a strong message to the world that the drug drade is actually reduced.
Stop framing this in your American, Australian, or even your Roman-Dutch value assumptions. It is much simpler than that. Unfortunately, you will come to realize how hopeless Corby's case was from the start, when you do that.
"What i dont get is why on the news they dont seem to inform the public that her sister owns a night club in Indonesia or that her b/f is a convicted drug fellon."
Both of those rumors have legs, but neither is actually true. Can you back up your source?
"The system in Indonesia is the same as the system in Australia"
If you look at the most rough outline, and you don't accept that corruption is at an entirely different order of magnitude, and you forget that the prisons in one country are relatively habitable and in the other country, a dismal prospect that you might not prefer to suicide, even then there are some quite fundamental differences between the Australian system, based on the English tradition, and the Indo system, based on Roman/Dutch law.
What we are seeing here is a government that has chosen to make its drug policy as harsh and intolerant as possible, for whatever reasons they have chosen to do that (to impress the US?) Zero tolerance in this situation, basically requires the summary execution of anyone who, "guilty" or not, makes contact with the world of illegal drugs that the government wishes to eliminate wholesale.
It's the nuclear warfare of the drug war. When you decide to use a nuclear weapon, you have already justified the casualties of the innocent people who are unfortunate enough to live around the city you're going to nuke.
"In other words, that unless the prosecution can prove guilt, the person is innocent."
But the standards for evidence for that court needed nothing more than the presence of the plant matter in the surf bag. There was no obligation on the court to actually prove that the defendant knew about that or put them there herself. In a civilized system, the burden of proof would have extended further than "it was in your bag", and other explanations that were plausible, would have to be considered under the doctrine of "reasonable doubt". This aspect of presumption of innocence was conspicuously absent in the Corby case.
"And just in case anyone wants to shout at me for assuming that indonesia had a presumed-guilt system"
The judge's statements definitely indicate a presumption of guilt, and he certainly did reject her testimony on the basis that it did not prove her innocence.
If that's improper under that system's process, then there's your grounds for appeal.
I really don't like the lack of a double jeapardy provision, even more than the presumption of guilt. You can get 20 years, and then an appeals court can give you a death penalty!
>Corby is innocent
In Indonesia, being found guilty in court makes you guilty, even if you were innocent before.
That's why a person from a civilized, free country, shouldn't travel there.
But I still say the real problem is the prohibition of cannabis itself. It's not inherently dangerous, and the strict prohibition is the only thing that would provide the motivation for someone to attempt this kind of smuggling in the first place.
What a great way to get rid of your political enemies! You don't have to assassinate them anymore, just put a bag of weed in their luggage and let third world justice sort things out.
"The controversy with Corby is because a lot of people here believe she is innocent, not because they think she should be allowed to have or use marajuana."
And my point is, they would be in a much better position if they were not themselves supporting a government that has equally outrageous, morally equivalent laws.
I realize that an Australian prison is more likely to have things like plumbing and food with nominal nutritional value, unlike the hole that Corby is in. But that is beside the point.
She may be innocent, and I expect she probably is.
However, what people seem to be willing to ignore is the fact that, having been tried in the kangaroo court and found guilty, in that country, that makes her guilty. Her innocence, even if it could be proved after the fact, is pretty much irrelevant. I don't personally approve of a system that works that way, but, I have no say in the workings of the government of that country.
Now there is a lot of noise from Australians who want to boycott tourism and trade to that country. So the level of outrage is such that a few people will make noise like that for a little while. All but a few will get tired of the futility of that -- and Schapelle Corby will spend the next decade in that jail, perhaps quietly being pardoned by the next president or something. It will be third page news.
But if the Bali government were to take it to the next level of outrage, like a summary execution or something that's in violation of some human rights treaty, or against their own laws, then perhaps a higher level of outrage could be observed -- one where people actually would be motivated to take action that yields meaningful results. Such as a rebellion and a coup among the Indonesian people. Or a general election that brings in a new, more liberal government. Or a trade and tourism embargo from Australia. Or North Korea style sanctions that cuts them off from the world economy.
But the fact remains that if an Indonesian tourist were in the same predicament in Australia, if we even heard about it, there'd be no hope of emancipation.
I still say that Australia has a beam in it's eye here. It too has completely senseless and unfounded laws governing marijuana. Nobody seems to see this whole incident as a consequence of that. They are all focused on either the idea that that girl is innocent, or on the idea that Indonesian justice is an abomination.
Personally, I believe both are true -- the girl is innocent, and the justice is a total joke. But that's beside the point. The only crime that's been committed here is the prohibition of cannabis. Until that's fixed, nobody is innocent.
> An exchange for Schappelle Corby?
It would be better if they executed her, or cut off her hands or something.
Because if they were to let her go, the level of outrage would subside and no changes to the status quo would be forthcoming.
Australia would be in a far superior ethical position on this case, except for the fact that Australia hasn't legalized marijuana either. In fact, you can get 20 years to life in Australia for 4kg of pot too.
This is a problem, because it makes the case nothing more than a pot (the cooking kind) calling a kettle black.
The Corby girl is fading from the headlines already. She may end up being Australia's Mumia or their Peltier, but her case won't bring about a revolution, a war against Indonesia, or legalization of marijuana in either country.
The screams of the Australians are falling on my deaf ears, because Australian people are also supporting the big lie that marijuana is as dangerous as heroin and tobacco, and must be banned lest society collapse.
The countries that act on this belief should be averse to show such a weakness, in my opinion. You're so scare of a plant that you must devote a significant part your law enforcement resources to stopping its existence? What country is comfortable displaying that kind of irrational fear and weakness to the world?
>Could somebody comment about which Linux distros
>now do this for you?
Ubuntu does it, as does Debian Sarge. There are quite a few others. What you're looking for is 'ntfsresize', and if you can run that first (say from a rescue disk), you can install any distro you'd like.
One thing I'd like to do, that I haven't figured out how to do yet, is to take an existing dual-boot (XP/Debian) system, resize the NTFS partition, and also resize the ext3 partition by the corresponding amount.
One that should not be permissible to trademark.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10447b.htm
Um, the front and back doors on my house (in the US, built in the late 1950s, and quite ordinary, also swing outward. Also, most of the windows are the type that open with a crank, and they also open outward.
There is one door on my house that opens inward, but it's of a design that doing otherwise would expose the hinges to the outside, making it insecure.
As I consider this, I can think of as many types of doors that are "pull" as I can that are "push", on businesses and so on. And one very common, standard design that is on many restaurants and similar, open both ways.
All this stuff is nothing more than the set of consequences that we face, because we took an emerging technology from its infancy, and pressed it into service abruptly.
People seem to have some idea that personal computing technology was quickly adopted and was carefully developed over a long period of time with a great deal of focus.
That's true for some parts of the technology, but most of it is the result of sticking with what worked from the beginning.
So much of the personal computing idiom consists of overloaded vestiges that were not really developed, but rather, evolved very quickly from the time (seems like YESTERDAY) when the mention that you had a personal computer would be met with nothing but puzzled expressions and misunderstandings, DIRECTLY to the point where the technology was suddenly presented to the masses as some kind of mature technology that EVERYONE MUST have. There was almost nothing in between!
It really did seem like overnight between the days when university advisors discouraged computer science majors and suggested other fields, because they no future was anticipated in computers, through the whole "dot com bubble", to today. Maybe I'm weird because my perspective allows me to view two decades as "overnight", but I really do think I witnessed a sudden, disorganized shift from "personal computers are a joke" to "personal computers are ubiquitous."
Software quality is just one small part of the phenomenon.
>[D]o we really need a KGB in this country? I hate
>to cry "slippery slope," but isn't that what this
>is?
That's *exactly* what this is, and my general answer to this kind of question is "yes, we do", but my reasons are a little oblique.
Things aren't bad enough for a lot of people think they are in any danger. If the status quo is to be changed, it will change because change is demanded, or even forced, by the people. But the people aren't motivated, because the situation remains *tolerable*.
History tells us that such things must become intolerable before the breaking point is reached, and people actually take significant actions to reign in or replace their system of government. Before anything of that nature will happen in the US, things would have to ge a LOT worse.
So that's the kernel of my argument for giving Homeland Security as much power as they want. Rignt now, it's still plausible that they have the ability to balance the security of the country with the constitutional rights of the citizens. It's also plausible that the elected officials truly are representing the overall will of the people, that they were elected by a legitimate process, and that the voice of dissent, however emphatic, does not represent the views of the majority.
I'm not saying I believe that. But I do believe that the pressure will not be sufficient for the people to *really* demand changes, as long as it remains tolerable for them to live under the reign. And life in the US appears to be pretty "tolerable", on balance. I wouldn't expect any revolutions to break out under those conditions.
So let them keep pushing. When things get bad enough for folks to notice, they will make up their minds to fix it -- and they won't show any mercy when they do.
"I use (and provide) spamassassin at the MTA level, works great! No wasted bandwidth."
The number of people with that luxury is vanishingly small.
>He wasn't getting a million fucking spam a day.
I want to see the MTA that can even handle this. His MTA can move a million messages just in spam, but his web server can't stand up to a mild slashdotting?
"You can just try to be wise about it and not spray your email address eveywhere you can.
Use your most important email address cautiously, only give it out to respectable trustworthy companies or websites.
Use a secondary email as a honeypot for spam."
And your advice for the multitudes who do as you say, but do not observe the same results, is what?
Your argument seems to boil down to "it's not a problem for me, so it shouldn't be a problem for you either.", with a little bit of "it must be your fault, because it hasn't happened to me."
Spamassassin is great, and I use it, but there's a problem still. If you're using Spamassassin on a POP account, the spam still travels to you. If you're dealing with a *lot* of spam, you still have the problem of the spent resource. Even on a very fast broadband connection it can take several minutes to download the messages, and check them for spamness. And then what do you do? Are you brave enough for /dev/null? I am, except for the one account where I happen to get the most spam. So I end up storing it, and spending the time to review it.
I want a solution that stops spam before it even gets into a position for spamassassin to see it. (I know SA can run in the MTA, but for most users, it doesn't).
I'm a big fan of whitelisting, but that's not a popular opinion, fortunately or unfortunately.
> What is the attraction of case lights?
Often the PC case is the only illumination. The light from my Antec Sonata puts a nice soft cool blue that appears to emerge from the back of my synthesizer rig. I like it.
Well, I'm still tickled shitless that I can make really detailed, breathtaking 24x36" prints. This is not something I could do AT ALL with 35mm film when I was into that. The new DSLRs are encroaching on the domain that was occupied by medium format.
"...actively hurting their presence in the professional space..."
Uh huh. I'm sure that's exactly what they think, when they see all the photographers with their 1D's and their D2X's at every press event, or when you see all those Canon "L" lenses (white with the red stripe) at every sports event.
The last message they are getting is that their presence in the professional space is in any sort of jeopardy!
"They would become powerful enough if they received more donations."
Or would they merely become wasteful and/or corrupt?
"OS X running on Intel will not have any impact on Linux whatsoever."
I'm guessing that it will, in the sense that it will provide Linux with one more porting target. (I don't expect the IntApple chipset to be a regular x86, does anyone?)
It'll be another platform of consumer level hardware that Linux can target.
Maybe I've misread the news, but I haven't seen anything to indicate a scenario where you'll have OSX running on Dells, Asus motherboards, etc.
"We have nice lossy and lossless image compression formats. There is NO reason ever to bother with raw camera images for archival storage."
There is a reason, however, to want to perform the conversion, and that won't be easy to do with an inscrutable file format. TIFF and Lossless JPEG is fine, but getting there in the first place may be a problem. The white balance and colorspace stuff are not as esoteric as they are made out to be by people who don't use them. The WB controls on my Canon are indispensible now that I've started using them. I do realize there's a lot that can be done after the fact, but there's nothing quite as satisfying as getting an image perfect, straight from the camera.