Might need a few dependencies, but nothing harsh. Unfortunate timing, though, might be a week or so before cooker unfreezes after 8.1final.
No worries, just get MS to OS ActiveX
on
KDE 2.2.1 Up
·
· Score: 2
Once KDE and Konqueror offer complete active X controls in a sane environment, that will be enough for me to switch from Gnome. I am constantly stuck having to either walk to a new machine or reboot just to administer my NT boxes, and it really is a pain in the ass.
Since it really is Microsoft's fault for not using Java or something else portable for their admin tools in the first place, complain to Microsoft. Ask them to rewrite the NT admin tools to use standards, and/or to Open Source the ActiveX environment so that people can write tools for it (1) without expensive licences and (2) without putting their code at risk.
Alternatively, use VNC, it's free and cross-platform.
Final alternative, use the (ghasp) command-line tools. Many competent NT admins practically never leave the command line. You can even put up a telnet (if you are sure there are no sniffers on your LAN) or ssh daemon and use that.
--OR-- since NT is such a PiTA to admin, ditch it.
Put a Mandrake box in there and use your choice of WebMin or LinuxConf for web-based admin, or install one of the many other fine admin packages, or (ghasp again) use ssh and that dreaded command line. If you need to do that last from Windows, go to Google and type putty and click feeling-lucky. Small, secure, no DLLs, no problemo. Follow the link at the bottom of the page for a point-and-click Windows-based ssh file manager.
Yeah, right. And a city of - how many? - million people is just going to hide for a while until everyone's happy again... y'know perhaps it would help after all, if the news services stopped replaying the damned thing day and night in case anyone's been living in a cave for the past week and nobody taped it for them.
Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out,
Richard's point is made, but not as he intended. Computer facial recognition is different, and more likely to score a hit if the owners of the faces in question are on file and tagged as dangerous... and were they? And besides, the software also produces false positives. Regardless of formal assurances, once you're arrested as a suspected terrorist, it sticks to your record.
The point Richard's trying to make is that the proposed solutions - which involve serious loss of liberty and privacy - DO NOT WORK!. Think about it.
If you are a terrorist, planning to murder thousands of people and perhaps yourself as well, exactly how much attention will you pay to laws requiring you to hand a security key to your communications over to the people you're planning to murder? Or would you be more interested in acquiring a copy of the government database of same, so that your hostile foreign power then had open slather on millions of honest, non-hostile law-abiding people going about their previously secure and private business?
If you are a terrorist, planning to murder thousands and perhaps also yourself, are you going to take all of your guns in and register them, no matter what the law says, and what he penalties are? How about your bombs? Hardwood or plastic knives, when legislation reaches down that far?
If you are a terrorist, planning to murder thousands and perhaps also yourself, are you going to have anything obvious lying around when government agents carry out a home invasion on you?
If you are a terrorist, planning to murder thousands and perhaps also yourself, are you going to worry about the effects of your actions on others of your race or more-or-less faith?
Are you going to worry about the effects of your actions on the day to day lives and business of your enemies? Of course you are! You count the fear and resentment you instil in over two hundred million people (by murdering a ``mere'' five thousand) as a great part of your victory.
...else he takes the added risk of being misquoted, quoted out of context and/or misinterpreted. Perhaps you missed some of the implications of the ``secondary damage'' allegory in his message? Or this phrase:
TLA city, or are you just in love with your shift key? (-:
All roads must be toll, all air must be billed
on
EU IDA Study On OSS
·
· Score: 2
Giving things away surely is going to make it all ALOT better.
Much depends on how you define ``better.'' If ``better'' is stuffing Microsoft's coffers to the bursting point and extending their reach, then things are in a bad way and getting worse. If OTOH ``better'' means you don't need to swap an arm, a leg and all of your privacy for infrastructure and basic tools, then the millennium is finally arriving.
Using your own reasoning, making every street a toll road and charging people to breathe must be good for business and therefore for the world.
Personally, I feel that any sane review of history will find that what is good for big business is almost universally bad for everyone else, notably including individuals, government, the environment and poorer countries. Businesses should exist to fill a need, not to create a need.
Everyone just assumes that bad laws will evaporate, which is stupid wishful thinking.
For example, has anyne ever seen a tax law evapourate, unless there was a worse replacement?
Australia's income tax was emplaced during World War II as a temporary measure to fund the war effort. It took a long time for the gummint to get around to do as much about rescinding them as even beginning to index the rates against average income, inflation or or anything. I read about tax revolts at the 6% level and turn to gaze in awe at our 50% top rate... a temporary measure...
to the founding fathers it was "we the landowners". now its "we the businesses"
And so...? What do you propose doing about it? Another case of ``I used to be apathetic, but it no longer matters to me?''
How about some effective snactions against big businesses which unduly interfere with the political process? And after you're done proposing, will you actually carry out your proposals? Fat chance, if you can't even be bothered posting under a name...
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
A +6 Axiomatic rating, that post!
Why do you think Switzerland gets invaded so seldom? Why do you think that of the many, many attacks launched on and within Israel, almost all fail? Why do you think Israeli airliners never get hijacked? Theory is all very well, but Ben's idea works.
I wonder how long it would have taken Hitler to conquer the world if Slashdot editors were in charge.
Hitler would be snookered. Everyone would have guns! Most of the countries he invaded had stiff gun control in place and so were initially unable to offer serious civil resistance - in fact, the gun control info was used to arm the nasties and murder potential resistance.
And being Slash-minded, everyone would argue. After a while, there would be no real battles because everyone would be too busy disagreeing over how they should be fought. Yes, I am joking, but not 100%...
Good idea, but gzip takes grunt/cacheing
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 2
static content can be stored and transmitted in gzip format, [...] pages here end up averaging 28% of their original size
Excellent idea, but gzip sucks up compute, and the alternative to bogging the webserver's CPU is to cache a second, gzipped version of each fresh page as it takes its first hit - which of course soaks up RAM and maybe causes (slow) swapping. You need two copies because some browsers don't do gzip, and some browsers will be coming through firewalls which strip all headers except those in a short list which often doesn't include the I-understand-compression header (thwack forehead).
Things like video streams, sound and images are generally already compressed to the gills anyway (and anyone who uses BMP instead of, say, PNG is too incompetent to be running a real website anyway). As I understand./'s position, actual bandwidth was never an issue for them.
In short, it would not be a clear-cut decision for them.
Actually, if you look very closely at the problem, you'll find that the issue is generally the organisation, not the religion.
Here in Australia, we have unions, which may be somewhat different to American unions. Most unions here have gone from being a vital lever for employees to use against expliotative employers, to being exploitative self-serving bullies in their own right. Unions should serve freedom of choice, but they've actually reduced freedom of choice. This becomes clear when you see building sites covered with ``NO TICKET, NO START'' stickers. It's not as if the building companies have any choice left, and regardless of what the law says, the reality is that if you want to work on a large site, you must join a union and you must continue to obey the union.
This is a problem to do with people, and with the nature of mankind - about which religion has much to say, some of it true - not with the particular area of dispute.
I doubt you'll ever hear a statement like: an extremist atheist bin-laden follower today killed himself and 100's of others
OK, how about this: ``an extreme Atheist, Joseph Stalin, and his followers some time ago killed not himself but millions of others, especially Orthodox Christians.'' I am neither an Orthodox Christian nor an Atheist, extreme or otherwise, just calling the shots where they hit.
Stalin is far from being alone. The only difference between an extreme Atheist and an extreme InsertReligionHere is that the extreme Atheist generally won't kill ``themselves and'' - they'll just kill the other people. In principle, the Muslim kamikaze is better than the Atheist murderer because (s)he is not asking others to die when (s)he refuses to.
it was the senior President Bush that said there is no place in America for atheists
That's quite frightening. America is most definitely a place for Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jainist, whatever, according to its key founding principles. If Dubya is saying otherwise, it's time to pack and move somewhere that really does grant you freedom on conscience. Australia's Constitution is pathetically weak on the topic when compared to the US Constitution, but our politicians have also done less work to undermine what protection it contains.
neither sanctions nor bombings would ever happen if Saddam Hussein would simply abide by the terms of the agreements he made at the end of the Gulf War.
Several religions have a bad habit of finessing their rules to mean ``we can do what we like'' or in other words ``the end justifies the means.''
An Islamic example is the sura that places woman as ``one step below'' men but often gets read in practical terms as ``one step above an animal.'' A Catholic one is classifying heretics as not being neighbours, despite copious instruction and example to the contrary in the Bible, a book which they sometimes claim to follow. It's doctrinally OK for a Catholic to break any kind of deal or agreement made with a heretic, without notice. Using similar methods, Saddam and many others who (I believe falsely) call themselves Muslim work with a similar self-defeating finesse.
They're being ``penny wise, and pound foolish.'' And I quote: ``Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.'' Matthew 23:23
Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10?
Why not pick the British Hawker Harrier, Franco-British Concorde or Australian HoveRoc as examples?
Or rockets? What does the US have to match Russia's Energia, or even China's Long March launcher? Can the USA launch little loads for a fraction of the price that Japan does?
Or how about radar? Both Australia and China have radar systems that stomp all over Amercia. Jindalee can track and identify air traffic on the other side of the world, and the Chinese equivalent shows up ``stealth'' aircraft like magnesium distress flares.
Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble?
Yup. Countless times, the Commonwealth countries (among others) have pulled US asses out of a sling.
Take time off blowing your own trumpet to appreciate everyone else, and they might be nicer to you.
This editorial, from a Canadian newspaper, is worth sharing.
Yes, but not the thirty or so times that it has been shared already in the last three days. Read before you post.
You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times - and safely home again.
Sad that they don't have the balls to do it again. There are bits of the Moon just screaming to be explored.
Speaking of America, my favourite quote from the Moon era was one astronaut, who was asked (silly reporter!) what went through his mind on the launch pad. His reply was along the lines of ``The fact that every nut, bolt and rivet in this thing was built by the lowest bidder.''
That kind of makes the point that it's not adventurous leaders taking the decisions any more, but greedy and conservative businessmen. As it was in the Moon era, so it is now ten or a hundredfold. And it's killing America's heart and soul.
NASA's hamstrung and couldn't launch a kite for under a billion dollars, Microsoft is given pretty close to carte blanche to rape the IT industry, and the Army's way of fighting a war is to drown the opposition in hardware rather than fight with careful, efficient style.
Drunk drivers, for instance, are expected to kill around 16000 people this year, give or take a few depending on how jolly the holidays turn out to be. [...] Drink alcohol? We'll chop off your head. That certainly solves the problem of repeat offenders, and there is reason to believe that it acts as an effective deterrent.
There certainly is. One small African country (sorry, name eludes me) had a terrible drink-driving problem, so they made a new law. If you're picked up for drunk driving, and proven to be drunk, you are warned and taken home. If you are picked up again, once proven drunk you are taken out behind the police station and shot. No court, no appeal, no delay.
After six weeks, the contribution of drunken drivers to the road toll was about zero, and they were shooting a very small percentage of the numbers of people previously killed by drunk-driving accidents.
Moral question for today: did they do the right thing?
Slashdot Mirror
The buildings and people were bad enough, but abusing a Microsoft EULA? Bomb the bastards!
Might need a few dependencies, but nothing harsh. Unfortunate timing, though, might be a week or so before cooker unfreezes after 8.1final.
Since it really is Microsoft's fault for not using Java or something else portable for their admin tools in the first place, complain to Microsoft. Ask them to rewrite the NT admin tools to use standards, and/or to Open Source the ActiveX environment so that people can write tools for it (1) without expensive licences and (2) without putting their code at risk.
Alternatively, use VNC, it's free and cross-platform.
Final alternative, use the (ghasp) command-line tools. Many competent NT admins practically never leave the command line. You can even put up a telnet (if you are sure there are no sniffers on your LAN) or ssh daemon and use that.
--OR-- since NT is such a PiTA to admin, ditch it.
Put a Mandrake box in there and use your choice of WebMin or LinuxConf for web-based admin, or install one of the many other fine admin packages, or (ghasp again) use ssh and that dreaded command line. If you need to do that last from Windows, go to Google and type putty and click feeling-lucky. Small, secure, no DLLs, no problemo. Follow the link at the bottom of the page for a point-and-click Windows-based ssh file manager.
Might take a while ATM 'coz they're in deep-freeze for 8.1 but normally less than 24hrs before a new set of RPMs exist.
Yeah, right. And a city of - how many? - million people is just going to hide for a while until everyone's happy again... y'know perhaps it would help after all, if the news services stopped replaying the damned thing day and night in case anyone's been living in a cave for the past week and nobody taped it for them.
Jojo Fitzblack brings down the flying doctor with his first successful throw, but I don't see that one on the list. Yet.
Mind you, I'm surprised that Airhead survived this long without being beaten to death by outraged wimmin.
``My friends all think; she's a dumb blonde; but they don't know she dyes her hair...''
Apparently, the German original has even better imagery as well as better scansion. This is one time I really miss being a polyglot.
They're called ``electrons.''
Richard's point is made, but not as he intended. Computer facial recognition is different, and more likely to score a hit if the owners of the faces in question are on file and tagged as dangerous... and were they? And besides, the software also produces false positives. Regardless of formal assurances, once you're arrested as a suspected terrorist, it sticks to your record.
The point Richard's trying to make is that the proposed solutions - which involve serious loss of liberty and privacy - DO NOT WORK!. Think about it.
If you are a terrorist, planning to murder thousands of people and perhaps yourself as well, exactly how much attention will you pay to laws requiring you to hand a security key to your communications over to the people you're planning to murder? Or would you be more interested in acquiring a copy of the government database of same, so that your hostile foreign power then had open slather on millions of honest, non-hostile law-abiding people going about their previously secure and private business?
If you are a terrorist, planning to murder thousands and perhaps also yourself, are you going to take all of your guns in and register them, no matter what the law says, and what he penalties are? How about your bombs? Hardwood or plastic knives, when legislation reaches down that far?
If you are a terrorist, planning to murder thousands and perhaps also yourself, are you going to have anything obvious lying around when government agents carry out a home invasion on you?
If you are a terrorist, planning to murder thousands and perhaps also yourself, are you going to worry about the effects of your actions on others of your race or more-or-less faith?
Are you going to worry about the effects of your actions on the day to day lives and business of your enemies? Of course you are! You count the fear and resentment you instil in over two hundred million people (by murdering a ``mere'' five thousand) as a great part of your victory.
Think about it.
TLA city, or are you just in love with your shift key? (-:
Much depends on how you define ``better.'' If ``better'' is stuffing Microsoft's coffers to the bursting point and extending their reach, then things are in a bad way and getting worse. If OTOH ``better'' means you don't need to swap an arm, a leg and all of your privacy for infrastructure and basic tools, then the millennium is finally arriving.
Using your own reasoning, making every street a toll road and charging people to breathe must be good for business and therefore for the world.
Personally, I feel that any sane review of history will find that what is good for big business is almost universally bad for everyone else, notably including individuals, government, the environment and poorer countries. Businesses should exist to fill a need, not to create a need.
For example, has anyne ever seen a tax law evapourate, unless there was a worse replacement?
Australia's income tax was emplaced during World War II as a temporary measure to fund the war effort. It took a long time for the gummint to get around to do as much about rescinding them as even beginning to index the rates against average income, inflation or or anything. I read about tax revolts at the 6% level and turn to gaze in awe at our 50% top rate... a temporary measure...
And so...? What do you propose doing about it? Another case of ``I used to be apathetic, but it no longer matters to me?''
How about some effective snactions against big businesses which unduly interfere with the political process? And after you're done proposing, will you actually carry out your proposals? Fat chance, if you can't even be bothered posting under a name...
A +6 Axiomatic rating, that post!
Why do you think Switzerland gets invaded so seldom? Why do you think that of the many, many attacks launched on and within Israel, almost all fail? Why do you think Israeli airliners never get hijacked? Theory is all very well, but Ben's idea works.
Hitler would be snookered. Everyone would have guns! Most of the countries he invaded had stiff gun control in place and so were initially unable to offer serious civil resistance - in fact, the gun control info was used to arm the nasties and murder potential resistance.
And being Slash-minded, everyone would argue. After a while, there would be no real battles because everyone would be too busy disagreeing over how they should be fought. Yes, I am joking, but not 100%...
Excellent idea, but gzip sucks up compute, and the alternative to bogging the webserver's CPU is to cache a second, gzipped version of each fresh page as it takes its first hit - which of course soaks up RAM and maybe causes (slow) swapping. You need two copies because some browsers don't do gzip, and some browsers will be coming through firewalls which strip all headers except those in a short list which often doesn't include the I-understand-compression header (thwack forehead).
Things like video streams, sound and images are generally already compressed to the gills anyway (and anyone who uses BMP instead of, say, PNG is too incompetent to be running a real website anyway). As I understand ./'s position, actual bandwidth was never an issue for them.
In short, it would not be a clear-cut decision for them.
Actually, if you look very closely at the problem, you'll find that the issue is generally the organisation, not the religion.
Here in Australia, we have unions, which may be somewhat different to American unions. Most unions here have gone from being a vital lever for employees to use against expliotative employers, to being exploitative self-serving bullies in their own right. Unions should serve freedom of choice, but they've actually reduced freedom of choice. This becomes clear when you see building sites covered with ``NO TICKET, NO START'' stickers. It's not as if the building companies have any choice left, and regardless of what the law says, the reality is that if you want to work on a large site, you must join a union and you must continue to obey the union.
It's almost the same in Science. In many disciplines, you must believe in ``natural history'' (ie a theory of origins which supports Atheism in particular) in order to hold a job. If you don't do this, even if you hold no particular religion, it becomes effectively impossible to publish in mainstream journals, regardless of the value [detailed] of your work.
This is a problem to do with people, and with the nature of mankind - about which religion has much to say, some of it true - not with the particular area of dispute.
OK, how about this: ``an extreme Atheist, Joseph Stalin, and his followers some time ago killed not himself but millions of others, especially Orthodox Christians.'' I am neither an Orthodox Christian nor an Atheist, extreme or otherwise, just calling the shots where they hit.
Stalin is far from being alone. The only difference between an extreme Atheist and an extreme InsertReligionHere is that the extreme Atheist generally won't kill ``themselves and'' - they'll just kill the other people. In principle, the Muslim kamikaze is better than the Atheist murderer because (s)he is not asking others to die when (s)he refuses to.
That's quite frightening. America is most definitely a place for Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jainist, whatever, according to its key founding principles. If Dubya is saying otherwise, it's time to pack and move somewhere that really does grant you freedom on conscience. Australia's Constitution is pathetically weak on the topic when compared to the US Constitution, but our politicians have also done less work to undermine what protection it contains.
Several religions have a bad habit of finessing their rules to mean ``we can do what we like'' or in other words ``the end justifies the means.''
An Islamic example is the sura that places woman as ``one step below'' men but often gets read in practical terms as ``one step above an animal.'' A Catholic one is classifying heretics as not being neighbours, despite copious instruction and example to the contrary in the Bible, a book which they sometimes claim to follow. It's doctrinally OK for a Catholic to break any kind of deal or agreement made with a heretic, without notice. Using similar methods, Saddam and many others who (I believe falsely) call themselves Muslim work with a similar self-defeating finesse.
They're being ``penny wise, and pound foolish.'' And I quote: ``Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.'' Matthew 23:23
So, is the US really giving them this money, or is it just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul?
Why not pick the British Hawker Harrier, Franco-British Concorde or Australian HoveRoc as examples?
Or rockets? What does the US have to match Russia's Energia, or even China's Long March launcher? Can the USA launch little loads for a fraction of the price that Japan does?
Or how about radar? Both Australia and China have radar systems that stomp all over Amercia. Jindalee can track and identify air traffic on the other side of the world, and the Chinese equivalent shows up ``stealth'' aircraft like magnesium distress flares.
Yup. Countless times, the Commonwealth countries (among others) have pulled US asses out of a sling.
Take time off blowing your own trumpet to appreciate everyone else, and they might be nicer to you.
Yes, but not the thirty or so times that it has been shared already in the last three days. Read before you post.
Sad that they don't have the balls to do it again. There are bits of the Moon just screaming to be explored.
Speaking of America, my favourite quote from the Moon era was one astronaut, who was asked (silly reporter!) what went through his mind on the launch pad. His reply was along the lines of ``The fact that every nut, bolt and rivet in this thing was built by the lowest bidder.''
That kind of makes the point that it's not adventurous leaders taking the decisions any more, but greedy and conservative businessmen. As it was in the Moon era, so it is now ten or a hundredfold. And it's killing America's heart and soul.
NASA's hamstrung and couldn't launch a kite for under a billion dollars, Microsoft is given pretty close to carte blanche to rape the IT industry, and the Army's way of fighting a war is to drown the opposition in hardware rather than fight with careful, efficient style.
Who can respect that?
There certainly is. One small African country (sorry, name eludes me) had a terrible drink-driving problem, so they made a new law. If you're picked up for drunk driving, and proven to be drunk, you are warned and taken home. If you are picked up again, once proven drunk you are taken out behind the police station and shot. No court, no appeal, no delay.
After six weeks, the contribution of drunken drivers to the road toll was about zero, and they were shooting a very small percentage of the numbers of people previously killed by drunk-driving accidents.
Moral question for today: did they do the right thing?