The example cited is "RESOLVED INVALID". The link to the "perfect attack" seems to be slashdotted. And at the time I started writing this comment, there have been no comments whatsoever.
Does this mean that Slashdotters have all swarmed the link trying to find out how to execute the perfect attack? Are we seeing a new trend here, with people actually reading TFAs?
Or is it that too many people have Greasemonkey scripts filtering out kdawson's posts?
Well, actually they get code snippets and compiler directives.
The Cathechism of the Catholic Church is, among other things, a set of rules how to interpret the Bible. Now, you do not have to read the whole Bible, but applying those compiler directives to the source text, you should be able to get the same results, i.e. opinions. Similarly, I do not tend to read the source code to the open source programs I compile because it's all Greek to me. But if I wanted to, I could.
So no, no-one really follows any religion to the letter, but their source texts are still completely open. Unlike CoS, whose texts are... restricted.
Well, in Synaptic and Aptitude you do get categories, at least in the simpler view. Seems that in KDE 4 Aptitude no longer has the complex view (though I haven't looked hard), so the categories are now default. So that's OK.
The only thing missing now are better descriptions, and maybe a screenshot or whatever. However, there is a trade-off between DB size (especially since it needs to be updated from time to time, most often daily) and user-friendliness.
It would definitely be an improvement if all programs were semantically tagged in the package manager. Another pane with a screenshot or two, as well as some information about the program would indeed be a nice addition.
As several other posters have said, bringing in a bunch of people representing just one distro would be misleading.
However, bringing in several people representing different distros might not be such a bad idea. So you get some college student for Ubuntu, an uber-geek for Gentoo, someone artsy for Sabayon, an engineer for Debian, and so on, and so forth. And definitely some guy wearing a fedora (preferably with an Anansi Boys reference).
Linux is not one OS for one kind of people; thus playing the diversity and versatility card might be just the thing we need.
Is it any different than another religion that you cannot inspect the source??
Not that I'm showing preferential treatment to Scientology mind you.
Of course you are not showing preferential treatment; in fact, you are attempting to be even-handed to the point of political correctness.
The point is, I am aware of no other religion that makes (or at least made) the utter destruction of its opponents by any and all means necessary a part of its official policy. Mind you, Islamic terrorists (as a prototypical example) do not qualify: their actions are based on a selective reading of their holy book. In Scientology, there is no selective reading; the Fair Game doctrine was/is their official doctrine.
Besides, if those prototypical Islamic terrorists got hold of my data, there is not much they would do with it. They do not engage in smear campaigns and turning the authorities on me. OTOH, the CoS might, for instance, report me as a paedophile if they find something matching hentai*.jpg (I've seen way too often that hentai == paedo in people's minds, even if all the characters have tits bigger than their heads). It doesn't matter if I am later proven innocent; my name would be ruined.
Luckily for me, I eschew Windows in general, except for gaming purposes. And lately, even the games I play are legit.
If we can inspect the source, it doesn't really matter who they are. The moment the source is closed, we can trust it about as much as we can trust the author.
Would you trust a program with a root-level access to your data written by a Scientologist, and whose source you cannot inpect?
While working at a place may have you end up with forced Scientology indoctrination, I really don't think a file system is going to make you kill your wife.
However, I'd say that a program with a root-level access to the disk made by a Scientologist is a risky thing to have on your computer. While the CoS has officially abandoned their Fair Game doctrine, I would not go so far as to assume it is completely abandoned in practice. Maybe I'm paranoid, but techincally, the moment you oppose them, your data may be theirs. It's not like we can inspect the source.
Now, I have to hand it to the Germans; they really do deal with the CoS as they should: with complete distrust and disapproval.
BTW, I am fairly active in trying to gat religious education out of Croatian public schools, which probably won't happen due to some unconstitutional contracts with the Vatican. Thus I sympathize greatly with everyone forced to endure religious drivel in their school and/or workplace.
I know. My brother used to do this occasionally, although only for short conversations á la: "Wake up, it's time for lunch." - "Yeah, I'll be there in five minutes." Of course he would then go back to seep and not even remember I ever woke him up. Quite annoying until it stopped at some point.
Oh, I've been told I'd keep up a fairly lengthy conversation. My grandmother claimed my mother used to talk to her like that; they would discuss chores and whatnot while my mother was asleep, and she wouldn't even know the difference. Even when she tried to make sure my mother was awake by making her repeat everything, it still didn't work - she would repeat everything while asleep.
As for this story: With more background links (such as a discussion in a medical journal) this would be a bona fide geeky news story. While it's been knwn for a while that people can act in their sleep (even to the point of semi-intelligent conversation), something as abstract as writing mails is new.
While I agree writing mails is new, even intelligent conversation is possible while sleeping. As long as you're not dreaming.
In my experience, talking while dreaming causes dreams to spill over, and the resulting sentences become nonsensical. Talking in between dreams seems to result in quite normal conversation; the only problem is that I never seem to remember it.
I suppose out of body experiences are sort of like brain malfunctions.
If I understand it well, this is akin to the mechanisms that allow us to e.g. feel the pressure at the tip of the pencil instead of our fingertips. Or drivers expanding their perception of body to the size of their vehicle.
Our brains allow us to feel our tools as parts of ourselves. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
I thought that gun looked familiar... reminds me of the lemon squeeze palm pistol (I think it was called that; I'm translating the Croatian translation back to English, so I might be a bit off).
Slashdot Mirror
That's called "slashdotting".
BTW, I decoded your .sig, will you please sue me now?
Absolutely. My lawyers will call your lawyers and arrange everything.
Oh, dear. So who certifies the certifiers?
The example cited is "RESOLVED INVALID". The link to the "perfect attack" seems to be slashdotted. And at the time I started writing this comment, there have been no comments whatsoever.
Does this mean that Slashdotters have all swarmed the link trying to find out how to execute the perfect attack? Are we seeing a new trend here, with people actually reading TFAs?
Or is it that too many people have Greasemonkey scripts filtering out kdawson's posts?
Well, actually they get code snippets and compiler directives.
The Cathechism of the Catholic Church is, among other things, a set of rules how to interpret the Bible. Now, you do not have to read the whole Bible, but applying those compiler directives to the source text, you should be able to get the same results, i.e. opinions. Similarly, I do not tend to read the source code to the open source programs I compile because it's all Greek to me. But if I wanted to, I could.
So no, no-one really follows any religion to the letter, but their source texts are still completely open. Unlike CoS, whose texts are... restricted.
Ah. Thank you for the clarification.
Nowadays, I guess they just hear a voice booming "Finish him!!!" and everyone knows what has to be done.
Either that, or Code Red.
Well, in Synaptic and Aptitude you do get categories, at least in the simpler view. Seems that in KDE 4 Aptitude no longer has the complex view (though I haven't looked hard), so the categories are now default. So that's OK.
The only thing missing now are better descriptions, and maybe a screenshot or whatever. However, there is a trade-off between DB size (especially since it needs to be updated from time to time, most often daily) and user-friendliness.
It seems to be that falsely claiming you are officially abandoning your Fair Game doctrine would be perfectly fine under the Fair Game doctrine.
Now that is a chilling thought. Especially since it's true.
Also add the importance of helping each other and sharing, i.e. show them in practice.
It would definitely be an improvement if all programs were semantically tagged in the package manager. Another pane with a screenshot or two, as well as some information about the program would indeed be a nice addition.
Now, who do we suggest that to?
Add a Tux-shaped constellation and I'm sold.
As several other posters have said, bringing in a bunch of people representing just one distro would be misleading.
However, bringing in several people representing different distros might not be such a bad idea. So you get some college student for Ubuntu, an uber-geek for Gentoo, someone artsy for Sabayon, an engineer for Debian, and so on, and so forth. And definitely some guy wearing a fedora (preferably with an Anansi Boys reference).
Linux is not one OS for one kind of people; thus playing the diversity and versatility card might be just the thing we need.
Is it any different than another religion that you cannot inspect the source?? Not that I'm showing preferential treatment to Scientology mind you.
Of course you are not showing preferential treatment; in fact, you are attempting to be even-handed to the point of political correctness.
The point is, I am aware of no other religion that makes (or at least made) the utter destruction of its opponents by any and all means necessary a part of its official policy. Mind you, Islamic terrorists (as a prototypical example) do not qualify: their actions are based on a selective reading of their holy book. In Scientology, there is no selective reading; the Fair Game doctrine was/is their official doctrine.
Besides, if those prototypical Islamic terrorists got hold of my data, there is not much they would do with it. They do not engage in smear campaigns and turning the authorities on me. OTOH, the CoS might, for instance, report me as a paedophile if they find something matching hentai*.jpg (I've seen way too often that hentai == paedo in people's minds, even if all the characters have tits bigger than their heads). It doesn't matter if I am later proven innocent; my name would be ruined.
Luckily for me, I eschew Windows in general, except for gaming purposes. And lately, even the games I play are legit.
You mean, a priest?
If we can inspect the source, it doesn't really matter who they are. The moment the source is closed, we can trust it about as much as we can trust the author.
Would you trust a program with a root-level access to your data written by a Scientologist, and whose source you cannot inpect?
While working at a place may have you end up with forced Scientology indoctrination, I really don't think a file system is going to make you kill your wife.
However, I'd say that a program with a root-level access to the disk made by a Scientologist is a risky thing to have on your computer. While the CoS has officially abandoned their Fair Game doctrine, I would not go so far as to assume it is completely abandoned in practice. Maybe I'm paranoid, but techincally, the moment you oppose them, your data may be theirs. It's not like we can inspect the source.
If you used Linux you wouldn't need to buy a defragmenting application.
You don't need to buy one if you use Windows, either. There are several freeware and even open source defragmenters for Windows.
Now, I have to hand it to the Germans; they really do deal with the CoS as they should: with complete distrust and disapproval.
BTW, I am fairly active in trying to gat religious education out of Croatian public schools, which probably won't happen due to some unconstitutional contracts with the Vatican. Thus I sympathize greatly with everyone forced to endure religious drivel in their school and/or workplace.
I know. My brother used to do this occasionally, although only for short conversations á la: "Wake up, it's time for lunch." - "Yeah, I'll be there in five minutes." Of course he would then go back to seep and not even remember I ever woke him up. Quite annoying until it stopped at some point.
Oh, I've been told I'd keep up a fairly lengthy conversation. My grandmother claimed my mother used to talk to her like that; they would discuss chores and whatnot while my mother was asleep, and she wouldn't even know the difference. Even when she tried to make sure my mother was awake by making her repeat everything, it still didn't work - she would repeat everything while asleep.
As for this story: With more background links (such as a discussion in a medical journal) this would be a bona fide geeky news story. While it's been knwn for a while that people can act in their sleep (even to the point of semi-intelligent conversation), something as abstract as writing mails is new.
While I agree writing mails is new, even intelligent conversation is possible while sleeping. As long as you're not dreaming.
In my experience, talking while dreaming causes dreams to spill over, and the resulting sentences become nonsensical. Talking in between dreams seems to result in quite normal conversation; the only problem is that I never seem to remember it.
... when this:
Anyone stupid enough to get infected this way deserves everything Darwin can throw their way.
makes you ask "what has all this have to do with the OS kernel?"
I suppose out of body experiences are sort of like brain malfunctions.
If I understand it well, this is akin to the mechanisms that allow us to e.g. feel the pressure at the tip of the pencil instead of our fingertips. Or drivers expanding their perception of body to the size of their vehicle.
Our brains allow us to feel our tools as parts of ourselves. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Ah. Thank you.
I am indeed talking about a revolver (with seven bullets IIRC).
Now waiting for wfbtrfs, i.e. the wife-beater FS.
Isn't that ReiserFS?
Nope. The wife-beater FS should produce more consistent results. ReiserFS only has one notable performance on a single benchmark.
I thought that gun looked familiar... reminds me of the lemon squeeze palm pistol (I think it was called that; I'm translating the Croatian translation back to English, so I might be a bit off).