I think you missunderstood. what he was saying was that since you use the same password for sudo as for your user account, to gain root privelages through sudo, you only need to crack one password, whereas if you use root logins, and disallow them directly (allowed only through su,) you need to crack two passwords instead of just one.
of course, as he said, there are ways of making this also the case with sudo, but they take away any advantage it offers.
I'd like to go for ogg/flac, but unfortunately, my mp3 player doesn't support them. They'd be fine for my computer, but I wouldn't be able to listen to them on the go. the day I find a high quality mp3 player that supports them, I will drop mp3's without a second thought. unfortunately, for the moment I can't seem to find a good solution.
you can compile from source in slackware, just like any other distro, and it's not difficult:
./configure
make
make install
it even will warn you about dependncies, which the binary package system does not. of course, instaling from a tarball this way makes a program somewhat annoying to remove, so after grabbing the checkinstall binary off of the slackware page I do:
./configure
make
checkinstall
which does essentially the same thing, except that now if I want to uninstall, all I hav to do is:
removepkg [package name]
this has never failed me. I'm not sure how what you've said really sets gentoo apart from other distros. Perhaps you've just had bad experiences because you've tried to convert RPM's, which is generally not the best option since they expect all the files to be in places where the aren't nessicarily; the tarball just comes in without bias, and sees where they actually are. In any case, your argument certainly doesn't make a case against your point, so to each his own, blah blah blah.
I have it myself. Trust me, I'm not any more lacking in free will than anyone else. Asperger's has absolutely nothing to do with free will, and as for the rest of them, it's not like that's all those people are. The alcoholic and the drug addict may have problems with a certain substance, but with unrelated matters, they're no different from the rest of us. The other examples are probably better.
yeah, this was my thinking. I really don't give a fuck about winamp security because:
a) winamp doesn't need to touch the internet, so I don't let it do that anyways
b) the only way anything is even going to get as far as fucking with winamp is if I manually open it in the program, which I don't tend to do with non-music files from outside the official winamp site.
and maybe it's more bloated than it used to be, but I haven't noticed, perhaps because the machine I'm using it on has an althlon 64 and a gig of ram. I don't do gaming on my other machines, so they don't run windows anyway.
It's not new, it's just not common in most affluent or urban areas. what's new is your ability to casually communicate with the rural population without going there (I'm just guessing you don't live in such a place, correct me if I'm wrong)
I think this would clear up a lot of things for a lot of people. I already have no problem with gay "marriage," but it did start off as a religious concept, and most people still have their weddings performed by some sort of church or temple. Many religions disagree with gay marriage, and so many people extrapolate this religious belief to the legal contract that is marriage. let me reiterate something a math teacher once suggested:
-abolish the term marriage in any kind of legal context. as far as the government is concerned, "marriage" does not legally exist. it will still be talked about, couples will still say that they are "married," but technically, marraige is just their cultural term for their relationship, it has no legal meaning.
-create some other type of legal contract that is identical to what marriage is now. call it something less affiliated with religion, like "civil union." if a couple wanted to get "married," they may have a service performed out of tradition, but this would be the legal backend that would give them the legal rights of a "married" couple.
gay marriage is perfectly fine in my religon (I'm Unitarian), but it's not in many others, and though it's also legal in my state, it isn't anywhere else in this country, and I feel like we're sort of trampling on the first amendment if we disallow gay marriage because many people feel their religion tells them it isn't right; mine accepts it with open arms, and to legally tell us we're wrong would be to favor one religon over another.
when you use a religious term for something in our legal system, you have to be very careful to avoid that, and I feel like it would be better to just use a more neutral term. sure, some people will still oppose it, but only the obvious biggots; doing this would take away any argument that people have who say, "I certainly think gays should be treated equally, and I don't mind if they have relationships with one another, but I really feel that marriage is between a man and a woman." because marriage does not exist, and what becomes a civil union is defined as having the legal purpose of giving a couple the convinences outlined in the contract. it has no other connotations, so the statement becomes self-contradictory.
what does sexual orientation have to do with morality? if there is something morally wrong with it, exactly what is the problem? are they somehow hurting someone by doing this? if so, who?
yes, if everyone was gay, it's possilbe the human race would go extinct. certainly if it had always been true, though I think if the gay population just steadily rose to become 100%, they would most likely make using serrogates (sp?) standard practice. In any case, what's your point? It won't happen, and with the current ratio of hetrosexuals to homosexuals, people are still concerned with overpopulation. it's not a phenominon that really hurts or helps anyone, so it really can't be depicted as a moral dellema.
When a woman has to sign up for SELECTIVE SERVICE then she can come talk to me about how bad she has it in life.
A solid point. We see this huge push for equal treatment, but everyone just avoids the few perks that being a woman does have. i.e. not being forced to go get yourself killed when we run low on willing cannon fodder. They actually don't even have the option of signing up, though that's somewhat moot, since if you would choose to, you'd probably just volunteer for the militiary anyways.
this section was still ok I guess:
As for women whining about being hit on all the time and being stared at? Give me a break and a half. Us men would give our right nut to be treated that way by women. Get paid to have sex? Bring it on!
not sure I'd do it myself, especially having to deal with a pimp, but as a freelancer, there are probably plenty of guys who would be glad to. on the other hand, there are likely a fair number of women who wouldn't mind either, under the right conditions, though perhaps not as many, and perhaps they aren't as open about it in todays society, which whether you're one of those women or not, is a pretty solid example of a rediculous double standard.
I'd also like to note that while I'm not suggesting rape is acceptable, but a fair amount of women's fashion these days probably contributes to that (not blaming it on the victims at all here, but come on), and just the constantly being hit on. if a guy walks down the street without his shirt on, his friends will just laugh at him if some fat girl whistles. if a woman is wearing a skirt that is just barely long enough for her private areas to be hidden, and a shirt that leaves a 4 inch gap between itself and the skirt, she somehow seems to think she still has the right to complain about guys hitting on her. if you don't wear tight clothes/clothes that don't entirely cover your body, and you still get more attention than you would like, ok. as long as you're not being forced into anything though, I think the parent's point that I most recently quoted applies here; if you're getting hit on too much, sorry, but on the other side of the fence, most guys are expected to do absolutely everything themselves. yeah, it's more or less acceptable for a girl to ask out a guy, but very few of them actually do it! if you want us to stop making a move on every woman that interests us, make it reasonable for us to expect to be hit on ourselves once in a while. it's no picnic when it almost never happens either. (and no, I'm not ugly, most of my female friends tell me I'm quite attractive.)
here's where it really went down hill:
Now, I'm not condoning rape at all, but sheesh, let's look at the cold hard reality here for what it is: if there was a city on Earth where women sneaked into windows and jumped on guys' wangs at night, and where a random walk by an alley was likely to end in a guy being snatched by a gang of sex starved women? Ya damned SKIPPY almost the entire world's male hetero population would immigrate there! That's the stone cold truth. Can I get a witness out there??
uh... no. there would be some guys like you, who would be stupid enough to think that this was fun, go down there, get raped buy several hideous women, and then promptley move back home. the rest of us are smart enough to realize that rape is very differnt from casual sex, and can appriciate not wanting to be jumped, dragged into an alley, and violated.
Get my point? The whole pushing for equality thing is crap when if you consider that if you get rid of things like these completely stupid stereotypes that the problem of low numbers of women in science would probably fix itself.
which is exactly what the soap opera idea was about. generalize that to tv show, and you have a decent idea, I don't know about specifically soap operas. In any case, the idea was start making shows about successful women in science and tech, and people will stop thinking it's a male thing. this one floped, but there are already a couple out there, Bones comes to mind.
I have absolutely no complaints about the design of my DS, and actually I liked the original GBA better in terms of design, it just sucked on account of the lack of backlight.
What you're really saying is that people who don't agree with your viewpoints and your viewpoints alone are obviously crazy and should be disposed of to prevent dissent and trouble. Herr Hitler and Comrade Stalin proudly support you.
when I read the GP I knew someone was going to say this...
a perfect world is the key phrasing here. there are definately people out there who are not qualified to vote. not because they disagree with the GP, or me, or anyone else, but because they are horribly uninformed. there are people who vote for a candidate because his teeth or whiter, or his hair is nicer. people actually think the whole kissing baby rutine says something about a candidate, beyond that their campaign manager isn't totally incompotent. these are the people who in a perfect world, wouldn't be voting. though I suppose in a perfect world, they would pay enough attention to make an informed decision.
obviously implementing this would be an awful idea, because it begs the question how do you decide who doesn't know what they're talking about? then of course the situation you suggested arises, and pretty soon nobody is really voting. I think you misinterperted what he meant though, I'm fairly sure he wasn't suggesting we do this.
granted, but it's still a whole lot better than a flaw that has existed literally for decades, is finally exposed, and it's another several weeks before the vendor releases a patch. in the GP's scenario, there are most likely only a small handful of people who are exploiting the flaw, since it is probably more likely for any given person who spots it to report it than to use it to their advantage. sure, stuff like this sometimes goes unnoticed for quite some time, but it is unnoticed by everyone, at least for the most part.
does this mean that as long as you keep your OSS up to date you're invincible? Fuck no. No one ever said OSS was impenetrable. it is however, more secure than a situation where a hole is well publisized long before there is a patch.
Uh... clearly this patching shows the inherent superiority of Open Source!
you say this in jest, and while I agree that there are people with this atitude, and it's annoying, the fact remains that by the time we even heard about, there was already a fix. any software is going to have issues, and if this was microsoft software, I might start to think they're considering coming through on that promise about security that gates made so long ago; this kind of response time is pretty impressive.
while in general, I agree with you, your point doesn't quite apply to this situation.
we're talking about supporting old web browsers when doing web design. you can't charge for the site working with a particular browser, (or at least, that would be a little weird,) it either works or it doesn't. the question is, is it worth making sure it works with browser X or is the extra work going to outweigh the benefits?
again, we're not dealing with the kind of support where, "ok, I'll help you figure out this problem," we're talking about the kind of support where "my product works with the tool you're using." that kind of support is either there or it isn't. no one is going to pay you to send them a version of the site reworked for their browser.
Here in the UK, a monopoly is defined as a 20% market share
You people are weird. seriously though, this would allow mutliple companies to have a monopoly in the same market. up to five, in fact. there are plenty of markets where that many signifcant competitors do not exist, yet no one is complaning. I'm sorry, but that's just a rediculous number. Can someone else confirm if that is even true?
in the US, monopolies are not even illegal, what is illegal is unfairly leveraging a monopoly to avoid competition. It's debateable whether the ipod actually has a monopoly, I don't think it quite qulifies, I myself use a creative mp3 player, and I know plenty of people who use other players as well, none of us felt for a second like we had no other options. they are certainly leveraging fairplay, but they don't quite have the market share to make it a serious problem.
And that would be that. And threatening to sue would only get you laughed at; their lawyers can beat up your lawyers. Besides, the EULA makes them immune from that kind of liability. (Yes, I know XCP gets installed even if you decline the EULA, but try explaining that to 12 morons off the street.)
yeah, ok, going in there personally won't work so well. I wouldn't even bother threatening, they won't take you remoteley serioulsy until you actually do sue. yes, they have better lawyers than an individual can afford, which is why you would not sue them by yourself, you would instead hop on to one of the several big class action lawsuits against them, which have a much better chance of getting you some money. and give the average person some credit, the hard part in convincing them the EULA is bullshit is just getting them to give you the time of day. when they are legally mandated to do so, they are perfectly capable of understanding that you have to actually AGREE to a contract for it to hold water.
Slashdot Mirror
of course, as he said, there are ways of making this also the case with sudo, but they take away any advantage it offers.
I'd like to go for ogg/flac, but unfortunately, my mp3 player doesn't support them. They'd be fine for my computer, but I wouldn't be able to listen to them on the go. the day I find a high quality mp3 player that supports them, I will drop mp3's without a second thought. unfortunately, for the moment I can't seem to find a good solution.
but the part that really irks me is that they appretnly explicitly allow for this.
it even will warn you about dependncies, which the binary package system does not. of course, instaling from a tarball this way makes a program somewhat annoying to remove, so after grabbing the checkinstall binary off of the slackware page I do:
which does essentially the same thing, except that now if I want to uninstall, all I hav to do is:
removepkg [package name]
this has never failed me. I'm not sure how what you've said really sets gentoo apart from other distros. Perhaps you've just had bad experiences because you've tried to convert RPM's, which is generally not the best option since they expect all the files to be in places where the aren't nessicarily; the tarball just comes in without bias, and sees where they actually are. In any case, your argument certainly doesn't make a case against your point, so to each his own, blah blah blah.
enlighten yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger's_syndrome
I have it myself. Trust me, I'm not any more lacking in free will than anyone else. Asperger's has absolutely nothing to do with free will, and as for the rest of them, it's not like that's all those people are. The alcoholic and the drug addict may have problems with a certain substance, but with unrelated matters, they're no different from the rest of us. The other examples are probably better.
seriously, where did you get Asperger's?
interesting. so how does one make the call now?
a) winamp doesn't need to touch the internet, so I don't let it do that anyways
b) the only way anything is even going to get as far as fucking with winamp is if I manually open it in the program, which I don't tend to do with non-music files from outside the official winamp site.
and maybe it's more bloated than it used to be, but I haven't noticed, perhaps because the machine I'm using it on has an althlon 64 and a gig of ram. I don't do gaming on my other machines, so they don't run windows anyway.
Not to mention that he suggests the ONLY way that Unix is more secure is through having admin disabled by default. ha.
it seems the mirror has become another casualty to the slashdot effect. anyone know of any mirrors that can withstand a good slashdotting?
nice, if only he hadn't signed the post as john...
yep. mirror anyone?
It's not new, it's just not common in most affluent or urban areas. what's new is your ability to casually communicate with the rural population without going there (I'm just guessing you don't live in such a place, correct me if I'm wrong)
I think this would clear up a lot of things for a lot of people. I already have no problem with gay "marriage," but it did start off as a religious concept, and most people still have their weddings performed by some sort of church or temple. Many religions disagree with gay marriage, and so many people extrapolate this religious belief to the legal contract that is marriage. let me reiterate something a math teacher once suggested:
-abolish the term marriage in any kind of legal context. as far as the government is concerned, "marriage" does not legally exist. it will still be talked about, couples will still say that they are "married," but technically, marraige is just their cultural term for their relationship, it has no legal meaning.
-create some other type of legal contract that is identical to what marriage is now. call it something less affiliated with religion, like "civil union." if a couple wanted to get "married," they may have a service performed out of tradition, but this would be the legal backend that would give them the legal rights of a "married" couple.
gay marriage is perfectly fine in my religon (I'm Unitarian), but it's not in many others, and though it's also legal in my state, it isn't anywhere else in this country, and I feel like we're sort of trampling on the first amendment if we disallow gay marriage because many people feel their religion tells them it isn't right; mine accepts it with open arms, and to legally tell us we're wrong would be to favor one religon over another.
when you use a religious term for something in our legal system, you have to be very careful to avoid that, and I feel like it would be better to just use a more neutral term. sure, some people will still oppose it, but only the obvious biggots; doing this would take away any argument that people have who say, "I certainly think gays should be treated equally, and I don't mind if they have relationships with one another, but I really feel that marriage is between a man and a woman." because marriage does not exist, and what becomes a civil union is defined as having the legal purpose of giving a couple the convinences outlined in the contract. it has no other connotations, so the statement becomes self-contradictory.
yes, if everyone was gay, it's possilbe the human race would go extinct. certainly if it had always been true, though I think if the gay population just steadily rose to become 100%, they would most likely make using serrogates (sp?) standard practice. In any case, what's your point? It won't happen, and with the current ratio of hetrosexuals to homosexuals, people are still concerned with overpopulation. it's not a phenominon that really hurts or helps anyone, so it really can't be depicted as a moral dellema.
When a woman has to sign up for SELECTIVE SERVICE then she can come talk to me about how bad she has it in life.
A solid point. We see this huge push for equal treatment, but everyone just avoids the few perks that being a woman does have. i.e. not being forced to go get yourself killed when we run low on willing cannon fodder. They actually don't even have the option of signing up, though that's somewhat moot, since if you would choose to, you'd probably just volunteer for the militiary anyways.
this section was still ok I guess:
As for women whining about being hit on all the time and being stared at? Give me a break and a half. Us men would give our right nut to be treated that way by women. Get paid to have sex? Bring it on!
not sure I'd do it myself, especially having to deal with a pimp, but as a freelancer, there are probably plenty of guys who would be glad to. on the other hand, there are likely a fair number of women who wouldn't mind either, under the right conditions, though perhaps not as many, and perhaps they aren't as open about it in todays society, which whether you're one of those women or not, is a pretty solid example of a rediculous double standard.
I'd also like to note that while I'm not suggesting rape is acceptable, but a fair amount of women's fashion these days probably contributes to that (not blaming it on the victims at all here, but come on), and just the constantly being hit on. if a guy walks down the street without his shirt on, his friends will just laugh at him if some fat girl whistles. if a woman is wearing a skirt that is just barely long enough for her private areas to be hidden, and a shirt that leaves a 4 inch gap between itself and the skirt, she somehow seems to think she still has the right to complain about guys hitting on her. if you don't wear tight clothes/clothes that don't entirely cover your body, and you still get more attention than you would like, ok. as long as you're not being forced into anything though, I think the parent's point that I most recently quoted applies here; if you're getting hit on too much, sorry, but on the other side of the fence, most guys are expected to do absolutely everything themselves. yeah, it's more or less acceptable for a girl to ask out a guy, but very few of them actually do it! if you want us to stop making a move on every woman that interests us, make it reasonable for us to expect to be hit on ourselves once in a while. it's no picnic when it almost never happens either. (and no, I'm not ugly, most of my female friends tell me I'm quite attractive.)
here's where it really went down hill:
Now, I'm not condoning rape at all, but sheesh, let's look at the cold hard reality here for what it is: if there was a city on Earth where women sneaked into windows and jumped on guys' wangs at night, and where a random walk by an alley was likely to end in a guy being snatched by a gang of sex starved women? Ya damned SKIPPY almost the entire world's male hetero population would immigrate there! That's the stone cold truth. Can I get a witness out there??
uh... no. there would be some guys like you, who would be stupid enough to think that this was fun, go down there, get raped buy several hideous women, and then promptley move back home. the rest of us are smart enough to realize that rape is very differnt from casual sex, and can appriciate not wanting to be jumped, dragged into an alley, and violated.
yeah, and I don't know one person who takes soaps seriously. hence, bad idea.
which is exactly what the soap opera idea was about. generalize that to tv show, and you have a decent idea, I don't know about specifically soap operas. In any case, the idea was start making shows about successful women in science and tech, and people will stop thinking it's a male thing. this one floped, but there are already a couple out there, Bones comes to mind.
I have absolutely no complaints about the design of my DS, and actually I liked the original GBA better in terms of design, it just sucked on account of the lack of backlight.
a perfect world is the key phrasing here. there are definately people out there who are not qualified to vote. not because they disagree with the GP, or me, or anyone else, but because they are horribly uninformed. there are people who vote for a candidate because his teeth or whiter, or his hair is nicer. people actually think the whole kissing baby rutine says something about a candidate, beyond that their campaign manager isn't totally incompotent. these are the people who in a perfect world, wouldn't be voting. though I suppose in a perfect world, they would pay enough attention to make an informed decision.
obviously implementing this would be an awful idea, because it begs the question how do you decide who doesn't know what they're talking about? then of course the situation you suggested arises, and pretty soon nobody is really voting. I think you misinterperted what he meant though, I'm fairly sure he wasn't suggesting we do this.
does this mean that as long as you keep your OSS up to date you're invincible? Fuck no. No one ever said OSS was impenetrable. it is however, more secure than a situation where a hole is well publisized long before there is a patch.
you say this in jest, and while I agree that there are people with this atitude, and it's annoying, the fact remains that by the time we even heard about, there was already a fix. any software is going to have issues, and if this was microsoft software, I might start to think they're considering coming through on that promise about security that gates made so long ago; this kind of response time is pretty impressive.
we're talking about supporting old web browsers when doing web design. you can't charge for the site working with a particular browser, (or at least, that would be a little weird,) it either works or it doesn't. the question is, is it worth making sure it works with browser X or is the extra work going to outweigh the benefits?
again, we're not dealing with the kind of support where, "ok, I'll help you figure out this problem," we're talking about the kind of support where "my product works with the tool you're using." that kind of support is either there or it isn't. no one is going to pay you to send them a version of the site reworked for their browser.
You people are weird. seriously though, this would allow mutliple companies to have a monopoly in the same market. up to five, in fact. there are plenty of markets where that many signifcant competitors do not exist, yet no one is complaning. I'm sorry, but that's just a rediculous number. Can someone else confirm if that is even true?
in the US, monopolies are not even illegal, what is illegal is unfairly leveraging a monopoly to avoid competition. It's debateable whether the ipod actually has a monopoly, I don't think it quite qulifies, I myself use a creative mp3 player, and I know plenty of people who use other players as well, none of us felt for a second like we had no other options. they are certainly leveraging fairplay, but they don't quite have the market share to make it a serious problem.
that was my thought too, but his point is still valid, even if his sense of time needs some work.
And that would be that. And threatening to sue would only get you laughed at; their lawyers can beat up your lawyers. Besides, the EULA makes them immune from that kind of liability. (Yes, I know XCP gets installed even if you decline the EULA, but try explaining that to 12 morons off the street.)
yeah, ok, going in there personally won't work so well. I wouldn't even bother threatening, they won't take you remoteley serioulsy until you actually do sue. yes, they have better lawyers than an individual can afford, which is why you would not sue them by yourself, you would instead hop on to one of the several big class action lawsuits against them, which have a much better chance of getting you some money. and give the average person some credit, the hard part in convincing them the EULA is bullshit is just getting them to give you the time of day. when they are legally mandated to do so, they are perfectly capable of understanding that you have to actually AGREE to a contract for it to hold water.