Technically, you could setup a Linux gateway fairly easily and you can tcpdump all traffic going through it. All you need is two ethernet ports on a spare/old PC. I know I have a few old motherboards laying around that have two Ethernet ports on them. (Well...this is Slashdot. How many of us don't?)
So the expensive part is really just setting up the machine to do it and you could just remove it when you are done.
(This is what I assume the GP was talking about when they stated: "You'd need to be running some software on the switch or on the internet gateway")
But if I maximize windows on both screens, now the menu items are on the "main" screen for the app on the secondary? From the video posted above, that's how it looks. That's terrible to an extreme.
Absolutely, but for someone to claim that Unity is "throwing away years of UI experience" is hyperbole at best and disingenuous at worst.
I'd like to know how Unity is supposed to handle multiple monitors. What menu items show up in the "task bar" and where does the sidebar show up? What if I have two apps open (one on each screen) and I swap between them often?
Windows XP was easy enough to fix. I made it look and act like Windows 2000 and I've been running "Classic" all the way up to Windows 7 who's classic theme looks like utter garbage.
I actually began the switch on my laptop to KDE this weekend. I updated using the automatic dist-upgrade button and when my laptop rebooted, Unity had failed to load and it didn't revert to classic automatically. Logging out and back into classic failed as well. If I were a less technical user, I'd think I needed to do a complete rebuild and lose all my data.
Luckily (and oddly) I could switch to another tty and run unity. Somehow, unlike other managers, it loaded on the GUI terminal instead of giving me an error stating that it couldn't find the display.
Unluckily, I found out that I hated the "Fisher Price" feel of what I'm going to call the Ubuntu Start Menu with all it's 128 pixel icons, fat borders, and Win7 like search feature. Add that to the stupid auto-hide (I HATE auto-hide!) sidebar that didn't always show itself when you had your mouse on that edge of the screen. The simplistic interface lead me to believe there was no customization options, so I removed it and went to KDE since gnome was no longer loading properly and I didn't feel like messing with it. Also, the close buttons got pushed to the left again!/smackhand "Leave it on the right."
They messed up something big with this switch and it's left a terrible taste in my mouth regarding Ubuntu. I'm considering going back to Debian and dumping the KDE/Gnome setups and digging into OpenBox or something. I dreaded doing it before because the default Gnome 2 desktop was great and I have a feeling they are going to GnomeShell/Unity like (or planning on it.)
He was born to US citizens, so he was a natural born citizen.
I can't believe I still have to explain this...
If you are born in the US to Mexican parents, you are a natural born citizen. If you are a US citizen traveling abroad and have a kid, the kid is considered a natural born citizen through your citizenship. If you are born in any other country, to non-US citizen parents, you have to be naturalized to be a US citizen and are ineligible for Presidency.
Actually, I'd still like to be able to own a heavy weapon... why not? A tank would be fun.
I don't know what I'd do with bio weapons or nuclear material, unless I could operate my own reactor. In which case, I'd be responsible for any fallout and I'd be falling into the realm of the "holy crap this is too expensive to operate" so I'd likely not do it.
"If I have my own desert, why can't I explode my own nuclear weapons?"
If I have enough land to safely detonate a car bomb without harming anyone... just for fun... why can I not? Why can't I buy a mini-gun and saw down trees on the weekend? (besides the fact that the ammo alone would probably put my bank account deep in the red.)
The problem comes when you do harm someone. Do you think that government can have total control over it's citizens? Is keeping me from detonating bombs on my land going to prevent someone from detonating one in Central Park? Hint: It's not. They'll do it if it's illegal or not.
The only thing you are doing by banning the list of things is making law abiding citizens less free.
If you are born in another country, you are not a US natural born citizen. You can become a naturalized citizen but you are ineligible for Presidency unless you are born in the US, are 35 years old and have lived in the country for the last 14 of those years (most of your adult life.) I don't understand why this is complicated to you.
Actually, to me, it would make more sense to be rewarded for doing good without fear of retribution. Any omnipotent being would favor people who were generally were good people before picking those that were only good because they were selfishly looking to get into heaven. Ideally these would be people who didn't know of or believe in said being and still did good seeing the world as a cold dark math problem and surmounting that.
Then again, I'm more of a non-believer for lack of evidence.
As far as hope... Hope is synonymous for "It's not going to happen but I'm going to try anyway." (Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.)
Of course, you could be getting hung up on the use of "Natural" in the human sense as a natural birth (vs being born in a tube or something like that...)
I'm sure that they intended "natural" to mean something that have lived it's entire(or mostly) life in the same locality (in this case, country) So a natural born citizen is someone who has spent their entire existence in the country as part of it.
You could interpret the wording: (I assume you know how to look up the 14th Amendment...)
Natural vs. Naturalization
Natural would mean: existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world (a natural part of the country... belonging) Naturalization, in this case, would mean: To make natural
So a natural born citizen would not be a "naturalized" person because they were born natural and not naturalized later in life. Or in other words, you can be "brought in"/naturalized but you will still not be natural to that environment: only accepted.
I think "insane" is an overly harsh word for someone seeking an answer to a question. It makes you sound like the people who you are trying to discredit. IE: Anyone that doesn't agree with you has some mental disorder.
As much as I appreciate what the free market has done to get us were we are, there is a casualty: Boring (but factual) news.
The Colbert Report is evidence of this. People get bored with the normal news and seek out entertaining news. It takes money to verify statements and facts, but with the Internet anyone can become a source of "news." It makes it harder for news organizations to provide in depth reporting because they are competing with zero cost alternatives. I've always laughed at movies supposedly set in the future that depict reporters as entertainers (Ruby Rod, anyone?) but I fear that may be more and more of a reality as time goes on.
The article summary was written to make waves: To attract people to the conversation (good or bad.)
Why does it not make sense to allow a person to own an item?
I don't care what the item is called. I don't care that it could be used to beat you to a bloody pulp (or do so at range...)
I want to know why it doesn't make sense in a civilized nation to allow someone to carry a tool that can be used to harm someone else if used to do so by the operator. Why do you continue to blame said tool instead of blaming said person? If you had a rash of people running around pushing other people into the busy street with a ten foot pole, how is the sensible solution banning all ten foot poles? What do you do if they started using nine foot poles? What about three foot poles?
Article 2 Section 1: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
I really hope Cisco puts out an updated version of this router. This thing has to be their best seller (I'm going out on a limb and stating that the customization ability is key to that) and I can see why it's been around since 2002. I have two of them myself I continually mess around with. They still kick out newer revisions, but they haven't really changed much in the line of overall capability. Just sit down, draw up plans for a fully third party flashable update and make it awesome hardware wise. Let the guys at Tomato/DDWRT do their thing.
It would be a terrible motto if you wanted to be evil... previous Google stories here prove that. It gives people (like you) something to bring up every time there's a story about them that and gives that person a way to push their viewpoint.
If you truly wanted to be evil, you'd want a low profile, no public comments, as little interaction as possible. You'd dish out information in small chunks. Preferably those that you've indexed in your ultimate index of the Internet so that the users don't suspect you.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, you could setup a Linux gateway fairly easily and you can tcpdump all traffic going through it. All you need is two ethernet ports on a spare/old PC. I know I have a few old motherboards laying around that have two Ethernet ports on them. (Well...this is Slashdot. How many of us don't?)
So the expensive part is really just setting up the machine to do it and you could just remove it when you are done.
(This is what I assume the GP was talking about when they stated: "You'd need to be running some software on the switch or on the internet gateway")
But if I maximize windows on both screens, now the menu items are on the "main" screen for the app on the secondary? From the video posted above, that's how it looks. That's terrible to an extreme.
Absolutely, but for someone to claim that Unity is "throwing away years of UI experience" is hyperbole at best and disingenuous at worst.
I'd like to know how Unity is supposed to handle multiple monitors. What menu items show up in the "task bar" and where does the sidebar show up? What if I have two apps open (one on each screen) and I swap between them often?
Windows XP was easy enough to fix. I made it look and act like Windows 2000 and I've been running "Classic" all the way up to Windows 7 who's classic theme looks like utter garbage.
I actually began the switch on my laptop to KDE this weekend. I updated using the automatic dist-upgrade button and when my laptop rebooted, Unity had failed to load and it didn't revert to classic automatically. Logging out and back into classic failed as well. If I were a less technical user, I'd think I needed to do a complete rebuild and lose all my data.
Luckily (and oddly) I could switch to another tty and run unity. Somehow, unlike other managers, it loaded on the GUI terminal instead of giving me an error stating that it couldn't find the display.
Unluckily, I found out that I hated the "Fisher Price" feel of what I'm going to call the Ubuntu Start Menu with all it's 128 pixel icons, fat borders, and Win7 like search feature. Add that to the stupid auto-hide (I HATE auto-hide!) sidebar that didn't always show itself when you had your mouse on that edge of the screen. The simplistic interface lead me to believe there was no customization options, so I removed it and went to KDE since gnome was no longer loading properly and I didn't feel like messing with it. Also, the close buttons got pushed to the left again! /smackhand "Leave it on the right."
They messed up something big with this switch and it's left a terrible taste in my mouth regarding Ubuntu. I'm considering going back to Debian and dumping the KDE/Gnome setups and digging into OpenBox or something. I dreaded doing it before because the default Gnome 2 desktop was great and I have a feeling they are going to GnomeShell/Unity like (or planning on it.)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2121372&cid=36010074
You missed one.
He was born to US citizens, so he was a natural born citizen.
I can't believe I still have to explain this...
If you are born in the US to Mexican parents, you are a natural born citizen.
If you are a US citizen traveling abroad and have a kid, the kid is considered a natural born citizen through your citizenship.
If you are born in any other country, to non-US citizen parents, you have to be naturalized to be a US citizen and are ineligible for Presidency.
Actually, I'd still like to be able to own a heavy weapon... why not? A tank would be fun.
I don't know what I'd do with bio weapons or nuclear material, unless I could operate my own reactor. In which case, I'd be responsible for any fallout and I'd be falling into the realm of the "holy crap this is too expensive to operate" so I'd likely not do it.
"If I have my own desert, why can't I explode my own nuclear weapons?"
Why not? Film it though. I want to see.
Fine... I'll use your example.
If I have enough land to safely detonate a car bomb without harming anyone... just for fun... why can I not? Why can't I buy a mini-gun and saw down trees on the weekend? (besides the fact that the ammo alone would probably put my bank account deep in the red.)
The problem comes when you do harm someone. Do you think that government can have total control over it's citizens? Is keeping me from detonating bombs on my land going to prevent someone from detonating one in Central Park? Hint: It's not. They'll do it if it's illegal or not.
The only thing you are doing by banning the list of things is making law abiding citizens less free.
Add: Children born to US citizens outside the US are considered natural born US citizens.
If his parents were US citizens, yes.
If you are born in another country, you are not a US natural born citizen. You can become a naturalized citizen but you are ineligible for Presidency unless you are born in the US, are 35 years old and have lived in the country for the last 14 of those years (most of your adult life.) I don't understand why this is complicated to you.
Unimaginable, sure. Insane? Hardly.
There have been at LEAST 8 candidates questioned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Born_Citizen_Clause#Presidential_candidates_whose_eligibility_was_questioned
That's not what I said at all.
Actually, to me, it would make more sense to be rewarded for doing good without fear of retribution. Any omnipotent being would favor people who were generally were good people before picking those that were only good because they were selfishly looking to get into heaven. Ideally these would be people who didn't know of or believe in said being and still did good seeing the world as a cold dark math problem and surmounting that.
Then again, I'm more of a non-believer for lack of evidence.
As far as hope... Hope is synonymous for "It's not going to happen but I'm going to try anyway." (Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.)
no matter what it looks like.
So you would accept that I met George Washington yesterday if I handed you a popsicle and claimed he handed it to me?
Of course, you could be getting hung up on the use of "Natural" in the human sense as a natural birth (vs being born in a tube or something like that...)
I'm sure that they intended "natural" to mean something that have lived it's entire(or mostly) life in the same locality (in this case, country) So a natural born citizen is someone who has spent their entire existence in the country as part of it.
You could interpret the wording: (I assume you know how to look up the 14th Amendment...)
Natural vs. Naturalization
Natural would mean: existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world (a natural part of the country... belonging)
Naturalization, in this case, would mean: To make natural
So a natural born citizen would not be a "naturalized" person because they were born natural and not naturalized later in life. Or in other words, you can be "brought in"/naturalized but you will still not be natural to that environment: only accepted.
I think "insane" is an overly harsh word for someone seeking an answer to a question. It makes you sound like the people who you are trying to discredit. IE: Anyone that doesn't agree with you has some mental disorder.
As much as I appreciate what the free market has done to get us were we are, there is a casualty: Boring (but factual) news.
The Colbert Report is evidence of this. People get bored with the normal news and seek out entertaining news. It takes money to verify statements and facts, but with the Internet anyone can become a source of "news." It makes it harder for news organizations to provide in depth reporting because they are competing with zero cost alternatives. I've always laughed at movies supposedly set in the future that depict reporters as entertainers (Ruby Rod, anyone?) but I fear that may be more and more of a reality as time goes on.
The article summary was written to make waves: To attract people to the conversation (good or bad.)
Why does it not make sense to allow a person to own an item?
I don't care what the item is called. I don't care that it could be used to beat you to a bloody pulp (or do so at range...)
I want to know why it doesn't make sense in a civilized nation to allow someone to carry a tool that can be used to harm someone else if used to do so by the operator. Why do you continue to blame said tool instead of blaming said person? If you had a rash of people running around pushing other people into the busy street with a ten foot pole, how is the sensible solution banning all ten foot poles? What do you do if they started using nine foot poles? What about three foot poles?
Article 2 Section 1:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
I really hope Cisco puts out an updated version of this router. This thing has to be their best seller (I'm going out on a limb and stating that the customization ability is key to that) and I can see why it's been around since 2002. I have two of them myself I continually mess around with. They still kick out newer revisions, but they haven't really changed much in the line of overall capability. Just sit down, draw up plans for a fully third party flashable update and make it awesome hardware wise. Let the guys at Tomato/DDWRT do their thing.
It would be a terrible motto if you wanted to be evil... previous Google stories here prove that. It gives people (like you) something to bring up every time there's a story about them that and gives that person a way to push their viewpoint.
If you truly wanted to be evil, you'd want a low profile, no public comments, as little interaction as possible. You'd dish out information in small chunks. Preferably those that you've indexed in your ultimate index of the Internet so that the users don't suspect you.