Personally I use the modify headers extension to do the same thing. But I have "I am not a Googlebot/2.1", rather then the full Googlebot string. But I sometimes come across pages that say something along the lines of "You appear to be pretending to be a major search engine when you are not", for those pages I change the header to "I DIDN'T CLAIM TO BE A MAJOR FUCKING SEARCH ENGINE".
Of course, both are examples of why you shouldn't use "User-Agent" to try and detect what browser or bot is using your webpage. The first allows "illegitimate" users access, and the second blocks legitimate users.
In fact, you shouldn't trust headers for anything unless you have a secure session. To control access to your webpage to robots, use ROBOTS.TXT or a meta tag, and to control access to other users, password protect. But the trouble is that sites are trying to eat their cake (be crawled and indexed) and have it too (control access to ordinary users).
Same theory should work with the police and arresting and taking people to court. Good luck ever getting money from the filth though.
Even if you do sue (which you can do), and win (which you won't) you can only get back court costs (at least in Australia). Not, travel, or stress or anything like that. (I've paid hundreds of dollars flying around Aus for a court case which all the charges were dropped before the case started. Friends have been taken to court (often having to fly there) and have had their cases thrown out. None of us have ever received a penny for out trouble.)
I do agree with you though otherwise. Where the rich can afford to sue anyone they want, even if they have little evidence, they need to be punished if they fail (or if they don't have evidence). These sort of suits are similar to SLAPPs. While a number of states in the US have legislation against such things, they obviously don't have legislation against other frivolous lawsuits..
Heard of a thing called adblock? The only place I see Yahoo ads any more is on somebodies else's machine.
And to add to all the comments about experiences with Yahoo mail. I've had two addresses since 1998-9. They both currently get shit loads of spam, but guess what! It is all filtered. The only false positives were from a couple of sites, since I hit not-spam, that hasn't happened since.
The interface just works (maybe it is just because I'm used to it?).
It isn't Hotmail (I know people still using Hotmail from around the time I got my email accounts, it still sucks).
I'm a happy user of Yahoo Mail, and have been for a number of years.
Bah. We all know "flaming" is a euphemism for "fucking". They should be called the "Fucking Space Debris". I'd pay to see them play (if they were good).
Hand out the source code with every binary you hand out and not worry? I mean you can compress it and put it on the same fucking CD!
That way you don't have to worry about keeping it for three years, you don't have to worry about extra costs, and you don't have to worry about anything.
Just compress (using zip or gzip or bzip) and burn.
I don't know about the first one, but they do have that second one. I can't remember the exact wording (and I'm too lazy to find my warranty), but it says something about not taking any responsibility for anything on the harddrive. And, if you have a boot or BIAS password set, they will wipe it too.
They do say back everything up before you send it off. I'll do that, and encrypt everything on Ubuntu, and set up a default user account in Windows, and hide GRUB and have it boot straight to Windows. Hopefully they won't wipe everything, but...
I actually have a keyboard problem. The top of one of they keys (the "fn" key which I never use because I'm in Ubuntu all the time) came off.
I assume you use "PC" as short hand for "politically correct". In which case you obviously don't know what being politically correct is all about. It has nothing to do with saying intellectually controversial things, unless you think something like "Jews rule the world and control the government" is somehow intellectually controversial.
Political correctness is about not making stupid comments that hurt minority groups or other groups in society when there is no
So, in summing up, I think you are wrong, and also possibly stupid. Politically correct is only ever used as an insult by right-wing conservatives who want to be able to insult "niggers", women (who should be staying at home bare foot and pregnant anyway, not actually being real people), and similar groups in society who have little power anyway.
"Mounting your political message online is also safer in countries where taking part in a protest can result in your death or injury at the hands of your country's army." Mounting your political message online is also safer in countries where taking part in a protest can result in your death or injury at the hands of your local police.
Police in the USA beat and shoot and kill people, in other places ("Western" "Liberal" "Democracies") it isn't so bad, but seriously. The police aren't there to help protesters, they are there to protect property, and they will beat you up and arrest you without charge and so on.
In fact this is why the iPhone won't kill off MP3 players, price. It is a lot fucking cheaper to just get a cheap phone that can make phone calls and SMS, and a cheap music player that might not hold 80GB of music (after all, who can seriously listen to that much music?).
In fact, not everyone wants to have a crappy all in one device, which is another reason why the iPhone won't kill off good music players. I'd like a *good* all in one device, but I'm poor and have yet to even see one (no matter how expensive).
"My" website is a forum, for discussion. That means there are a number of different points of view around, some (many?) of which I don't agree with. There are even capitalists (though restricted). It is for discussion among "revolutionary leftists" about what sort of world they want, and how to best get there. It isn't for "regular people" as such, because they aren't revolutionary leftists. That said, they are more then welcome to look around or even join and participate in discussion (ask questions etc.).
As to what I want personally, why I want anarchy. Anarchism. Whatever you want to call it. Locke talked of a hypothetical "state of nature", where everyone had rights (including the right to property unlimited). The people came together and formed a state to help protect these rights.
In my opinion, the state 1) doesn't do this, but rather infringes on peoples rights, 2) is far too big anyway. So, I suggest we go back to this "state of nature", where everyone lived pretty much in harmony. Except with one small change from Lockes view. I don't believe in unlimited accumulation of property.
One problem with your thesis. And that is there is no such thing as a "natural right". You have what rights are given to you by the community you live in. Unfortunately, the state has taken away the ability for the community to hand out rights, and now claims that to itself.
So, you don't have any natural right to occupy any land.
I'm not really disagreeing with you otherwise, just arguing a point.
(I don't believe in a god either. I'm so going straight to hell, except I don't believe in that either.)
And that would change things how? This is at the county level, not the federal level.
Not only that, what would two Libertarians do? They would still be out voted by all the rest of the scum.
And one more thing, are Libertarians really the answer? What about a Green or a Socialist? That is if you think that politicians actually will do anything for anyone besides themselves and the people giving them money.
Do what I do, you will have as much affect on the political system as you do currently. Vote Anarchist.
I'm using Ubuntu right now. There is a little thing called "Software Sources" or something in my "System", "Administration" menue. I don't know where it would be in KDE though. But the point is, it has five checkboxes. One of them is for the Multiverse (it actually says something about software restricted by legal or copyright, and then has 'multiverse' in braces, but hey). The others are for the other repositories (including source).
Ubuntu 6.10 with GNOME. I don't think I even had to install that one.
You do realise that no president is ever elected by the people. (At least in the good ol' US of A.)
You have a little thing called the Electoral College.
See also my academic paper (which I just so happen to have put on a site called Revolutionary Left, though that doesn't detract from the quality at all!) on the matter over at RevLeft http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=24734. In it I talk far to much about the Electoral College.
Great way to spread a viral video even more. Post it to/.
The fact that I've never heard of this, until now, probably means I hang out with the wrong people (both off and on line).
Either way, if it does do anything, it is a good example of an individual affecting the political process. Another good example would be Bill Gates giving shit loads of money to a campaign for one candidate or another.
Orwell didn't know about the Internet (and probably not about computers (in the modern sense)).
And not only that, the difference is that Orwell was warning against Government. This is the corporate sector, though I am sure that he would have been against any gains in power by corporations. He was, after all, a socialist.
I'm saying, that if you are worried about people like Simon (the BOFH if you didn't know), then you should not have personal stuff on your *work* computer.
Because, unless you actually control the computer, then these things are possible.
So, no I am not saying don't ever use encryption. I'm saying don't *rely* on it it situations where you can not control the computer (mind you, having a key file does go some ways to mitigate the problem).
I'm an anarchist and an activist. I don't really want the government (any government) looking through my files thanks. I have a laptop and a USB key. If I lose them, I don't want whomever finds them looking through my files thanks.
I don't know about you, but I have certain bits of stuff that I would prefer to remain encrypted up until I want to use them. The obvious one for most people is stuff like porn (or pictures of your significant other in various states of undress).
But beyond those two (which I admit I have both, in separate containers) what about the spy (industrial or otherwise), what about the activist, the journalist and so on?
They want to be able to turn on their computer and use it for whatever, and then if they need access to that special information, then (and only then) access it.
It also allows another level of plausible deniability (if you have a person who doesn't know much about computers or is in a hurry) added to that of the double layer mentioned in the summary.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I use the modify headers extension to do the same thing. But I have "I am not a Googlebot/2.1", rather then the full Googlebot string. But I sometimes come across pages that say something along the lines of "You appear to be pretending to be a major search engine when you are not", for those pages I change the header to "I DIDN'T CLAIM TO BE A MAJOR FUCKING SEARCH ENGINE".
Of course, both are examples of why you shouldn't use "User-Agent" to try and detect what browser or bot is using your webpage. The first allows "illegitimate" users access, and the second blocks legitimate users.
In fact, you shouldn't trust headers for anything unless you have a secure session. To control access to your webpage to robots, use ROBOTS.TXT or a meta tag, and to control access to other users, password protect. But the trouble is that sites are trying to eat their cake (be crawled and indexed) and have it too (control access to ordinary users).
Same theory should work with the police and arresting and taking people to court. Good luck ever getting money from the filth though.
Even if you do sue (which you can do), and win (which you won't) you can only get back court costs (at least in Australia). Not, travel, or stress or anything like that. (I've paid hundreds of dollars flying around Aus for a court case which all the charges were dropped before the case started. Friends have been taken to court (often having to fly there) and have had their cases thrown out. None of us have ever received a penny for out trouble.)
I do agree with you though otherwise. Where the rich can afford to sue anyone they want, even if they have little evidence, they need to be punished if they fail (or if they don't have evidence).
These sort of suits are similar to SLAPPs. While a number of states in the US have legislation against such things, they obviously don't have legislation against other frivolous lawsuits..
Heard of a thing called adblock? The only place I see Yahoo ads any more is on somebodies else's machine.
And to add to all the comments about experiences with Yahoo mail. I've had two addresses since 1998-9. They both currently get shit loads of spam, but guess what! It is all filtered. The only false positives were from a couple of sites, since I hit not-spam, that hasn't happened since.
The interface just works (maybe it is just because I'm used to it?).
It isn't Hotmail (I know people still using Hotmail from around the time I got my email accounts, it still sucks).
I'm a happy user of Yahoo Mail, and have been for a number of years.
Bah. We all know "flaming" is a euphemism for "fucking". They should be called the "Fucking Space Debris". I'd pay to see them play (if they were good).
Hand out the source code with every binary you hand out and not worry? I mean you can compress it and put it on the same fucking CD!
That way you don't have to worry about keeping it for three years, you don't have to worry about extra costs, and you don't have to worry about anything.
Just compress (using zip or gzip or bzip) and burn.
I don't know about the first one, but they do have that second one. I can't remember the exact wording (and I'm too lazy to find my warranty), but it says something about not taking any responsibility for anything on the harddrive. And, if you have a boot or BIAS password set, they will wipe it too.
...
They do say back everything up before you send it off. I'll do that, and encrypt everything on Ubuntu, and set up a default user account in Windows, and hide GRUB and have it boot straight to Windows. Hopefully they won't wipe everything, but
I actually have a keyboard problem. The top of one of they keys (the "fn" key which I never use because I'm in Ubuntu all the time) came off.
I assume you use "PC" as short hand for "politically correct". In which case you obviously don't know what being politically correct is all about. It has nothing to do with saying intellectually controversial things, unless you think something like "Jews rule the world and control the government" is somehow intellectually controversial.
s )
Political correctness is about not making stupid comments that hurt minority groups or other groups in society when there is no
So, in summing up, I think you are wrong, and also possibly stupid. Politically correct is only ever used as an insult by right-wing conservatives who want to be able to insult "niggers", women (who should be staying at home bare foot and pregnant anyway, not actually being real people), and similar groups in society who have little power anyway.
Care to apologize?
(The Wikipedia article seems vaguely alright just now. At least the introduction does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctnes
I'm a stupid coward too. (Wonders where the tick box got to ...)
This quote might be relevant. But the rest of her shitty books and philosophy are not.
It is not even a particularly original observation. The fascists and Nazis knew this, Orwell warned against it etc.
You can't moderate this post either. 'Cause you posted. (Of course if I had mod points I could ..., but only 'cause I'm a coward.)
FUCK GOD! Real geeks who want an imaginary friend believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
"Mounting your political message online is also safer in countries where taking part in a protest can result in your death or injury at the hands of your country's army."
Mounting your political message online is also safer in countries where taking part in a protest can result in your death or injury at the hands of your local police.
Police in the USA beat and shoot and kill people, in other places ("Western" "Liberal" "Democracies") it isn't so bad, but seriously. The police aren't there to help protesters, they are there to protect property, and they will beat you up and arrest you without charge and so on.
Speaking from experience.
No everyone is as rich as you.
In fact this is why the iPhone won't kill off MP3 players, price. It is a lot fucking cheaper to just get a cheap phone that can make phone calls and SMS, and a cheap music player that might not hold 80GB of music (after all, who can seriously listen to that much music?).
In fact, not everyone wants to have a crappy all in one device, which is another reason why the iPhone won't kill off good music players. I'd like a *good* all in one device, but I'm poor and have yet to even see one (no matter how expensive).
"My" website is a forum, for discussion. That means there are a number of different points of view around, some (many?) of which I don't agree with. There are even capitalists (though restricted). It is for discussion among "revolutionary leftists" about what sort of world they want, and how to best get there. It isn't for "regular people" as such, because they aren't revolutionary leftists. That said, they are more then welcome to look around or even join and participate in discussion (ask questions etc.).
As to what I want personally, why I want anarchy. Anarchism. Whatever you want to call it. Locke talked of a hypothetical "state of nature", where everyone had rights (including the right to property unlimited). The people came together and formed a state to help protect these rights.
In my opinion, the state 1) doesn't do this, but rather infringes on peoples rights, 2) is far too big anyway.
So, I suggest we go back to this "state of nature", where everyone lived pretty much in harmony. Except with one small change from Lockes view. I don't believe in unlimited accumulation of property.
Bugger that. I think we should have the death penalty for (Attempted) suicide.
...
(On another note, how would you propose to punish people under the age of 18 who attempt to kill themselves?)
Posted anonymously, because I'm a coward. Wait, I did tick that box didn't I
One problem with your thesis. And that is there is no such thing as a "natural right". You have what rights are given to you by the community you live in. Unfortunately, the state has taken away the ability for the community to hand out rights, and now claims that to itself.
So, you don't have any natural right to occupy any land.
I'm not really disagreeing with you otherwise, just arguing a point.
(I don't believe in a god either. I'm so going straight to hell, except I don't believe in that either.)
And that would change things how? This is at the county level, not the federal level.
Not only that, what would two Libertarians do? They would still be out voted by all the rest of the scum.
And one more thing, are Libertarians really the answer? What about a Green or a Socialist? That is if you think that politicians actually will do anything for anyone besides themselves and the people giving them money.
Do what I do, you will have as much affect on the political system as you do currently. Vote Anarchist.
I'm using Ubuntu right now. There is a little thing called "Software Sources" or something in my "System", "Administration" menue. I don't know where it would be in KDE though. But the point is, it has five checkboxes. One of them is for the Multiverse (it actually says something about software restricted by legal or copyright, and then has 'multiverse' in braces, but hey). The others are for the other repositories (including source).
Ubuntu 6.10 with GNOME. I don't think I even had to install that one.
LMFAO! This is great. Do you think this is off topic too?
You do realise that no president is ever elected by the people. (At least in the good ol' US of A.)
You have a little thing called the Electoral College.
See also my academic paper (which I just so happen to have put on a site called Revolutionary Left, though that doesn't detract from the quality at all!) on the matter over at RevLeft http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=24734. In it I talk far to much about the Electoral College.
I think it was. Are you sure this video isn't really a viral ad for Apple? Especially the logo at the end looked a little like the Apple logo.
...
And Apple apparently gives money to the Democrats
Something is going on Mister Jones. And I don't know what it is. But something is going to change.
"Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?"
Great way to spread a viral video even more. Post it to /.
The fact that I've never heard of this, until now, probably means I hang out with the wrong people (both off and on line).
Either way, if it does do anything, it is a good example of an individual affecting the political process. Another good example would be Bill Gates giving shit loads of money to a campaign for one candidate or another.
It doesn't mean debate, it just means propaganda.
Orwell didn't know about the Internet (and probably not about computers (in the modern sense)).
And not only that, the difference is that Orwell was warning against Government. This is the corporate sector, though I am sure that he would have been against any gains in power by corporations. He was, after all, a socialist.
That I had thought of! I've been using it with the option of typing the password not on the command line (so it doesn't get saved in the history).
... (still easier then learning C I am sure).
Thanks, now I just have to learn some bash scripting skills
I'm saying, that if you are worried about people like Simon (the BOFH if you didn't know), then you should not have personal stuff on your *work* computer.
Because, unless you actually control the computer, then these things are possible.
So, no I am not saying don't ever use encryption. I'm saying don't *rely* on it it situations where you can not control the computer (mind you, having a key file does go some ways to mitigate the problem).
I'm an anarchist and an activist. I don't really want the government (any government) looking through my files thanks.
I have a laptop and a USB key. If I lose them, I don't want whomever finds them looking through my files thanks.
I don't know about you, but I have certain bits of stuff that I would prefer to remain encrypted up until I want to use them. The obvious one for most people is stuff like porn (or pictures of your significant other in various states of undress).
But beyond those two (which I admit I have both, in separate containers) what about the spy (industrial or otherwise), what about the activist, the journalist and so on?
They want to be able to turn on their computer and use it for whatever, and then if they need access to that special information, then (and only then) access it.
It also allows another level of plausible deniability (if you have a person who doesn't know much about computers or is in a hurry) added to that of the double layer mentioned in the summary.