Not that polling has any great claim on credibility, but according to polls from before the start of hostilities, Americans supported this action. Since the start support has increased dramatically, but the actions of the US been supported by the majority throughout. This runs counter to your assertion that "the vast majority of people just gave up." Perhaps you meant the vast majority of anti-war folks. The truth is anti-war people were before, are now, and will continue to be the minority in the US. Regardless of how vocal they think they are.
The remake was very good. Is there some important angle that Peter can bring to the movie the third time around that the first two missed?
Oh, there is no end to what might be revised and corrected. Perhaps rather than slaughter Kong, we could dart him and lift him out of NY to a nature preserve. We could always play games with the skin colors of the various actors. Doubtless we could work in an environmental point. Why not have Kong attack General Motors headquarters in Detroit rather than Empire State in NY?
For all I know, this and more has already been done. I saw the original King Kong so long ago I can barely remember it. I do remember that it was a big enough deal to constitute a family event. Back in the 70's I guess. If I've seen any subsequent revisions they didn't rate enough with me to bother remembering...
I used Debian Woody for 2.4 experimentation. Debian provides a system called kernel-package. You build the kernel into a package and install it. This doesn't remove your old kernel. You configure LILO (or whatever) to allow the operator to select the kernel version. Reboot. If things get hairy you just boot into the old kernel.
Indeed. The trademark is clearly the motivation IPO. However, other forces are at work.
The Race Masters from planet Zoltar wish to manipulate Google and send subliminal messages to billions of unsuspecting food beasts. To do this they must gain control of the Google Master Facilities. Once Google is vulnerable to the Zionist stock market, the RM consortium will step in, replace the Google staff and begin manipulating.
Don't be surprised if you begin to feel slack jawed and bovine, and perhaps even crave being slaughtered, soon after the IPO. I know that happens to me a lot when I watch Bush administration officials on the television...
WTF is a "sector" anyhow? Google is a collection of NOCs with a bunch of almost racked PeeCee boxen herded by some R&D geeks. It could be cloned in short order with a minuscule amount of capital. There is no investment value here. How does this constitute a "sector."
F*cking money pundits. They dream their warped little dreams and spew it to the public in vague, undefined notions such as "sectors." Magic words.
Google IPO could rejuvenated Internet-company investments.
OMG. Please, lets not piss away a good thing on some vague notion of how IPOing Google and having the stock price balloon for two days is going to turn anything around. The simps that promulgate such things are the very same people the created the.com bubble in the first place.
Post IPO Google would be subject to a board. These folks, recognizing the "vast marketing potential," will have more pop-ups flying around then you can even imagine. They'll make AOL look good.
Google isn't worth much. It's appeal is it's effectiveness. It's effectiveness is due, in part, to it's high degree of impartiality, and simple focus on results, as opposed to "eyeballs." Yes zealots, I know, Google isn't 100% impartial. Post IPO Google would be 100% partial. Users would abandon it as competition filled the void.
Get this straight you.com losers; Google isn't worth much as an investment and, in the end, the stock price will reflect this. So will your losses.
In response to the posters point you quote the law, specifically that section labeled (c). What does that have to do with his point? His ISP provides IP service. He sends and receives packets via that service. Every damn one has a source and a destination. At what point is he in violation of the section you highlighted?
He violates no law, including this one, operating VPN tunnels via his ISP. He has the right to send and receive IP traffic. The law mentions nothing about the content of the traffic he sends or receives. Presumably he has permission from whoever is at the other end of the VPN to use it.
You, and the rest of you hypersensitive zealots, need to do better than highlighting some piece of legislation to make your point. It is plainly obvious to me that NAT, VPN, SSL, SSH, HTTP proxies or any of the other mechanisms you folks claim will be made illegal by this law are simply not.
Any man or woman, not being married to each other, who lewdly and lasciviously associates and cohabits together
I cohabited with a woman from 1990 to 1994 in Michigan. Didn't get arrested. The police even visited once after one of our cars had been broken into. It didn't occur to them to slap us in cuffs while they stood around in our apartment writing up the report.
I have no idea what lewd or lascivious means in terms of cohabitation. Nether do the police or the courts. What they do know is that prosecution attempts using laws like this are laughable. I doubt such a thing has been attempted during my lifetime. If it has it failed on appeal at some point.
I attributed that problem to some binary compatibility problem between Apache and the PHP module. I recompiled both on the same host using the same compiler and the problem vanished. It was a pain because the server was IHS (IBM HTTP Server,) which is just Apache bundled with some proprietary modules. To whom to attribute such a problem? God knows. Not me.
I spent about six months on a moderately sized B2B site in PHP. I have seen this behavior. In one case Apache would segfault on shutdown. In another, SSL somehow caused PHP to segfault under certain conditions. Yet another had to do with using a COM object from PHP to perform real time credit card transactions. In the first two cases, PHP wasn't at fault. In the last case, PHP handled a return type poorly; if the symbol that pointed to the object was used in a statement as an integer instead of a string it would blow up. That's pretty subtle for a language as weakly typed as PHP.
I think that your assessment of the posters problem is correct. Somewhere in the code someplace there is an error. It would be better if, rather than mysteriously segfault, PHP provided useful feedback that didn't require a debugger. The fact is that in many of these cases PHP won't.
This sort of stuff inherently limits scalability in terms of developer productivity. Given n mysterious segfaults per page, you need some number of developer hours to hunt each one down. A similar failure, occurring in JSP/J2EE generally will provide sufficient diagnostic output to shorten this process. In the stateless, containerized world of web development where operating a debugger properly is tricky to say the least, this is a big help.
You really do have an offensive view of the world, don't you know? Without thought for people's modes of operation or needs, you tar everyone a baddie until they take the trouble to prove otherwise.
Does your home have locks and keys? Not everyone wishes to break in. How offensive of you to secure your property against me. How dare you force me to knock and wait outside for you to answer! What do you think I am, some sort of thief?
If you take offense at being asked to verify yourself with me exactly one time, I don't want to hear from you anyway. You have issues.
But really it dosn't need to be standardized at all, since these things are going to have to be handled by real people, rather then computers.
You are correct. It doesn't have to be standardized.
Now prepare yourself. Microsoft will implement a system whereby you get the challenge mail that contains a link to a page with a Palladium enabled ActiveX control that you must cope with to get authenticated. It will stop spam and be highly successful, popular and integrated with Outlook version 32.010155a and beyond. Defacto, Windows only, "standard."
Wouldn't it be better to have a standard, non-proprietary system?
Peace has finally come from a package called Active Spam Killer [paganini.net], a package which works from a white list, and provides a convenient way for new correspondents to get themselves onto the whitelist.
You're adding an authentication layer to your specific mail account. Now, all we need to do is implement 4.1234E13 different mail account authentication systems. Each with it's own bugs, weirdo assumptions (HTML only, perhaps? Imagine how Mickysoft might do this...) and other deficiencies. Everyone you correspond with will have a different one. What fun!
Authentication is the only feasible solution to spam. If we could collectively decide on a method of implementing it in a standard fashion we could avoid the mess.
A honeypot for spam - mentioned here previously, I think - would be one answer. It would recognize a spammer and, instead of disconnecting, it would accept all the spam - very sllloooowwwly
You know this is trivial to defeat right? A simple heuristic to detect the honeypots would have no trouble dealing with this. Spammers are highly motivated at defeating stuff. Excessively slow server detection will be a standard feature of all next generation spam software. Bet on it.
I, for one, am already planning to transition my company away from Microsoft software.
Just be sure that your goal here is in line with that of your employer. Or, if you are the boss, that you've thought about the implications for your customers and, therefore, you. Playing favorites with ones means is a risk few will take, so don't expect a lot of help.
3) The whole "democracy for everyone!" idea is bunk. What makes you think that a system of government that works well for a rich, industrialized nation will work equally well for a decentralized nomad country (Afghanistan) and a very conservative religious society (Iran). Take Iran as a test case. The current government was put into place by a revolution of the people. That's the government they chose. If given the option, right now, they'd choose it again. Is it "right" to remake their country in our own image?
Ahh. Thank you.
Iraq is doomed to exist as it has under Saddam after this war. Nothing we can do about it.
At this point I can't imagine how the US could install a titular leader that wouldn't get assassinated shortly after being left on his own. It is abundantly clear that the people of Iraq have no love for the US. Anything with the taint of the United States will be removed shortly after we leave.
For whatever reason, Iraqis want to live as they do. It's as if we ceded the government to the Teamsters, on purpose, and appointed some thug as perpetual president. We would stand by and quietly watch as the opposition disappeared, figuratively and literally. Once the media had it's mind "made right" we wouldn't even have to work hard to overlook the crimes. As long as we stayed in line, we wouldn't get any grief from the "bosses," usually. Several decades later we find that we've come to accept it all and resist any change. You are to be forgiven if you find this hard to imagine...
It's not the first time we've found, to our astonishment, that people living in shit actually want it that way. I guess we'll just kill off Saddam, get their oil back in the pipeline and split. You can bet that whatever thug ends up in nominal charge, whether anti- or pro-US, will have pumping oil as a priority.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow.
and this will dramatically increase the speed that a shuttle will be incinerated during a disaster ...?
So it's better that a shuttle incinerates slowly...
Not that polling has any great claim on credibility, but according to polls from before the start of hostilities, Americans supported this action. Since the start support has increased dramatically, but the actions of the US been supported by the majority throughout. This runs counter to your assertion that "the vast majority of people just gave up." Perhaps you meant the vast majority of anti-war folks. The truth is anti-war people were before, are now, and will continue to be the minority in the US. Regardless of how vocal they think they are.
You must really hate beer...
That was so blatantly obvious it didn't merit a chuckle. Stop now kthx.
The remake was very good. Is there some important angle that Peter can bring to the movie the third time around that the first two missed?
Oh, there is no end to what might be revised and corrected. Perhaps rather than slaughter Kong, we could dart him and lift him out of NY to a nature preserve. We could always play games with the skin colors of the various actors. Doubtless we could work in an environmental point. Why not have Kong attack General Motors headquarters in Detroit rather than Empire State in NY?
For all I know, this and more has already been done. I saw the original King Kong so long ago I can barely remember it. I do remember that it was a big enough deal to constitute a family event. Back in the 70's I guess. If I've seen any subsequent revisions they didn't rate enough with me to bother remembering...
I used Debian Woody for 2.4 experimentation. Debian provides a system called kernel-package. You build the kernel into a package and install it. This doesn't remove your old kernel. You configure LILO (or whatever) to allow the operator to select the kernel version. Reboot. If things get hairy you just boot into the old kernel.
Indeed. The trademark is clearly the motivation IPO. However, other forces are at work.
The Race Masters from planet Zoltar wish to manipulate Google and send subliminal messages to billions of unsuspecting food beasts. To do this they must gain control of the Google Master Facilities. Once Google is vulnerable to the Zionist stock market, the RM consortium will step in, replace the Google staff and begin manipulating.
Don't be surprised if you begin to feel slack jawed and bovine, and perhaps even crave being slaughtered, soon after the IPO. I know that happens to me a lot when I watch Bush administration officials on the television...
So which sector is he talking about? The investment banking sector?
.com boom" investment banker sector.
Yes. The washed up, middle aged, "missed the
WTF is a "sector" anyhow? Google is a collection of NOCs with a bunch of almost racked PeeCee boxen herded by some R&D geeks. It could be cloned in short order with a minuscule amount of capital. There is no investment value here. How does this constitute a "sector."
F*cking money pundits. They dream their warped little dreams and spew it to the public in vague, undefined notions such as "sectors." Magic words.
Abracadabra!
Google IPO could rejuvenated Internet-company investments.
.com bubble in the first place.
.com losers; Google isn't worth much as an investment and, in the end, the stock price will reflect this. So will your losses.
OMG. Please, lets not piss away a good thing on some vague notion of how IPOing Google and having the stock price balloon for two days is going to turn anything around. The simps that promulgate such things are the very same people the created the
Post IPO Google would be subject to a board. These folks, recognizing the "vast marketing potential," will have more pop-ups flying around then you can even imagine. They'll make AOL look good.
Google isn't worth much. It's appeal is it's effectiveness. It's effectiveness is due, in part, to it's high degree of impartiality, and simple focus on results, as opposed to "eyeballs." Yes zealots, I know, Google isn't 100% impartial. Post IPO Google would be 100% partial. Users would abandon it as competition filled the void.
Get this straight you
In response to the posters point you quote the law, specifically that section labeled (c). What does that have to do with his point? His ISP provides IP service. He sends and receives packets via that service. Every damn one has a source and a destination. At what point is he in violation of the section you highlighted?
He violates no law, including this one, operating VPN tunnels via his ISP. He has the right to send and receive IP traffic. The law mentions nothing about the content of the traffic he sends or receives. Presumably he has permission from whoever is at the other end of the VPN to use it.
You, and the rest of you hypersensitive zealots, need to do better than highlighting some piece of legislation to make your point. It is plainly obvious to me that NAT, VPN, SSL, SSH, HTTP proxies or any of the other mechanisms you folks claim will be made illegal by this law are simply not.
But have your fun. It's what you're all about...
Any man or woman, not being married to each other, who lewdly and lasciviously associates and cohabits together
I cohabited with a woman from 1990 to 1994 in Michigan. Didn't get arrested. The police even visited once after one of our cars had been broken into. It didn't occur to them to slap us in cuffs while they stood around in our apartment writing up the report.
I have no idea what lewd or lascivious means in terms of cohabitation. Nether do the police or the courts. What they do know is that prosecution attempts using laws like this are laughable. I doubt such a thing has been attempted during my lifetime. If it has it failed on appeal at some point.
Cool!
Got any good references to objective information on this?
I attributed that problem to some binary compatibility problem between Apache and the PHP module. I recompiled both on the same host using the same compiler and the problem vanished. It was a pain because the server was IHS (IBM HTTP Server,) which is just Apache bundled with some proprietary modules. To whom to attribute such a problem? God knows. Not me.
Those reasons are undebugged code.
I spent about six months on a moderately sized B2B site in PHP. I have seen this behavior. In one case Apache would segfault on shutdown. In another, SSL somehow caused PHP to segfault under certain conditions. Yet another had to do with using a COM object from PHP to perform real time credit card transactions. In the first two cases, PHP wasn't at fault. In the last case, PHP handled a return type poorly; if the symbol that pointed to the object was used in a statement as an integer instead of a string it would blow up. That's pretty subtle for a language as weakly typed as PHP.
I think that your assessment of the posters problem is correct. Somewhere in the code someplace there is an error. It would be better if, rather than mysteriously segfault, PHP provided useful feedback that didn't require a debugger. The fact is that in many of these cases PHP won't.
This sort of stuff inherently limits scalability in terms of developer productivity. Given n mysterious segfaults per page, you need some number of developer hours to hunt each one down. A similar failure, occurring in JSP/J2EE generally will provide sufficient diagnostic output to shorten this process. In the stateless, containerized world of web development where operating a debugger properly is tricky to say the least, this is a big help.
Now who's the selfish little idiot whose software "believes" everything it reads in the headers alone?
Yep. Lots of issues.
> For whatever reason, Iraqis want to live as they do.
Or they consider living under Saddam Hussein to be the best of several bad options.
Same pitiful thing. What is your point?
You really do have an offensive view of the world, don't you know? Without thought for people's modes of operation or needs, you tar everyone a baddie until they take the trouble to prove otherwise.
Does your home have locks and keys? Not everyone wishes to break in. How offensive of you to secure your property against me. How dare you force me to knock and wait outside for you to answer! What do you think I am, some sort of thief?
If you take offense at being asked to verify yourself with me exactly one time, I don't want to hear from you anyway. You have issues.
But really it dosn't need to be standardized at all, since these things are going to have to be handled by real people, rather then computers.
You are correct. It doesn't have to be standardized.
Now prepare yourself. Microsoft will implement a system whereby you get the challenge mail that contains a link to a page with a Palladium enabled ActiveX control that you must cope with to get authenticated. It will stop spam and be highly successful, popular and integrated with Outlook version 32.010155a and beyond. Defacto, Windows only, "standard."
Wouldn't it be better to have a standard, non-proprietary system?
Peace has finally come from a package called Active Spam Killer [paganini.net], a package which works from a white list, and provides a convenient way for new correspondents to get themselves onto the whitelist.
You're adding an authentication layer to your specific mail account. Now, all we need to do is implement 4.1234E13 different mail account authentication systems. Each with it's own bugs, weirdo assumptions (HTML only, perhaps? Imagine how Mickysoft might do this...) and other deficiencies. Everyone you correspond with will have a different one. What fun!
Authentication is the only feasible solution to spam. If we could collectively decide on a method of implementing it in a standard fashion we could avoid the mess.
Don't hold your breath.
A honeypot for spam - mentioned here previously, I think - would be one answer. It would recognize a spammer and, instead of disconnecting, it would accept all the spam - very sllloooowwwly
You know this is trivial to defeat right? A simple heuristic to detect the honeypots would have no trouble dealing with this. Spammers are highly motivated at defeating stuff. Excessively slow server detection will be a standard feature of all next generation spam software. Bet on it.
I, for one, am already planning to transition my company away from Microsoft software.
Just be sure that your goal here is in line with that of your employer. Or, if you are the boss, that you've thought about the implications for your customers and, therefore, you. Playing favorites with ones means is a risk few will take, so don't expect a lot of help.
"Ramasubramanian"
Yeah, I know. I suck.
3) The whole "democracy for everyone!" idea is bunk. What makes you think that a system of government that works well for a rich, industrialized nation will work equally well for a decentralized nomad country (Afghanistan) and a very conservative religious society (Iran). Take Iran as a test case. The current government was put into place by a revolution of the people. That's the government they chose. If given the option, right now, they'd choose it again. Is it "right" to remake their country in our own image?
Ahh. Thank you.
Iraq is doomed to exist as it has under Saddam after this war. Nothing we can do about it.
At this point I can't imagine how the US could install a titular leader that wouldn't get assassinated shortly after being left on his own. It is abundantly clear that the people of Iraq have no love for the US. Anything with the taint of the United States will be removed shortly after we leave.
For whatever reason, Iraqis want to live as they do. It's as if we ceded the government to the Teamsters, on purpose, and appointed some thug as perpetual president. We would stand by and quietly watch as the opposition disappeared, figuratively and literally. Once the media had it's mind "made right" we wouldn't even have to work hard to overlook the crimes. As long as we stayed in line, we wouldn't get any grief from the "bosses," usually. Several decades later we find that we've come to accept it all and resist any change. You are to be forgiven if you find this hard to imagine...
It's not the first time we've found, to our astonishment, that people living in shit actually want it that way. I guess we'll just kill off Saddam, get their oil back in the pipeline and split. You can bet that whatever thug ends up in nominal charge, whether anti- or pro-US, will have pumping oil as a priority.
Especially really stupid words. "inputed" is not a word. Neither is "hitted", another butchery common among gamers.