fakeanon

http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-l... It lets users specify their config directory.

Thanks. That's weird, because I can already log in with ssh on port 22. I was asking because I didn't realize how it was related to a mail server. Now I understand you might want to log in remotely.

Hey, I'm trying to use this guide, do you know why you enable ssh in pf.conf?

Edit: oh dear, now I'm downloading the source for every program including ports.

Aha. Do you have an outline of a better way?

NSFW.

NSFW.

It was removed before Windows 8.

Data logging (recording and storing). Random noises for NSA.

I thought it was for the other kind of logging, what if we left a bunch of old cellphones on with random noises.

On Hulu: http://www.hulu.com/watch/68277

valgaze: your comment is not visible unless a user has showdead turned on.

Okay, now I understand. Good point. I wash my hands more frequently, because I eat with them, and I sometimes wash my body including ....

Excuse me?

I don't eat with my ..., just sayin'. But it's fine with me if you want to wash it.

>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Proposition 8: Section I. Title

        This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

    Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

        Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Which part of this denies equal protection to someone under the laws?

bigotry: bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

(source: Google definition box)

>Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

_Unless one of your cultural or religious views is that marriage is between one man and one woman._ We're inclusive of everyone! Unless you voted for something we don't like... I'm not saying you should hire anybody, but don't pretend like you will then don't.

Okay, thank you for the explanation.

The box after "Give this link to the other player:" is blank for me with the latest version of Firefox.

Nice job making the site!

Interesting idea, but it looks like it turns into just a vote, which doesn't work. A problem: even in the small positions, what if you agree with one part and not the other? Just in:

    >[1]Seatbelt fines are a joke - [2]people should be responsible for their own safety

I see multiple parts. Implicit is three: seat belts only affect your own safety. Maybe there could be a system where you can separate sub parts and debate them.

Edit: Sorry, I see md224 said something similar already.

I saw a post about textfile stenography, maybe linked from here or reddit. It used a source text (the example might've been from textfiles.org or a site like that) to hide messages, which looked like the text with glitches or typos or something. I don't not where it is. Here is something that encodes messages so that they look like spam: http://www.spammimic.com/

Y'know how people control botnets with irc or webposts? Maybe it is something like that, as other have speculated. But them why would they be posting messages lots of times? That's a problem in my ideary.

Might have meant to say documentary. There is one about Helvetica, named so.

Prettier Facebook.

Thank you.

Maybe that sounding awkward is a hint to the nature of what you are requesting. And you think that is how you will request it when the box on computers for existing customers says "I don't want Parental Controls"? I believe that _____ is wrong, but am reconsidering my opinion on the filter due to to this part: "Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): Two weeks ago, the head of the Security Service warned about the extent of Islamist extremism. This week, two individuals have been charged with serious terrorist offences. What is the Prime Minister going to do in January when, as a result of his Government’s legislation, some of those whom the Home Secretary has judged to pose the greatest threat to our security are released from the provisions of their terrorism prevention and investigation measures?

The Prime Minister: We have put in place some of the toughest controls that one can possibly have within a democratic Government, and the TPIMs are obviously one part of that. We have had repeated meetings of the extremism task force—it met again yesterday—setting out a whole series of steps that we will take to counter the extremist narrative, including by blocking online sites. Now that I have the opportunity, let me praise Facebook for yesterday reversing the decision it took about the showing of beheading videos online. We will take all these steps and many more to keep our country safe.". But now that I think about it, is this part of the parental controls filter or something else?

Now, take a look at the assertion in "Tackling extremism in the UK"[1]: "1.4 This is a distinct ideology which should not be confused with traditional religious practice. It is an ideology which is based on a distorted interpretation of Islam, which betrays Islam’s peaceful principles, and draws on the teachings of the likes of Sayyid Qutb. Islamist extremists deem Western intervention in Muslim-majority countries as a ‘war on Islam’, creating a narrative of ‘them’ and ‘us’. They seek to impose a global Islamic state governed" I have doubts that Islam is peaceful, but also about censoring websites about even advocating terrorism, and this is at the government level, not a recommendation, but I do not see a problem with an ISP doing it. It seems the article is referring to the government blocking terrorist sites, which I think is a different thing and not the best idea, rather than ISP parental controls, which the article was about. Am I misunderstanding, are these connected more, is the government forcing the blockage of a. immoral but legal sites in the filter or just b. child _____[2], or also c. terrorist sites? Government should only block b, ISP should block b and may provide parental controls to block a and c if they want. But I don't quite understand what is going on.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tackling-extremis... [2] Seems what the _parental_ filter is implicated for here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25067051

You get to choose if you parental controls on or not Maybe there is something like that in the book, but the point is, company are now choosing to, by default, have sexually explicit content blocked, and it can be opted out of. Do you believe this is bad? The UK government forcing ISPs to block stuff may not be the best way to do it, but it looks like David Cameron is just recommending it and that the ISPs have agreed.) Have I misunderstood the situation?

So how do I control a root nameserver for a TLD?

I guess, thanks. golergka linked to authors site which doesn't: http://nojsgame.majorov.su/

Cool, thank!