palordrolap @ palordrolap @fedia.io

Some middle-aged guy on the Internet. Seen a lot of it, occasionally regurg

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

747

Joined

12 mo. ago

The consensus seems to have fallen on vehicle license plates / registration tags / whatever they're called wherever you might be, and it was also my first guess, even though I'm not from the US. That said, I do watch a few things on YouTube that might have primed me to think of those first and not any other kind of plate.

TL;DR: OP's probably not talking about crockery.

I'd argue it's the other way around: Science has no place in space fantasy. That's why fans were so annoyed by the midichlorian nonsense - it sought to explain the magic through science.

That sounds like a preference that would be added by whoever configured the server rather than anything else. I've definitely seen situations where a third-level domain has been under the control of (or sold to) a third party and so it wouldn't make sense to block the second-level, or other third-levels branched off from it if only one third-level misbehaved. Edit: And I don't just mean countries that treat second-level as top-level for some uses, like, say .co.uk.

I have no idea what the defaults are for various automatic spam blockers, since both arguments have merit.

There ought to be no limitation with, say, email.facebook.com. Sure, have the domain facebookemail to prevent bad actors grabbing it, but only use it as a redirection.

I don't think there's mail server software in existence that would choke on a subdomain like that. There might be a few mail admins too easily confused to be able to set it up, but I doubt there are any of those at Facebook.

That said, most people aren't going know that a subdomain is safer than a legitimate looking alternative, so maybe it's all moot.

Tangentially, it seems that someone has squatted on facebook-email.com (note the hyphen), so I expect that Zuck's lawyers are crawling all over whoever's done that.

UK here. I don't remember ever getting "the talk" from either parent. There might have been a late attempt that was shut down with "ugh, we learned it all at school already."

Those classes, at some point between 9 and 13, might have cleared up a few school-yard rumours, but I'm really not sure what I knew, what I thought I knew, and what I learned (and unlearned) at that time. It might even have been a year-long, once a week class, but it was a very long time ago now. I don't even remember what the lessons were called, because it wasn't "sex ed". Might have been "Health Studies" or something similarly vague.

As for the subversion of expectation in the OP text, I'm pretty sure we had some lessons on WWII, but I don't think we got into that much detail before I chose to stop studying History. My parents and grandparents certainly talked about the wars, but that was more about them and people they knew during that time rather than the geopolitical and ethical aspects of things. Perhaps a mention of Nazi propaganda from Lord Haw-Haw being on the radio.

The first thing that sprung to mind would be a maker / sculptor kind of deal: A realistic-looking duck except for the fact that it's made from strips of old car tyre.

But I guess OP could imagine and draw that without someone actually making it.

Hey, back in the late 90s I bought a laptop from a reputable seller and had literally no idea who the manufacturer was. Was a pretty good laptop for the era too. The badge on the back of the monitor said "Notebook".

I had to put the product ID code on the bottom into an online search engine - possibly very early Google - to find out it was made by Taiwanese company called Kapok.

Kind of wish I still had it, but I donated it to a good cause years ago.

I should probably use it to telefrag one of the active, living war criminals or one of their influential lackeys, but it's kind of hard to choose.

Decades ago I used to work in a parcel shipping department and we got all sorts of names going through there. Never met any of those people though, and I'm pretty sure some of them were fake.

The only one I can call to mind right now was "N. K. Stitt", which I assume was someone (or their parents) riffing on the phrase "encased it" for some reason.

I've also had a few colleagues with names unusual for Britain, but were perfectly normal for their ethnic background. One guy was Sikh / Punjabi and went by the first (English) letter of his name for simplicity's sake, for example.

This thread started with a question in Spanish. When read as Spanish, "La puta" translates as ... something not very nice.

When an rm parameter has a /, always think "danger!".

This should be the foremost thought of any sensible shell user.

This is more programmer humour than a Linux meme, but I'll bite.

Over a decade ago I worked for a company where I was in customer support, and very much not on the dev team. A customer suggested a feature be added to one of the online tools the company provided. I figured it could be done with a simple bit of HTML and JavaScript, and mocked something up to send to the dev team as an example of what such a feature might look like and how it might work.

My crappy code was copy-pasted wholesale into the site. I have no idea if it's still there as, for obvious reasons, I don't have access to that system, but at least one of their other interfaces - one where I retain an account - hasn't changed visibly since I worked there, so it's definitely possible.

Depends what those reasons are. Conspicuously bad-mouthing the Chinese government in a way that can be traced back to your real world identity might get you banned from China, but nowhere else, for example.

If it's something to do with drugs, illegal shipping of goods, a criminal record or visa shenanigans, any country would reserve their right to send you packing. That doesn't mean that would happen, but it might be in your interests to contact your country's New Zealand embassy, (or one of their consulates if there's one nearer to you), be really, really pleasant with whoever you talk to, and put your question to them, and ask if you can get their response in writing... and then stay the heck out of trouble until you try to go there.

It could save you a couple of long, unnecessary journeys and a heap of expense.

None of this guarantees you still won't be sent home even if the embassy gives you the all-clear in writing, by the way. But if you get a firm "no" from the embassy, you'll know not to go.

The panspermia hypothesis goes one further and suggests that life-generating molecules originated elsewhere in the universe before finding their way to our solar system, making Mars and Earth potential cousins rather than one developing from the other.

Spelling DOS as DoS is either a cunning joke or one heck of a Freudian slip.

Unsure if sarcastic.

What if two patriarchs differ? I mean, they already differ because otherwise there'd only be one denomination of Christianity, so which one is right?

That was a trick question. You aren't allowed to decide because you're some random Christian. You can only allow your head to implode.

Whenever I question myself, which isn't often, it's very easy to check with the Internet, if you catch my drift, but as yet, I very much do not want to see any of that. My preference is clearly the opposite.

But then, for some people, including me, images and real people are very different things. I think I could be somewhere close to demisexual or demiromantic, for example. My instinct is to try to get to know someone really well if I find them even slightly attractive. In older-school phrasing, you might say I'm not the sort of person who is interested in one-night stands.

Your specific situation is one I've heard of before and have considered if I could find myself, unexpectedly, with another guy, whatever he might look like. Stranger things have happened, but it's hard to imagine.

When I was double-checking sexuality definitions just now, I found this page: https://rainbowandco.uk/blogs/what-were-saying/sexuality-definitions which happens to list "finsexual" which fits pretty well with your description. Something to think about, maybe.

But whatever's going on with your good friend there, I wish you the best, whatever that might mean.

You know when you're sitting on a train in a station next to another and if the other train starts to move, you might think your train is the one that's moving? Something similar is happening here, but more vertically. gloop gloop gloop

I could have sworn that the last time I tried to tar-copy part of a filesystem containing hard links that I ended up with copies everywhere rather than preservation of the hard links, and the tar manual page isn't particularly clear about it at all.

But it looks like I've misremembered because a quick test with tar confirms that it detects and saves hard links, and they unpack correctly too. Now I'm wondering precisely what it was that I was doing where I ended up with all those copies.

Edit: disregard this. I have gotten my wires crossed somewhere.

tar cannot preserve hard links, where rsync can. Definitely something to bear in mind before doing a full drive copy.

As for why anyone would choose hard links over symlinks, sometimes, for some purposes, it's not clear which file should be the target and which the link and also, symlinks - especially explicit, non-relative symlinks - are very easily broken when files are moved around. Patching them all can be a pain.