| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2006/10/17 [Science/Electric, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:44842 Activity:nil |
10/17 sed/unix script help.
I am trying to modify ldif file so i can actually import it to
my directory server (SunOne). My current ldif files, each entry
start with the following:
dn: cn=firstN LastN, mail=abc@xyz.org
What I need, is change it to
dc: cn=firstN LastN, dc=foo,dc=bar,dc=com
where dc=foo,dc=bar,dc=com is a constant
abc@xyz.org is different every entry
dc: cn=... is always the first line of an entry
each entry is seperated by a blank line.
How do I use sed to replace that mail=abc@xyz.org with
dc=foo,dc=bar,dc=com
thanks in advance |
| 2006/10/17-18 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44843 Activity:high |
10/16 [silenced!] --purged by brownshirt neocon </self-amusement>
And this is just what goes on in San Francisco! All over the rest
of the country there are hundreds of similar incidents just like this
one happening every day.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/17/EDG6PKDVMM1.DTL
\_ Debra J Saunders has successfully trolled you all, I salute
her.
\_ DJS isn't smart enough to troll her own dog.
\_ I guess being a political columnist is all about being
a successful troll. I disilke her columns but she
does appear to refrain from leaving out convenient
facts that piss off tom so much when writing about
draconian sentencing for 1st time drug convictions.
\_ Why do liberals knee-jerk with the "I disagree with him so he
must be stupid" act?
\_ yeah, you're right, it is bad that an intolerant asshole can
say what he wants on the radio in SF and still keep his job.
spew idiocy on the radio in SF with no repercussions.
\_ Michael Savage is not in this article.
\_ Yeah, you are right, critisizing someone is exactly the same as
bashing them in the face and breaking their nose.
\_ Yeah, your are right. Bashing someone in the nose is exactly the
same as systematically rounding up Jews for extermination.
\_ Your knowledge of history is lacking. The Brown Shirts had
nothing to do with exterminating Jews because they were
dissolved after the "Night Of The Long Knives." Kristallnacht
is a more appropriate analogy.
\_ Did you miss the thread from a couple of days ago?
http://www.csua.org/u/h84
"The FBI reported that the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes rose
from twenty-eight in 2000 to 481 in 2001, a seventeen-fold increase"
\_ Truly shocking. Here's some more numbers from the FBI showing
who the real victims of hate crimes are:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/section1.htm
I'll quote the section on Muslims for you, "Of the 1,480
reported offenses within single-bias incidents that were
motivated by the offenders religious bias, 67.8 percent were
anti-Jewish, 13.0 percent were anti-Islamic, 3.9 percent were
anti-Catholic, 2.9 percent were anti-Protestant, and 0.5 percent
were anti-Atheism or Agnosticism. Bias against other
(unspecified) religions accounted for 9.5 percent of the hate
crime offenses motivated by religious bias, and bias against
groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple
religions, group) accounted for 2.5 percent."
\_ I suspect jews are much more likely to report hate
crimes for a variety of reasons. -A Jew
\_ Very good, now show me the statistics for 2001 and 2002.
\_ If you care go find and post them and quote the same
section and explain why 2001 or 2002 is any different than
2004 while you're at it.
\_ They have been mysteriously deleted from the FBI web
site. If you don't understand why bias crimes against
Muslims might have peaked right after 9/11, then I
probably can't explain it to you.
\_ Duh, of course they spiked. And then they dropped
again. But you fail to notice (or care) that the
vast and overwhelming number of hate crimes are
against Jews and that number hasn't changed much.
If you failed to miss that point even after I
quoted it to you then there is no reason to try to
explain it to you. It isn't worth the effort. And
yeah, the FBI #s mysteriously disappeared. It is
clearly an anti-Muslim conspiracy of the bushco run
FBI. Whatever.
\_ Hate crimes are bad. You are the only one trying
to minimize them or somehow rationalize the
behavior of people committing them. And yes,
*everything* that Bush does is for political
gain. He is much like Clinton in that fashion.
The vast majority of hate crimes are against
Blacks, not Jews, btw. But yes, you are right
that in overall total number, there are more hate
crimes against Jews than Muslims. I suspect this
is not true on a per capita basis though I have
to admit to not seeing anyone do that calculation.
\_ Just another example of how diversity of every kind is celebrated by
the left. Except of course diversity of thought.
\_ Excuse me? Who's the one calling the other side a terrorist
or "America hater" for questioning the president?
\_ Um, neither side AFAICT.
\_ Why do you hate acronyms?
\_ Thomas Sowell's comments about this: http://csua.org/u/h85
\_ do you really want to be on the same side of the argument as
Thomas Sowell and Debra Saunders? -tom
\_ Actually, /I/ do. -emarkp
\_ Some don't automatically dismiss a source based on who the
writer is. If they make sense or have some facts then so
be it. YMMV.
\_ What facts are there in either of those columns? Both
*completely leave out* the comments which got people
angry, because they're not convenient to the points the
shill wants to make. Those writers do that *all the time*.
-tom
\_ Both articles are explicitly opinion articles. The
facts have been reported, these are stated opinions
about the facts. So? -emarkp
\_ So, don't you think the fact that Pete Wilson called
the kid a "travesty" is, you know, kind of important
to the discussion? Don't you think it's kind of
disingenuous to portray the situation as liberals
trying to squash someone *just* for holding a
different opinion? There's a difference between
holding a different opinion, and calling someone
else's kid a travesty; the supervisors are angry
about the latter, not the former, but these
moronic tools dishonestly frame the situation
as being about the former. -tom
\_ No, I don't think anyone should lose their job or
have it threatened for calling someone else's
public relationship or the kid in their (to be
kind) odd relationship a travesty. They're both
public figures and so is Pete Wilson. His
expression of his opinion does not in any way
rise to the level of job loss.
\_ I might agree with you. But if you write
an opinion column and leave out the fact
that he called the kid a travesty, I might
think you're full of shit. -tom
\_ Wouldn't matter to me if he called the kid
the Ultimate Evil Spawn Of Satan And Cause
Of All Badness In The Universe(c) and they
didn't mention that in their op/ed. It
still doesn't rise to the level of job loss.
Public figures do not have the same level of
privacy protection from what I'll call
"unwanted speech" that private citizens do.
Being called names is part of public life.
\_ The kid is not a public figure. -tom
\_ Oh n0es! I'm sure he's been defamed
and is highly upset and Pete Wilson
should lose his job due to the long
emotional trauma Mr. Wilson caused
as well as the future financial
losses due to his defamation! We need
to try and execute Pete right away
because this goes any further! Think
of the children!
\_ What about the Bush twins? They were
just kids and there were all sorts of
horrible things said about them. They
were not public figures, either.
should all those reporters and various
commentators be fired?
\_ I am not advocating for
Pete Wilson to be fired;
I'm just identifying the
real point which the
right-wing shills are not.
Should Pete Wilson be
fired for thinking that
two gays who aren't in a
romantic relationship
shouldn't have a kid? I
don't think so, and I
don't think any liberals
think so, either. The
whole idea is a straw man
created by dittoheads.
The real question is
whether someone should be
fired for hateful speech,
and whether Wilson's
comments constituted
hateful speech.
Personally, I'd say yes to
the first and no to the
second.
By the way, could you point
out an example of a respected
news anchor saying something
that borders on hate speech
about the Bush twins? Another
straw man. -tom
\_ Why does it have to be a
'respected anchor'? There are
numerous reports, cartoons, etc
published in print, online, etc
calling them all sorts of
things. You can't honestly say
they weren't getting picked on.
And unlike an infant, they were
old enough to get hurt. Let's
just execute everyone we don't
like or says anything mean.
\_ Please provide some examples
of people in positions like
Pete Wilson's making
comments about how the
Bush twins are "a travesty"
(or similar language).
This is not the MOTD or
dailykos we're talking about
here; this is someone whose
job it is to report news.
-tom |
| 2006/10/17-18 [Recreation/Dating, Health/Men] UID:44844 Activity:high |
10/17 Gals, don't date macho man if you want a potent man in bed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061011/hl_nm/workouts_fertility_dc
\_ You can be potent but not fertile.
\_ This only discusses the issue of fertility, not orgasms/screw.
Women probably care more about orgasms/screw.
\_ Women mostly care about money.
\_ Orgasms/screw??? Remind me not to have sex with you.
\_ Don't you want to have lots of orgasms, assuming
you're a female? Who do you get more pleasurable
sex with, a couch potato or an attractive, fit
exerciser?
\_ Exercising doesn't make your schlong any bigger or
more talented.
\_ But you can thrust longer and faster without getting
tired.
\_ If you thing stamina for _thrusting_ == greater
female pleasure you need to put down the bodice
rippers and start getting some real experience.
\_ "The exercisers showed a drop in their ... ejaculate volume, ..."
Okay. Don't date macho man if you enjoy facial/shower. |
| 2006/10/17-18 [Computer/Networking, Computer/Domains, Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:44845 Activity:moderate |
10/17 Hello Internet addicts
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/17/061017180234.eiuwieod.html
"the typical Internet addict was a single, college-educated, white male
in his 30s, who spends approximately 30 hours a week on non-essential
computer use"
\_ Me to a T. Now the thing is, I spend those 30 hours building useful
software for fun. Is that an addiction, or just a hobby?
\_ I think they mean surfing pr0n sites, not writing software as
a hobby.
\_ Yep. Otherwise, people who spend their free time on hobbies
like building furniture in their garage would be addicts.
\_ The pr0n surfing is part of the essential computer use...
\_ link:csua.org/u/h8p
\_ And then there are the TV addicts.
But their habits are rarely referred to as "problematic". -niloc
\_ I know someone who watches at least 30 hours of TV a week and
frankly it's ruining her life. |
| 2006/10/17-18 [Health/Disease/General, Computer/SW/Virus] UID:44846 Activity:high |
10/17 Some iPods shipped w/ a Windows Virus:
http://www.apple.com/support/windowsvirus
\- why dont more viruses delete massive amounts of data?
it seems like if the virus writers wanted to hurt msft
that what they should do in addition to spreading.
it seems like viruses are still in the realm of annoying
rather than fatal. is there some techical reason they
cant do more permanent damage? [i understand thaty cant
instantly kill the host, as that will greatly reduce the
spread rate].
\_ one day they will take your data and you'll have
to pay Russians to get it back.
\_ Probably because most of these are all about tagging to get
their name out there in the el8 hax0r community to announce
their m@d sk1llz than really about anything truly malicious.
We have spyware for that now.
\_ sort of like the reason real viruses aren't more lethal .. they
kill off the host and can't spread any more.
\- yes i understand that is often the case but you would think
there would be at least a few that did massive damage. or
somebody would tweak the original to do a if p < .05 then
rm -rf /. especially when you consider how many people dont
like msft. making bill gates = borg tshirts doesnt hurt msft
but fear and trembling on the part of people running windows
might.
\_ There have been viruses which delete files; they don't
propagate very well, because IT folks are more aggressive
about finding and cleaning them. -tom
\_ IT folks don't find them until users complain, while
cleaning them at most places usually involves
Symantec's Ghost. Nuke it from orbit. It's the
only way to be sure.
\_ The best answer I've heard to this question is that the
purpose is not to destroy the host or to delete info, but
to gain remote access to the host and use its bandwidth
either for downloading software or for use in ddos attacks.
Deleteing data would give away the covert nature of the
infection and would make is more likely that the virus
would be removed before the author could make use of the
infected host.
\- i am not expressing surprise that most viruses arent
more destructive but that so few are. do you know of
anybody who lost everything that was not backed up
after a virus infection? i dont think most viruses
today give somedy a "covert channel" to control the
host or really do much purposeful things other than
propagage themselves [there are some that do ddoses,
but that is still the minority] ... again, look on
slashdot or in other parts of dweebworld and there are
so many people who hate msft. there are also so many
viruses. i'm ust surprised these two group have not
intersected to produce a really destructive virus ...
most of these viruses punish some comobination of
the owner of the computer, possible their IT slaves,
if in some institution with an IT staff ... but dont really
punish msft. of course it is possible this is common
among people running bootlegged OSes which are not managed
by "it staff" [say te random asian windoes pirate user]
but we dont hear about it much.
\_ Then I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but you may not know
much about viruses. Botnets for hire (spam, DDoS for
blackmail, mainly) are a pretty big "industry", all
things considered. Very few skilled virus authors are
your prototypical 13 year old "I H8 TEH M1CROSUX"
slashdot bandwagon dweeb nowadays. Most viruses/trojans
have a fairly pragmatic purpose, and while in a lot of
cases it's just to propagate and make a point (whee look
at me! I'm cool!) those, with a few notable exceptions,
tend to be among the large mass of badly written, easily
caught ones. There's some really technically interesting
stuff floating around that does stuff like use Windows ADS
for payload storage, much of which spreads fairly
discreetly and doesn't do exactly the kind of destructive
shit that might cause grandma to install Symantec. -John
\- this may be true now, but viruses have quite a long
history and these functional one are a relatively
recent phenomena ... certainly viruses changed in
the era of permanently and by default networked
windows boxes. also i also [and i could be wrong
here] modifying a virus is probably much simpler
than writing from scratch so the number of people willing
and able to "mutate" one into an rm-rf virus seems
fairly large. so do you know of a single
person who had his computer "deleted" by a virus?
[i mean deliberate erasure or corruption of disk ...
not accidentally hosing things trying to remove it].
again my whole point is my suprise about threasholds.
like there have been DDOSes against msft, but I'm
surprised there have not been more or more clever
anti-msft DDOSes.
\_ Because people with real technical skills have better
things to do than hate microsoft much less write
malicious code to damage windows machines.
\_ Yes, I know of quite a few who have had significant
amounts of data wiped by fairly primitive viruses
as a big fat bronx cheer for failing to take even
basic security measures. And what the above poster
said. There are extremely skilled and vicious DDoS
attacks (e.g. against gambling sites during large
sports events for blackmail purposes) using botnets
for hire. There's no money to be made out of hitting
MSFT. -John |
| 2006/10/17-18 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux, Computer/HW/Display] UID:44847 Activity:nil |
10/17 Nvidia Linux driver has a buffer overflow allowing for local
and remote root exploit:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/7228
\_ That's not a remote root exploit; it can only be triggered by
someone running X on console. -tom
\_ A remote X client can take advantage of the exploit IF
X is being run on console; and my understanding is that
most linux users still run X on console.
\_ But the remote X client would have to be allowed to connect
to the X server in the first place, the way I read it;
that should usually not be the case. -tom |
| 2006/10/17-18 [Reference/Religion] UID:44848 Activity:nil |
10/17 Vatican issues cartoon version of John Paul's life
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061017/en_nm/pope_cartoon_dc
\_ Crap. Now we're going to have another violent muslim riot.
\_ Why do you hate violent muslim riots? |
| 2006/10/17-18 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:44849 Activity:nil |
10/17 http://csua.org/u/h8f (washingtonpost.com) Ken Lay gets the last laugh: By dying with pending appeals, his convictions are vacated and all litigants will need to sue the estate via civil action |
| 2006/10/17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:44850 Activity:nil |
10/17 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/12/BAG61LNN5V1.DTL Why is a Gay screwing a Lesbian to have a child? This is about as fucked up as it gets. If it isn't for this fucking gay and lesbian shit, Bush wouldn't have been elected, and we won't be in the deep shit as we are now. America is a in a "better" place because of you fucking gay and lesbians. Go fuck each other, but just don't go on and produce gay-lesbian-babies. You really are a plague. |