step.ee's Journal http://www.slashcode.com/~step.ee/journal/ step.ee's Slashcode Journal en-us Copyright 2004, OSTG - Open Source Technology Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 2012-01-25T04:40:13+00:00 Me admins@slashcode.com Technology hourly 1 1970-01-01T00:00+00:00 step.ee's Journal http://images.slashcode.com/topics/topicslash.gif http://www.slashcode.com/~step.ee/journal/ 2.0 and FreeBSD http://www.slashcode.com/~step.ee/journal/105?from=rss <p>everything installed beautifully on FeeBSD. But there is one small problem! I can't delete story's!<br>so looked around here and discovered, that the cause for this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/local/etc/rc.d/slash.sh.<br>(must be copied manually to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/local/etc/rc.d/)<br>It refuses to run!<br>So I fixed the FreBSD line (Install notes for Slash 2.0.0 on FreeBSD 4.3).<br>No luck!<br>So I get this message :<br>" Starting slashd slash: This account is currently not available.<br>ok PID = "</p><p>so now I look into<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/local/slash/slash.sites and replaced slash:nobody:blaa.blaa.yy<br>with slash:slash:blaa.blaa.yy .</p><p>Now I get this message:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/local/etc/rc.d/slash.sh start<br>Starting slashd slash: ok PID =<br>Jep! No pid and slashd actually not started.</p><p>Apache is running as nobody:nobody<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p> step.ee 2001-08-13T13:11:02+00:00 bugs install on FreeBSD http://www.slashcode.com/~step.ee/journal/102?from=rss <p>zhuure as hell the file for firing up Bender's ass, must be copied to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/local/etc/rc.d/</p><p>and for fun it's giving you a finger!</p><p>so edit the bastard</p><p>note:</p><p>look at <a href="http://slashcode.com/article.pl?sid=01/06/14/0454227&amp;mode=thread&amp;threshold=">thisz</a></p> step.ee 2001-08-12T19:07:41+00:00 bugs banjo is like old car http://www.slashcode.com/~step.ee/journal/97?from=rss <p>banjo... it sure is like old car with new, or should i say rebuild, engine.</p><p>It's like adding a new stereo to your old rust-bucket and saying: "Look a have a new car"</p><p>why most slash sites look like shit? - except the one I made!</p><p><a href="http://www.minut.ee/">minut.ee</a></p> step.ee 2001-08-07T12:57:44+00:00 bugs The biotech bullshit that baffles brains http://www.slashcode.com/~step.ee/journal/68?from=rss <p>http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763<nobr>,<wbr></nobr> 337318,00.html</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The biotech bullshit that baffles brains </p><p>I haven't the faintest idea what these scientists are talking about</p><p>GM debate: special report </p><p>John O'Farrell<br> Wednesday June 28, 2000<br> The Guardian </p><p>I was instinctively against the idea of GM crops until I heard that they've managed to isolate the gene that makes mangetouts vaguely posh. Soon it will possible to ask for mangetouts in the greengrocers without feeling a bit stupid. <br> What has already been achieved with vegetables will now be possible with humans. We could find the gene that makes people pretend to sit and read the credits in the cinema. The gene that makes us keep looking round at our new cars when we've just parked them. And of course the gene that makes us lose concentration when we read about the linear sequences of amino acids in the synthesis of proteins. Judging by some of the rubbish that has been written about DNA this week, the leap from vegetable to human is not such a great one. Pages and pages have been churned out by pompous leader writers hailing this incredible scientific breakthrough and using the word &quot;millennium&quot; a lot. Why can't everyone just be honest about it; put their hands up and say: &quot;Sorry, but I haven't the faintest bloody idea what these scientists are talking about, but they tell us it's important so I suppose we'd better take their word for it.&quot; Most of us were completely baffled by Monday's breakthrough in genetic decoding. </p><p>&quot;I thought they'd just closed down DNA?&quot; </p><p>&quot;No, that was C'n'A wasn't it?&quot; </p><p>We are told that the Book of Life is the most complex sequence of letters ever written, though whoever said that never took One Hundred Years of Solitude on holiday. </p><p>&quot;Let us be in no doubt about what we are witnessing today . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.&quot; proclaimed Tony Blair, &quot;a revolution in science that far surpasses even the discovery of antibodies.&quot; I wish that instead of nodding wisely and trying to look moved, the journalists had asked him: &quot;So could you explain it a bit further please, Tony?&quot; </p><p>&quot;Er . . . well. . . erm, there's your chromosomes and er - genes and DNA and stuff . . . anyway, must dash, nappies to change and all that.&quot; </p><p>Bill Clinton wouldn't take questions either. His advisers were worried that journalists asking about DNA storing vital information might set him off denying having sex with Monica Lewinsky all over again. DNA on genes you say? I could have sworn it was on her dress. </p><p>Now the debate has quickly moved on to the predictable second stage - the ethical and moral debate. This discussion is as old as science itself. When the first caveman invented the wheel, an anxious discussion no doubt ensued as to what terrible uses this &quot;wheel&quot; might be put - a nightmare which finally became reality in the 70s when the first Austin Allegro rolled off the production line. But you can't attack the pioneers for the social consequences of their work (Captain Cook discovered Australia but you can't blame him for Neighbours). If there are discoveries to be made then people will seek them out. Of course there are dangers. We must not have people being discriminated against because of their genetic inheritance - Carol Thatcher excepted. We cannot allow the insurance companies to demand genetic testing. They should continue to refuse to pay out to everyone on the same equal basis. The risks are not from science itself but, as always, from the way we have constructed our society. You don't have to have read the Book of Life to know that unless they are restrained some individuals will try to use this week's breakthrough to increase their own wealth and power at the expense of others. </p><p>There may well be areas of human endeavour that are best left to the private sector, such as cosmetic surgery and pizza deliveries. But the future of the world's health, the right to patent and profit from human genes, ultimately to redesign and alter our species, is not something I would want to entrust to the good people who run the multinational drug companies. Yesterday's Times argues that without the profit motive the next stage of scientific development would happen more slowly - as if we are all impatiently sitting around saying: &quot;Come on, boffins! The rate of scientific change at the moment is no nowhere near fast enough!&quot; </p><p>We have to take control of what is happening. How is it than we are able to decode the entire genetic make up of human beings - something it would take one person 50 years to type out (or longer if they had to keep stopping to overrule their spellcheck) and yet we are already admitting defeat at the comparatively minor challenge of regulating and legislating to ensure all this work is put to the best use? The prize of conquering susceptibility to so many diseases is too precious to surrender to the inherently discriminatory free market. This information belongs to us all - our politicians need to work as fast as our scientists to make sure it stays that way. And while we are at it, we need to find and isolate that gene that makes some people only be motivated by the lure of enormous personal wealth. A billion dollars for the first one who finds it. </p><p>comment@guardian.co.uk </p> step.ee 2001-05-28T22:59:44+00:00 bugs badabing http://www.slashcode.com/~step.ee/journal/40?from=rss se on lihtsalt test ja ei muud midagi erilist step.ee 2001-04-18T09:53:18+00:00 bugs