If it isn't law now it will be. You of course. Along with checking tire pressure, fluid levels, etc, you need to make sure the license plate is in full advertising order before leaving your parking space.
If it burns out while driving, well, it will be assumed you didn't verify operation prior to departure.
Until the state pays for and maintains my battery plus added fuel costs, I'm not running their devices for them. I don't care how small an amount of money it costs to purchase gas that powers the engine, which powers the alternator, which powers my battery. I'm not paying the state to put a billboard on my car. They need to pay _us_ for that privilege and only if we agree to it.
Until there is a law stating you are not allowed to travel in the vicinity of a thunderstorm, everyone has equal access to the public road system.
Last I checked there are _many_ reasons to go on a road trip with no real destination. The destination can be just to see the scenery. Leaf viewing in the fall in New England, driving through mountain ranges, just plain old seeing the country, etc, etc.
If you want the roads clear for your research trips, the police generally will escort you for a price. Complaining that there are other people on the road is nothing more than stating the painfully obvious.
Storms are beautiful in their own right. Everyone has equal right to use public roads to see them. Complaining that "you" don't have exclusive rights to public roads when you feel like you deserve to just comes off as childish.
All that said, I will concede I do think scientists can potentially make "better use" of an area around a storm for research but that by no means endorses the idea that no one else should be allowed to follow the roads where ever they want to go.
Just a side note, it's kind of funny that those who are making money/"fame" off the tv show that is glorifying storm chasing are complaining that other people now want to explore that "hobby".
In this case I would assume that the device and service are _yours_ _alone_ unless you specifically signed away any rights to your privacy by accepting reimbursement.
If you never sign away your privacy then I would assume the default is that it is your phone, service and privacy. If it was work issued (like the article details) then work owns it regardless of what money you put into it.
Now I'm curious, what does the reimbursement form I use for work actually say.....
Yes. I can go door to door selling knives for the purpose of cutting food but the second I start selling the same knives for the purpose of slitting your wrists or killing your neighbors pets, it becomes something the courts will decide.
If I open a gun store for hunting and protection, that's fine. If I open the same gun store and put a sign out that encourages you to shoot police on sight so you never have to worry about tickets again? Pretty sure you aren't going to be in business long.
Sell a car for the intended purpose of travel, fine.
Sell a car for the intended purpose of running down kids in school zones?
Assume for a second that they are going to start selling these systems tomorrow. What would their cost be? $100? $300? $500?
Now, how much would you stand to save per year in reduced energy use from a device like this monitoring and potentially powering off unused devices? $50? $100?
I'm already pretty good at keeping things off when I'm not using them so I'm skeptical that a device like this is going to save me any money after you figure in the cost of the device and the ironic cost of powering the device.
In theory a device like this sounds good but the very people who are worried about their energy use (and would purchase a device like this) are probably the people who least need it.
One mans art is another mans ruined block of stone or smeared oil mess on canvas. I don't doubt that some videos by people you otherwise wouldn't consider artists can be viewed as such but I'm at a loss as to why we would want to pay an admission to see videos you can see at home, or on your phone.
This isn't art that was hand crafted and could potentially be more beautiful in person.
Seems to me that being able to blind anyone you see from a long distance is quite different than holding a magnifying glass up to a stick or even wielding a knife.
I use to be a die-hard PC gaming fan. Then, to be honest, I grew up. Gaming to me is now about relaxing and enjoying my free time. The last thing I want to do is worry about framerates on the latest game to hit the shelves or the DRM they incorporate.
I simply want to sit down, turn it on, hit play, and be playing. Standardized hardware is awesome for this ability to always be great hardware for the software I purchased.
Now, I will admit that PC games have the ability to be _much_ prettier and I still can't stand FPS games on a console (keyboard/mouser), but for _any_ other game, the console is just a no brainer for me. It's just so easy to go to the store and pick up the latest AAA title and enjoy it.
Maybe PC gaming as a whole is better for you, and I'm happy for you. But I'd argue that your opinion is not universal fact, "It's better anyway.".
Say, I purchase the right to use a fictional item in a fictional universe (say WoW) and in the EULA/TOS Blizzard explicitly states that the items have _no_ "real world" value, they own the item in question, and you're merely paying for the service to use said item in their fictional world for an amount of time they dictate. What is it considered if you log into my account without my consent and you transfer the item to your account and then _sell_ it on fleabay for $100?
It seems the only party that can press charges is Blizzard and my only recourse is to contact Blizzard to see if they can re-enable access to said item.
Really, in that scenario, nothing was stolen and I've only "lost access" to the service of holding said item. Computer Trespassing (hacking) occurred, but on Blizzard's servers. The "thief" also potentially sold an item that belongs to someone else (Blizzard). I should have zero reason to contact police. Blizzard can if they choose, but that's their call. Interesting.
So the question is, what is the TOS/EULA for the game in the article? Does the person who "bought" it have any real right to the item? Or is it all virtual property owned by the corporation that offered the service in the first place? If that's how it is laid out, police should never have gotten involved. Nothing was ever "stolen" from the complainant, service has just been lost. It's up to the person who lost service to attempt to go through official channels to get that service back.
And I think you should notice that I came to the same conclusion. However, I take exception to your analogy to bank account information/funds.
If you log into my bank account you can steal something from me that is linked to a direct physical object (in theory its gold). If you transfer a virtual couch from my Couchville account, there is nothing in real life that I could have used that virtual couch for.
There might be a perceived value to it just like there is a perceived value to stealing cable television. And I get that stealing the service is illegal and punishable. I'm merely drawing the distinction between "stealing" a service (cable, virtual furniture, etc) and stealing a good that exists in the real world (gold) and is "stolen" online (bank account break in).
TL;DR, stealing a virtual item is theft of service, not theft of an item, at least in my opinion. Both are still illegal.
Ok, if someone takes a physical object from you without your consent, that's theft. If they break into your house to do it, that's B&E + theft.
If you have an online account with "things" that are sellable/transferable out of it, is taking those "theft"? Obviously the B&E part is some form of computer trespassing, etc, but do the items exist in such a fashion to be considered "missing" if stolen?
I get they are no longer accessible from your account, but if they can only be viewed through "the web" do they really exist?
If I buy a physical book off amazon, I get a physical thing. If amazon goes the way of the dodo, I still have my book.
If I buy a virtual couch from VirtualCouchGuys.com and they go out of business, my, as well as everyone elses couch, goes bye bye. Just the same as a cell phone service/plan would go bye bye if the company simply folds and turns out the lights.
So wouldn't virtual goods be services then? It is a service to log in and see a blue pin striped couch more than it is an item. But what about the whole "theft" portion? How can you "steal" service? The only thing I can think of is akin to stealing bandwidth through WEP Wifi or cutting someones phone line and splicing yours into it or doing the same with cable.
You're not stealing a physical object, you're stealing a service. I guess that's the only rational way to go after "virtual furniture" thieves. But, now, if I steal cable, can the cops arrest me? Apparently, yes. The actual charge appears to be "unauthorized use of computer, cable, or telecommunications property" which seems to fit with virtual items as well (correct me if I'm wrong).
Now, I know this is in Finland, but it seems it would apply here in the States too.
Fine, if that's the way you want to go with it, lets all be "tolerant" of what _any_ other group doesn't like.
I mean, if Russia doesn't like something, lets get rid of whatever it is they don't like. If France doesn't like the anti-France jokes, lets scrub sites of anything resembling it. If MADD doesn't like alcohol references, lets be "tolerant" and get rid of those as well, oh hey, 2 birds there. Oh there are a lot of groups who are offended by the idea of evolution, scrub that. Oh hey, there are other groups who only believe we come from aliens, etc. Scrub anything anti-alien created/derived.
It's a slippery slope. If you don't want to read something, click away, or hey, just don't click it in the first place. It's not _my_ problem if you don't like something that is legal in my country where my post is located.
Huge slippery slope. Cave to one groups demands and now you've set precedent. Now the next group sees that you cave to demands, so lets all demand what we want. I mean, hell, we can't police what we view ourselves so fuck it, lets have everyone self censor so I can live happily the way I want to. Fuck the rest of the world and their ideas!
Not in all cases. I'm looking to start a small business and the number one advice/point that was drilled into my head by the small business assistance group was to make sure that I rolled all income into expenses. If you do this, you don't pay taxes on it. Yes, you still have to collect sales tax but _no_ income tax for the owner/business.
Basically, if I started a beach chair company I should take the proceeds to buy "business things" like new computers, car to transport me to the post office, etc and to take "research trips" and "business lunches/dinners" to offset the income.
You know, head down to the Caribbean to scope out the competition, potential distributors, etc.
Doing that I can basically take "free" vacations, meals, car, etc, but the downside is I can't have a wad of cash from selling my goods. If I want to have a wad of cash or put money into my personal savings, it's income and reported as such.
Again, business trips/expenses are not taxable.
So I literally could sell a million dollars of goods over the next year and report $0 income. That's not to say I didn't take a trip to Europe and eat out every day. And that new pickup in the driveway is a business vehicle. The business, on paper, would barely be breaking even, but I'd be enjoying life.
You lost me. First you state that the government doesn't really know how much you owe them (read: they are probably low-balling the figure) then you go on to say that they will charge you more than you're due; "government wants all your money".
It can't be both ways.
I'd rather the government take all the information that is already forwarded to them via work and they can just tell me what to send in (if anything). If they owe me, use the bank account I setup last year or ask for a new one.
Maybe it's the pin striping and white/gray color or maybe I'm just crazy, but I see a lot of Star Trek in that car. Especially TNG style.
I wonder if they got any inspiration for the designs used in the show from it.
Re:"or is it just frightening Franken-food?"
on
The Rise of Nanofoods
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It wouldn't be a kdawson article without alluding to a surreptitious motive, a conspiracy, or just being pure paranoia. Or a baby video they found cute...
Re:Sense of humor = 0
on
Iron Baby
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This site isn't about funny video clips someone found. There are tons of sites devoted to compiling funny video clips.
This "article" was nothing more than kdawson enjoying a video and posting it to the front page. There was no commentary/summary included besides "When Iron Baby wants O's, Iron Baby gets O's.". This tells me nothing about it. This tells me nothing about why it's on the page. I have no information as to why it's _any_ type of "news".
This front page "article" was nothing more than what I typically find in a humorous work email where a co-worker found a video he thinks I might enjoy.
Slashdot, last I checked, was about news or something resembling it. It's about intelligent (at least respective to other sites) discussion about the article/summary/information/technology. Slashdot is not about posting a cute video you want to share with people.
If you want to do that, that's fine, but find a "news" angle with it. Maybe this was made by a college kid with free software. Maybe it's a project to raise awareness about something, I don't know. But if the editor merely wants to post a video with the text "When Iron Baby wants O's, Iron Baby gets O's.", submit it to Ebaumsworld or another "joke" site.
We're "grumpy" because this was a sheer and utter waste on Slashdot. Ya, Slashdot can be considered a waste of time on someones scale of relevancy to life, I get that. But Slashdot is a site we go to to learn, not have "cute" videos pushed to the front page. The problem is that now we have precedent that a cute enough video with no summary will be front page material. Why not cut to the chase and just have every other "article" be a funny picture, say a lolcat that kdawson found amusing and then later they can put up the video of the redneck rollercoaster because they thought that was hilarious.
Being a carrier for a disease means you're still actually infected. You're just asymptomatic and it never actually affects you in any negative way. But tests would show you have the disease.
The only way for a human to actually be a carrier for a "computer" virus is through biometrics (that I can imagine right now), but those biometric scanners would have to be pretty severely flawed to allow that to happen. Say you could re-engineer your iris to exploit a buffer overflow vulnerability in a scanner or something similar through DNA scanning, etc. But without being subjected to a specific procedure to modify yourself, I'm not sure how you would ever "contract" it in the first place.
I suppose DNA is the best example. If we get to the point where one day you can implant a chip that will re-engineer your DNA on the fly and that chip is updated wirelessly, to stop diseases, boost your immune system, etc, etc, and you could potentially reprogram it to cause it to encode your DNA in such a way that government scanners are now vulnerable to it. I suppose that could fit the spirit of "infecting a human" to "infect computers with virii".
But simply implanting a chip into yourself for the purpose of passing a virus to a computer is an extremely specific attack and frankly, the implanting part is entirely unnecessary.
Infect chip.
Implant chip.
Get chip to infect computer.
How was it ever contracted, let alone transmitted by the human? You could wear the chip as a necklace, tie it to a paper airplane, or just throw it and get the same results.
This really only applies to slang words that are labeled as "swears".
If you get cut off on the road and you yell out to the other driver "Fuck you!". That has a certain meaning. Mainly that you're displeased with them and you potentially want them to get angry and/or hurt by those words. Substituting "I want to have intercourse with you!" in that situation would have an _entirely_ different meaning regardless of the fact that "fuck" generally means "having intercourse".
I don't think the slope is as slippery as you're implying.
Not that I agree, but I understand where they are coming from.
If the 'F' word is banned in your school and the kids all of a sudden decide to say the word 'Squash' in lieu of the naughty word, eventually they become synonymous. Saying "Squash you, Mr. Teacher" is still potentially going to get you in trouble if the teacher knows what "Squash" means in that context.
So, the question really is, is the putting together of the letters F-U-C-K naughty, or the meaning and/or implied meaning of the word the naughty bit?
If it's the latter, then _any_ substitution of the word still implies the word and carries the negative connotation along with it.
Again, I don't agree with it and frankly, I think all words should be allowed. It's all part of the language and any negative feelings you have to a word are _your_ problem.
If you buy radio equipment you should also *know* that other people can pick up the signals as well. If you don't want other people listening in on your data, simply "whisper" by using encryption.
Ignorance is no excuse. RTFM when you purchase your radio transmitter (read: WAP/Wireless Router). Don't just bitch that you had no idea what security was and everyone listening is wrong for doing so.
If you don't want other people to have your data, don't broadcast it with zero encryption. You can't sit there and yell at the top of your lungs all day long and then get mad when someone hears and/or records what you're saying.
Re:So, my only question regarding Lost is
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Ya, this confused the hell out of me too.
Man in Black - A regular man born to a normal person (read: no special powers/abilities, just human). Raised by the "Jacob" of the time. But again, no special powers. Just a human who wants to leave.
Desmond - A regular man with an ability to ward off extreme Electromagnetism.
Jack - A regular man with "Jacob" abilities.
So, the Man in Black goes in, immediately gets turned into the "smoke monster".
Desmond goes in, no harm no foul. Gets a bloody nose and passes out a bit. Gets out safely. Supposedly his ability to withstand EM is what allowed him to not die.
Jack goes in, severely wounded, plays with rocks and apparently gets back out long enough to walk to his originating spot on the island to die.
The only way I can figure it is that extreme EM causes one to become a/the smoke monster unless you're either a "Jacob" or you have a natural ability to ward off EM.
Slashdot Mirror
If it isn't law now it will be. You of course. Along with checking tire pressure, fluid levels, etc, you need to make sure the license plate is in full advertising order before leaving your parking space.
If it burns out while driving, well, it will be assumed you didn't verify operation prior to departure.
Until the state pays for and maintains my battery plus added fuel costs, I'm not running their devices for them. I don't care how small an amount of money it costs to purchase gas that powers the engine, which powers the alternator, which powers my battery. I'm not paying the state to put a billboard on my car. They need to pay _us_ for that privilege and only if we agree to it.
Until there is a law stating you are not allowed to travel in the vicinity of a thunderstorm, everyone has equal access to the public road system.
Last I checked there are _many_ reasons to go on a road trip with no real destination. The destination can be just to see the scenery. Leaf viewing in the fall in New England, driving through mountain ranges, just plain old seeing the country, etc, etc.
If you want the roads clear for your research trips, the police generally will escort you for a price. Complaining that there are other people on the road is nothing more than stating the painfully obvious.
Storms are beautiful in their own right. Everyone has equal right to use public roads to see them. Complaining that "you" don't have exclusive rights to public roads when you feel like you deserve to just comes off as childish.
All that said, I will concede I do think scientists can potentially make "better use" of an area around a storm for research but that by no means endorses the idea that no one else should be allowed to follow the roads where ever they want to go.
Just a side note, it's kind of funny that those who are making money/"fame" off the tv show that is glorifying storm chasing are complaining that other people now want to explore that "hobby".
In this case I would assume that the device and service are _yours_ _alone_ unless you specifically signed away any rights to your privacy by accepting reimbursement.
If you never sign away your privacy then I would assume the default is that it is your phone, service and privacy. If it was work issued (like the article details) then work owns it regardless of what money you put into it.
Now I'm curious, what does the reimbursement form I use for work actually say.....
Yes. I can go door to door selling knives for the purpose of cutting food but the second I start selling the same knives for the purpose of slitting your wrists or killing your neighbors pets, it becomes something the courts will decide.
If I open a gun store for hunting and protection, that's fine. If I open the same gun store and put a sign out that encourages you to shoot police on sight so you never have to worry about tickets again? Pretty sure you aren't going to be in business long.
Sell a car for the intended purpose of travel, fine. Sell a car for the intended purpose of running down kids in school zones?
Assume for a second that they are going to start selling these systems tomorrow. What would their cost be? $100? $300? $500?
Now, how much would you stand to save per year in reduced energy use from a device like this monitoring and potentially powering off unused devices? $50? $100?
I'm already pretty good at keeping things off when I'm not using them so I'm skeptical that a device like this is going to save me any money after you figure in the cost of the device and the ironic cost of powering the device.
In theory a device like this sounds good but the very people who are worried about their energy use (and would purchase a device like this) are probably the people who least need it.
One mans art is another mans ruined block of stone or smeared oil mess on canvas. I don't doubt that some videos by people you otherwise wouldn't consider artists can be viewed as such but I'm at a loss as to why we would want to pay an admission to see videos you can see at home, or on your phone.
This isn't art that was hand crafted and could potentially be more beautiful in person.
Oh well, whatever sells tickets I guess.
Seems to me that being able to blind anyone you see from a long distance is quite different than holding a magnifying glass up to a stick or even wielding a knife.
I use to be a die-hard PC gaming fan. Then, to be honest, I grew up. Gaming to me is now about relaxing and enjoying my free time. The last thing I want to do is worry about framerates on the latest game to hit the shelves or the DRM they incorporate.
I simply want to sit down, turn it on, hit play, and be playing. Standardized hardware is awesome for this ability to always be great hardware for the software I purchased.
Now, I will admit that PC games have the ability to be _much_ prettier and I still can't stand FPS games on a console (keyboard/mouser), but for _any_ other game, the console is just a no brainer for me. It's just so easy to go to the store and pick up the latest AAA title and enjoy it.
Maybe PC gaming as a whole is better for you, and I'm happy for you. But I'd argue that your opinion is not universal fact, "It's better anyway.".
That is a very interesting point.
Say, I purchase the right to use a fictional item in a fictional universe (say WoW) and in the EULA/TOS Blizzard explicitly states that the items have _no_ "real world" value, they own the item in question, and you're merely paying for the service to use said item in their fictional world for an amount of time they dictate. What is it considered if you log into my account without my consent and you transfer the item to your account and then _sell_ it on fleabay for $100?
It seems the only party that can press charges is Blizzard and my only recourse is to contact Blizzard to see if they can re-enable access to said item.
Really, in that scenario, nothing was stolen and I've only "lost access" to the service of holding said item. Computer Trespassing (hacking) occurred, but on Blizzard's servers. The "thief" also potentially sold an item that belongs to someone else (Blizzard). I should have zero reason to contact police. Blizzard can if they choose, but that's their call. Interesting.
So the question is, what is the TOS/EULA for the game in the article? Does the person who "bought" it have any real right to the item? Or is it all virtual property owned by the corporation that offered the service in the first place? If that's how it is laid out, police should never have gotten involved. Nothing was ever "stolen" from the complainant, service has just been lost. It's up to the person who lost service to attempt to go through official channels to get that service back.
And I think you should notice that I came to the same conclusion. However, I take exception to your analogy to bank account information/funds.
If you log into my bank account you can steal something from me that is linked to a direct physical object (in theory its gold). If you transfer a virtual couch from my Couchville account, there is nothing in real life that I could have used that virtual couch for.
There might be a perceived value to it just like there is a perceived value to stealing cable television. And I get that stealing the service is illegal and punishable. I'm merely drawing the distinction between "stealing" a service (cable, virtual furniture, etc) and stealing a good that exists in the real world (gold) and is "stolen" online (bank account break in).
TL;DR, stealing a virtual item is theft of service, not theft of an item, at least in my opinion. Both are still illegal.
Ok, if someone takes a physical object from you without your consent, that's theft. If they break into your house to do it, that's B&E + theft.
If you have an online account with "things" that are sellable/transferable out of it, is taking those "theft"? Obviously the B&E part is some form of computer trespassing, etc, but do the items exist in such a fashion to be considered "missing" if stolen?
I get they are no longer accessible from your account, but if they can only be viewed through "the web" do they really exist?
If I buy a physical book off amazon, I get a physical thing. If amazon goes the way of the dodo, I still have my book.
If I buy a virtual couch from VirtualCouchGuys.com and they go out of business, my, as well as everyone elses couch, goes bye bye. Just the same as a cell phone service/plan would go bye bye if the company simply folds and turns out the lights.
So wouldn't virtual goods be services then? It is a service to log in and see a blue pin striped couch more than it is an item. But what about the whole "theft" portion? How can you "steal" service? The only thing I can think of is akin to stealing bandwidth through WEP Wifi or cutting someones phone line and splicing yours into it or doing the same with cable.
You're not stealing a physical object, you're stealing a service. I guess that's the only rational way to go after "virtual furniture" thieves. But, now, if I steal cable, can the cops arrest me? Apparently, yes. The actual charge appears to be "unauthorized use of computer, cable, or telecommunications property" which seems to fit with virtual items as well (correct me if I'm wrong).
Now, I know this is in Finland, but it seems it would apply here in the States too.
Fine, if that's the way you want to go with it, lets all be "tolerant" of what _any_ other group doesn't like.
I mean, if Russia doesn't like something, lets get rid of whatever it is they don't like. If France doesn't like the anti-France jokes, lets scrub sites of anything resembling it. If MADD doesn't like alcohol references, lets be "tolerant" and get rid of those as well, oh hey, 2 birds there. Oh there are a lot of groups who are offended by the idea of evolution, scrub that. Oh hey, there are other groups who only believe we come from aliens, etc. Scrub anything anti-alien created/derived.
It's a slippery slope. If you don't want to read something, click away, or hey, just don't click it in the first place. It's not _my_ problem if you don't like something that is legal in my country where my post is located.
Huge slippery slope. Cave to one groups demands and now you've set precedent. Now the next group sees that you cave to demands, so lets all demand what we want. I mean, hell, we can't police what we view ourselves so fuck it, lets have everyone self censor so I can live happily the way I want to. Fuck the rest of the world and their ideas!
Not in all cases. I'm looking to start a small business and the number one advice/point that was drilled into my head by the small business assistance group was to make sure that I rolled all income into expenses. If you do this, you don't pay taxes on it. Yes, you still have to collect sales tax but _no_ income tax for the owner/business.
Basically, if I started a beach chair company I should take the proceeds to buy "business things" like new computers, car to transport me to the post office, etc and to take "research trips" and "business lunches/dinners" to offset the income.
You know, head down to the Caribbean to scope out the competition, potential distributors, etc.
Doing that I can basically take "free" vacations, meals, car, etc, but the downside is I can't have a wad of cash from selling my goods. If I want to have a wad of cash or put money into my personal savings, it's income and reported as such.
Again, business trips/expenses are not taxable.
So I literally could sell a million dollars of goods over the next year and report $0 income. That's not to say I didn't take a trip to Europe and eat out every day. And that new pickup in the driveway is a business vehicle. The business, on paper, would barely be breaking even, but I'd be enjoying life.
You lost me. First you state that the government doesn't really know how much you owe them (read: they are probably low-balling the figure) then you go on to say that they will charge you more than you're due; "government wants all your money".
It can't be both ways.
I'd rather the government take all the information that is already forwarded to them via work and they can just tell me what to send in (if anything). If they owe me, use the bank account I setup last year or ask for a new one.
Maybe it's the pin striping and white/gray color or maybe I'm just crazy, but I see a lot of Star Trek in that car. Especially TNG style.
I wonder if they got any inspiration for the designs used in the show from it.
It wouldn't be a kdawson article without alluding to a surreptitious motive, a conspiracy, or just being pure paranoia. Or a baby video they found cute...
This site isn't about funny video clips someone found. There are tons of sites devoted to compiling funny video clips.
This "article" was nothing more than kdawson enjoying a video and posting it to the front page. There was no commentary/summary included besides "When Iron Baby wants O's, Iron Baby gets O's.". This tells me nothing about it. This tells me nothing about why it's on the page. I have no information as to why it's _any_ type of "news".
This front page "article" was nothing more than what I typically find in a humorous work email where a co-worker found a video he thinks I might enjoy.
Slashdot, last I checked, was about news or something resembling it. It's about intelligent (at least respective to other sites) discussion about the article/summary/information/technology. Slashdot is not about posting a cute video you want to share with people.
If you want to do that, that's fine, but find a "news" angle with it. Maybe this was made by a college kid with free software. Maybe it's a project to raise awareness about something, I don't know. But if the editor merely wants to post a video with the text "When Iron Baby wants O's, Iron Baby gets O's.", submit it to Ebaumsworld or another "joke" site.
We're "grumpy" because this was a sheer and utter waste on Slashdot. Ya, Slashdot can be considered a waste of time on someones scale of relevancy to life, I get that. But Slashdot is a site we go to to learn, not have "cute" videos pushed to the front page. The problem is that now we have precedent that a cute enough video with no summary will be front page material. Why not cut to the chase and just have every other "article" be a funny picture, say a lolcat that kdawson found amusing and then later they can put up the video of the redneck rollercoaster because they thought that was hilarious.
Oh, I found a funny picture on failblog, that should be front page too!
Being a carrier for a disease means you're still actually infected. You're just asymptomatic and it never actually affects you in any negative way. But tests would show you have the disease.
The only way for a human to actually be a carrier for a "computer" virus is through biometrics (that I can imagine right now), but those biometric scanners would have to be pretty severely flawed to allow that to happen. Say you could re-engineer your iris to exploit a buffer overflow vulnerability in a scanner or something similar through DNA scanning, etc. But without being subjected to a specific procedure to modify yourself, I'm not sure how you would ever "contract" it in the first place.
I suppose DNA is the best example. If we get to the point where one day you can implant a chip that will re-engineer your DNA on the fly and that chip is updated wirelessly, to stop diseases, boost your immune system, etc, etc, and you could potentially reprogram it to cause it to encode your DNA in such a way that government scanners are now vulnerable to it. I suppose that could fit the spirit of "infecting a human" to "infect computers with virii".
But simply implanting a chip into yourself for the purpose of passing a virus to a computer is an extremely specific attack and frankly, the implanting part is entirely unnecessary.
Infect chip.
Implant chip.
Get chip to infect computer.
How was it ever contracted, let alone transmitted by the human? You could wear the chip as a necklace, tie it to a paper airplane, or just throw it and get the same results.
I think you're taking it a little too literal.
This really only applies to slang words that are labeled as "swears".
If you get cut off on the road and you yell out to the other driver "Fuck you!". That has a certain meaning. Mainly that you're displeased with them and you potentially want them to get angry and/or hurt by those words. Substituting "I want to have intercourse with you!" in that situation would have an _entirely_ different meaning regardless of the fact that "fuck" generally means "having intercourse".
I don't think the slope is as slippery as you're implying.
Not that I agree, but I understand where they are coming from.
If the 'F' word is banned in your school and the kids all of a sudden decide to say the word 'Squash' in lieu of the naughty word, eventually they become synonymous. Saying "Squash you, Mr. Teacher" is still potentially going to get you in trouble if the teacher knows what "Squash" means in that context.
So, the question really is, is the putting together of the letters F-U-C-K naughty, or the meaning and/or implied meaning of the word the naughty bit?
If it's the latter, then _any_ substitution of the word still implies the word and carries the negative connotation along with it.
Again, I don't agree with it and frankly, I think all words should be allowed. It's all part of the language and any negative feelings you have to a word are _your_ problem.
If you buy radio equipment you should also *know* that other people can pick up the signals as well. If you don't want other people listening in on your data, simply "whisper" by using encryption.
Ignorance is no excuse. RTFM when you purchase your radio transmitter (read: WAP/Wireless Router). Don't just bitch that you had no idea what security was and everyone listening is wrong for doing so.
If you don't want other people to have your data, don't broadcast it with zero encryption. You can't sit there and yell at the top of your lungs all day long and then get mad when someone hears and/or records what you're saying.
Ya, this confused the hell out of me too.
Man in Black - A regular man born to a normal person (read: no special powers/abilities, just human). Raised by the "Jacob" of the time. But again, no special powers. Just a human who wants to leave.
Desmond - A regular man with an ability to ward off extreme Electromagnetism.
Jack - A regular man with "Jacob" abilities.
So, the Man in Black goes in, immediately gets turned into the "smoke monster".
Desmond goes in, no harm no foul. Gets a bloody nose and passes out a bit. Gets out safely. Supposedly his ability to withstand EM is what allowed him to not die.
Jack goes in, severely wounded, plays with rocks and apparently gets back out long enough to walk to his originating spot on the island to die.
The only way I can figure it is that extreme EM causes one to become a/the smoke monster unless you're either a "Jacob" or you have a natural ability to ward off EM.