WTF is that, privilege unescalling? If you can already replace the HOSTS file, why would you change a page to get the user clicking on something?
Because you don't want them downloading and running a cleanup tool that would remove you from their system.
A few recent viruses/adbots/spambots/systemfuckers will do this. They'll do a few different tricks (patching I.E., changing hosts file, sabotaging downloads) to try and stop you from getting to any antivirus or recovery sites. It makes it virtually impossible to recover your system without a system cleanup live CD, which basically guarantees that your average non-technical user won't be able to fix their computer without outside help. Even with a cleanup util it's easier and safer to just back up all non-executable user data and then nuke the system from orbit.
The thrust of your argument is that older and/or non-company vended net software is dangerous when it comes to picking up viruses.
It is? I thought it was that Linux (and free software in general) was claimed to be a rip-off of commercial software developments' IP. Which, while definitely not true in the broadest sense, you could make a case for. A lot of free software intentionally duplicates functionality found in popular commercial software as a way to get around paying for said commercial software. The problem is that the initial design of software is far harder to get right than the implementation, and I can easily see how a commercial software company would feel ripped off if they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on research into market research, interface design, focus testing, etc. and then some hobbyist downloaded the demo of results of their research and copied the design.
Did no one else get to sit on their parents lap and steer the car?
Heheheh good times... I remember being about 6, on Dad's knee doing laps of a car park, and deciding I was bored of driving now, and just letting go of the steering wheel. That's when I learned that driving is not something you can just stop doing in the middle of it; ironically something I wish my parents would remember half as well as I do.:P
...and that nobody wants their kid to be a starving artist when they grow up =)
GOOD artists, the ones that started at 18 months, don't starve.:) It's only the ones who get to mid teens, think "gosh, this science stuff is hard", and decide that they're far too good for manual labour, who end up as starving artists, because the only part of "art" they can actually do is be condescendingly pretentious.:P
Just make sure you lock down any wireless networks around by the time he's 8-10, or he'll get a head start on that whole 'the internet is for porn' thing.:P
Then again I remember my friends and I swapping 3.5" discs with half-a-dozen topless.gifs back when I was in year 8, and I turned out fine.:P
I must admit, I'm developing a healthy skepticism of any such announcement coming out of India. I'm sure there are millions of very capable, respectable scientists there but there's also a large element of superstitious nonsense, and it seems to be this element that's running the media. *sigh* It's like that guy claiming to have not eaten for 60 years because he sustains himself purely on yogic vedic nonsense. Funny how they announced they were observing him closely, and then just went quiet about it after a few days... no big article saying "yep, old guy is just another faker" though.
I don't care either way about spoiler tags, but I like seeing complete plots, including twists/endings. That's why I go to the Wikipedia article first instead of IMDB, because it is more likely to have the entire plot.
Yeah, then I don't even need to watch the movie at all!
I mean, each to their own and all, and if you like a detailed rundown so you know exactly what you're getting, I can understand that... but when I ask a friend about a movie (or look it up) I want the general gist of the movie (setting, genre, maybe some main plot elements) but I don't want them to tell me that he was a ghost all along, Snape kills Dumbledore, and the whole thing was a dream.
Eggs.
Was good for you. Then bad for you. Now has good cholestorol. It's the prime example of why "studies" are nothing but trash. Follow some people, draw a conclusion based on horribly imperfect information and call it science!
And 'taters. First they're good, then they're bad, then you're meant to peel them, then you're only meant to eat the skins. I think they're back on the "actually, potatoes are good for you" front but I don't really care because it'll be different tomorrow anyway.
The significant part is not that it found that people who drink in moderation live longer than people who abstain, (which is the type of result that you are linking to) it found that PEOPLE WHO ABSTAIN DO NOT LIVE AS LONG AS PEOPLE THAT DRINK HEAVILY.
What I find confusing and somewhat disturbing is that they're defining "heavy drinker" as "anyone who drinks more than 3 standard drinks in a day." That's two beers. I would have thought 'heavy drinking' would entail at least a six pack, or taking a decent chunk out of a bottle of spirits.
What about people who sit but have nervous leg syndrome or the like? I recently started taking zinc supplements (apparently as a vegetarian I've been chronically low on zinc my whole life, go figure) and it's exacerbated my legs' desire to jiggle on their own (I have no problem with this, it annoys my cow orkers when it wobbles their monitors though.:P ) I'd guess I'm doing a similar amount of 'leg work' to people who stand relatively stationary most of the time.
You know what really annoyed me? Not the games (where at least the picture kinda represented what they would be aiming at if they had modern-era graphics). It was the spreadsheets. And the compilers. And the goddamn word processors. All of those had crazy 3D raytraced covers that made them look like they were the real-life incarnation of Neuromancer... and what they were was a text-mode office application. GAH!
Actually we have some pretty significant natural gas reserves off the North West coast. Well technically I think they were mostly in Indonesian territory but we bought them off Indonesia for a few million in bribe money... *ahem* I mean we negotiated a treaty. Anyway we have plenty of fossil fuels.:P
I assume you mean the first one, and if so I agree that "she changes her mind after it's in, he keeps going" in the general case is rape. I was simply suggesting it as a scenario which fits the statement "started as sex, turned into rape".
It's not always clear cut, though. How much notice does she have to give him to get out once she changes mind? How clearly must she communicate this decision at the time? I've heard of cases where the woman changes her mind and calls it rape because the guy is inside her at the moment she changes her mind. Worse yet are cases where the couple are both very drunk, they get it on, and later the woman decides she was too drunk to have given consent. Somehow the man ends up being charged with rape even if he was more drunk at the time.
2. Unless you're Iranian, I don't see why your opinion on which choice is preferable should count. It's their nation, for them to run and to live in with consequences for their choices, good and bad.
Put it this way - if Iran or whoever had been the size of the U.S. and the U.S. had been the size of Iran, I'm pretty sure they would have intervened when Bush Jr. was elected. Although of course if they had, we wouldn't be having this debate now because they wouldn't just have interfered, they would have wiped the U.S. off the map. This 'lets try not to totally annihilate these other dudes' movement is a nicety that most of the States' opponents don't follow.
I couldn't agree less! Iran will *never* be able to compete with US in air superiority. The most they can expect is to make things more difficult.
I live in Australia. Our airforce will never be able to compete with U.S. air superiority either but I'm not worried about being bombed by the U.S. That's because as a country we're on good terms with most of the western world and my government doesn't do stupid shit like rattle its saber at the largest military force in the world. If Iran is worried about being threatened by nuclear powers then maybe it should seek out allies and build ties rather than trying to go toe to toe with vastly superior forces.
Because their leadership is 100% okay with going out in a blaze of glory.
This is the fundamental (heh) difference in mindset between Islamic extremists and the often-vilified United States defense force. The U.S. is willing to do whatever it has to to mitigate any threat it thinks it sees overseas, but as long as its citizens are made safer it's not really fussed if the 'other guys' live on in their own country. Above all, no matter how unpopular their actions (and I don't like a lot of 'em either) or how badly they hurt foreign nationals, the base motivation for U.S. military operations tends to be the safety of U.S. citizens.
Contrast this with the attitude of said extremists. We're talking about the rulers of a nation here, and still they feel that the death of their own citizens is a perfectly acceptable price to pay for the death of their enemies. Their basic motivation is to kill their opponents, even at the cost of their own civilians' lives.
No, generally 'turned into rape' means one of two things: She changes her mind halfway through (or her boyfriend walks in unexpectedly) and she cries rape in order to avoid taking any personal responsibility. Or, worse, she changes her mind the next day and retroactively withdraws her consent.
At this stage it's going to take one hell of a trick to pull that off though. Assange's opponents don't have all that much credibility left, so even if someone does have major legitimate dirt on the guy it's gonna be a heck of a job getting public opinion on their side.
Unless you're trying to pack a dodgy jury, what does public opinion have to do with it? They're accusing him of a crime, not trying to vote him off the friggin' island. Hell, if 'they' (as in, the US Ministry for Voodoo and Not Existing) wanted him gone they could get one of those presidential order thingies and vanish him as a ter'rist.
It doesn't change the past leaks, no. But it does question the leadership of Wikileaks and its future. If he's convicted, there'll be a need for a new figurehead; if he's acquitted on the other hand, well... let's just say it might not be wise to have a man suspected of rape and harassment to be handling leaks.
Uh, what? You're saying that he loses credibility because someone else wrongly suspected him of something? In that case, I suspect you of molesting little boys using puppies and echidnas. You're now automatically unfit for any sensitive or privileged role.
You don't have to pay red light camera tickets? They're not enforced?
Here in Australia we have this thing called the "fines enforcement agency". Any fine from an overdue parking ticket to a fine for riding on a train without a ticket to a red light camera or speeding fine will be sent to the agency and if you don't pay within a month they have the power to suspend your drivers' license.
Are you serious? No, you drive an automatic transmission with the right foot working both pedals as needed. Once you've perceived a threat it takes no longer to move your right foot 2 inches than it does to press the brake with your left foot.
You and GP are missing a vital fact: anticipation. For one, if you know the light has been green for a while, you are expecting it to go yellow and so you're already prepared for the loser in front of you to brake. For two, when the light goes yellow, it changes for you and the guy in front of you at the same time, and so you can start braking just as soon as he does.
"The only way such cars are to be driven" is WHILE PAYING ATTENTION TO THE WORLD AROUND YOU. There's no other way to (safely) drive.
Slashdot Mirror
WTF is that, privilege unescalling? If you can already replace the HOSTS file, why would you change a page to get the user clicking on something?
Because you don't want them downloading and running a cleanup tool that would remove you from their system.
A few recent viruses/adbots/spambots/systemfuckers will do this. They'll do a few different tricks (patching I.E., changing hosts file, sabotaging downloads) to try and stop you from getting to any antivirus or recovery sites. It makes it virtually impossible to recover your system without a system cleanup live CD, which basically guarantees that your average non-technical user won't be able to fix their computer without outside help. Even with a cleanup util it's easier and safer to just back up all non-executable user data and then nuke the system from orbit.
The thrust of your argument is that older and/or non-company vended net software is dangerous when it comes to picking up viruses.
It is? I thought it was that Linux (and free software in general) was claimed to be a rip-off of commercial software developments' IP. Which, while definitely not true in the broadest sense, you could make a case for. A lot of free software intentionally duplicates functionality found in popular commercial software as a way to get around paying for said commercial software. The problem is that the initial design of software is far harder to get right than the implementation, and I can easily see how a commercial software company would feel ripped off if they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on research into market research, interface design, focus testing, etc. and then some hobbyist downloaded the demo of results of their research and copied the design.
Did no one else get to sit on their parents lap and steer the car?
Heheheh good times... I remember being about 6, on Dad's knee doing laps of a car park, and deciding I was bored of driving now, and just letting go of the steering wheel. That's when I learned that driving is not something you can just stop doing in the middle of it; ironically something I wish my parents would remember half as well as I do. :P
...and that nobody wants their kid to be a starving artist when they grow up =)
GOOD artists, the ones that started at 18 months, don't starve. :) It's only the ones who get to mid teens, think "gosh, this science stuff is hard", and decide that they're far too good for manual labour, who end up as starving artists, because the only part of "art" they can actually do is be condescendingly pretentious. :P
Just make sure you lock down any wireless networks around by the time he's 8-10, or he'll get a head start on that whole 'the internet is for porn' thing. :P
.gifs back when I was in year 8, and I turned out fine. :P
Then again I remember my friends and I swapping 3.5" discs with half-a-dozen topless
>implying that arguments made by a loon aren't crap.
Please, learn to think.
What? He's implying (correctly) that while the looniness of the arguer does not determine the looniness of the arguments, the inverse is not true.
I must admit, I'm developing a healthy skepticism of any such announcement coming out of India. I'm sure there are millions of very capable, respectable scientists there but there's also a large element of superstitious nonsense, and it seems to be this element that's running the media. *sigh* It's like that guy claiming to have not eaten for 60 years because he sustains himself purely on yogic vedic nonsense. Funny how they announced they were observing him closely, and then just went quiet about it after a few days... no big article saying "yep, old guy is just another faker" though.
I don't care either way about spoiler tags, but I like seeing complete plots, including twists/endings. That's why I go to the Wikipedia article first instead of IMDB, because it is more likely to have the entire plot.
Yeah, then I don't even need to watch the movie at all!
I mean, each to their own and all, and if you like a detailed rundown so you know exactly what you're getting, I can understand that... but when I ask a friend about a movie (or look it up) I want the general gist of the movie (setting, genre, maybe some main plot elements) but I don't want them to tell me that he was a ghost all along, Snape kills Dumbledore, and the whole thing was a dream.
Eggs. Was good for you. Then bad for you. Now has good cholestorol. It's the prime example of why "studies" are nothing but trash. Follow some people, draw a conclusion based on horribly imperfect information and call it science!
And 'taters. First they're good, then they're bad, then you're meant to peel them, then you're only meant to eat the skins. I think they're back on the "actually, potatoes are good for you" front but I don't really care because it'll be different tomorrow anyway.
The significant part is not that it found that people who drink in moderation live longer than people who abstain, (which is the type of result that you are linking to) it found that PEOPLE WHO ABSTAIN DO NOT LIVE AS LONG AS PEOPLE THAT DRINK HEAVILY.
What I find confusing and somewhat disturbing is that they're defining "heavy drinker" as "anyone who drinks more than 3 standard drinks in a day." That's two beers. I would have thought 'heavy drinking' would entail at least a six pack, or taking a decent chunk out of a bottle of spirits.
http://en.wikipaedia.org/ would be correct, actually.
You put the 'ophilia' in there all by yourself.
What about people who sit but have nervous leg syndrome or the like? I recently started taking zinc supplements (apparently as a vegetarian I've been chronically low on zinc my whole life, go figure) and it's exacerbated my legs' desire to jiggle on their own (I have no problem with this, it annoys my cow orkers when it wobbles their monitors though. :P ) I'd guess I'm doing a similar amount of 'leg work' to people who stand relatively stationary most of the time.
You might even get airborne, in which case you have a real flying saucer. At the very least, it would scare the crap out of the snow-boarders.
My suggestion was gonna be:
I like yours too though!
..that's just a series of tubes, then
Am I the only one who, seeing "look-alike tubes", thought "redtube, xtube, yourpron..."?
I guess, come to think of it, the internet really IS a series of 'tubes'... O.o
You know what really annoyed me? Not the games (where at least the picture kinda represented what they would be aiming at if they had modern-era graphics). It was the spreadsheets. And the compilers. And the goddamn word processors. All of those had crazy 3D raytraced covers that made them look like they were the real-life incarnation of Neuromancer... and what they were was a text-mode office application. GAH!
Actually we have some pretty significant natural gas reserves off the North West coast. Well technically I think they were mostly in Indonesian territory but we bought them off Indonesia for a few million in bribe money... *ahem* I mean we negotiated a treaty. Anyway we have plenty of fossil fuels. :P
I assume you mean the first one, and if so I agree that "she changes her mind after it's in, he keeps going" in the general case is rape. I was simply suggesting it as a scenario which fits the statement "started as sex, turned into rape".
It's not always clear cut, though. How much notice does she have to give him to get out once she changes mind? How clearly must she communicate this decision at the time? I've heard of cases where the woman changes her mind and calls it rape because the guy is inside her at the moment she changes her mind. Worse yet are cases where the couple are both very drunk, they get it on, and later the woman decides she was too drunk to have given consent. Somehow the man ends up being charged with rape even if he was more drunk at the time.
2. Unless you're Iranian, I don't see why your opinion on which choice is preferable should count. It's their nation, for them to run and to live in with consequences for their choices, good and bad.
Put it this way - if Iran or whoever had been the size of the U.S. and the U.S. had been the size of Iran, I'm pretty sure they would have intervened when Bush Jr. was elected. Although of course if they had, we wouldn't be having this debate now because they wouldn't just have interfered, they would have wiped the U.S. off the map. This 'lets try not to totally annihilate these other dudes' movement is a nicety that most of the States' opponents don't follow.
I couldn't agree less! Iran will *never* be able to compete with US in air superiority. The most they can expect is to make things more difficult.
I live in Australia. Our airforce will never be able to compete with U.S. air superiority either but I'm not worried about being bombed by the U.S. That's because as a country we're on good terms with most of the western world and my government doesn't do stupid shit like rattle its saber at the largest military force in the world. If Iran is worried about being threatened by nuclear powers then maybe it should seek out allies and build ties rather than trying to go toe to toe with vastly superior forces.
Because their leadership is 100% okay with going out in a blaze of glory.
This is the fundamental (heh) difference in mindset between Islamic extremists and the often-vilified United States defense force. The U.S. is willing to do whatever it has to to mitigate any threat it thinks it sees overseas, but as long as its citizens are made safer it's not really fussed if the 'other guys' live on in their own country. Above all, no matter how unpopular their actions (and I don't like a lot of 'em either) or how badly they hurt foreign nationals, the base motivation for U.S. military operations tends to be the safety of U.S. citizens.
Contrast this with the attitude of said extremists. We're talking about the rulers of a nation here, and still they feel that the death of their own citizens is a perfectly acceptable price to pay for the death of their enemies. Their basic motivation is to kill their opponents, even at the cost of their own civilians' lives.
No, generally 'turned into rape' means one of two things: She changes her mind halfway through (or her boyfriend walks in unexpectedly) and she cries rape in order to avoid taking any personal responsibility. Or, worse, she changes her mind the next day and retroactively withdraws her consent.
At this stage it's going to take one hell of a trick to pull that off though. Assange's opponents don't have all that much credibility left, so even if someone does have major legitimate dirt on the guy it's gonna be a heck of a job getting public opinion on their side.
Unless you're trying to pack a dodgy jury, what does public opinion have to do with it? They're accusing him of a crime, not trying to vote him off the friggin' island. Hell, if 'they' (as in, the US Ministry for Voodoo and Not Existing) wanted him gone they could get one of those presidential order thingies and vanish him as a ter'rist.
It doesn't change the past leaks, no. But it does question the leadership of Wikileaks and its future. If he's convicted, there'll be a need for a new figurehead; if he's acquitted on the other hand, well... let's just say it might not be wise to have a man suspected of rape and harassment to be handling leaks.
Uh, what? You're saying that he loses credibility because someone else wrongly suspected him of something? In that case, I suspect you of molesting little boys using puppies and echidnas. You're now automatically unfit for any sensitive or privileged role.
You don't have to pay red light camera tickets? They're not enforced?
Here in Australia we have this thing called the "fines enforcement agency". Any fine from an overdue parking ticket to a fine for riding on a train without a ticket to a red light camera or speeding fine will be sent to the agency and if you don't pay within a month they have the power to suspend your drivers' license.
I'm moving to where you live.
Are you serious? No, you drive an automatic transmission with the right foot working both pedals as needed. Once you've perceived a threat it takes no longer to move your right foot 2 inches than it does to press the brake with your left foot.
You and GP are missing a vital fact: anticipation. For one, if you know the light has been green for a while, you are expecting it to go yellow and so you're already prepared for the loser in front of you to brake. For two, when the light goes yellow, it changes for you and the guy in front of you at the same time, and so you can start braking just as soon as he does.
"The only way such cars are to be driven" is WHILE PAYING ATTENTION TO THE WORLD AROUND YOU. There's no other way to (safely) drive.