If the hack requires someone to physically open up the lock with a screwdriver and pull a plug out from the mechanism, it's not really something that can be done quickly and easily without likely attracting attention. Sure, a screwdriver is a lot less noticeable than say a blowtorch or a hacksaw, but most people would notice it if they were walking down the hallway and wonder what is going on.
In other words I doubt many people would find this to be a practical hack to employ. They'd likely me more successful with a little bit of social engineering at the front desk instead.
Look at the moderation and replies I get for my comments?
You frequently get moderated up, in spite of the fact that you are an arrogant and misinformed twot.
You think anybody wants to hear the truth?
The frequency with which you are moderated up suggests that no, people here do not want to hear the truth. If they wanted to hear the truth they would moderate you down to encourage you to actually read into what you are saying here. Your strange insistence that somehow you are the sole arbiter of what is - or is not - true is amusing.
I haven't lied yet and all I get is ridicule.
You have lied repeatedly. Many people have shown where you have lied (I am one of those people). I could show you where you have lied but then you would just lie about lying or link back to yourself to try to support your argument in spite of being clearly demonstrated to be a liar.
More impressive than your campaign of trying to bludgeon truth to death with ron paul mantras though is your new task of trying to use your sock puppets to drown out anyone who disagrees with you. How many do you have now? Do they get moderator points too?
Considering some of the drivel that makes the front page as of late, it would be easy to mistake this site for a parody of a tech news site. The only thing that makes that seem doubtful is that here, 110% of the editorial content is conservative.
The US did pass HealthCare. If it's not the plan you want, blame the Democrats
I don't know if you're blind, stupid, or just trolling. Being as you are an AC the third is very likely and of course we'll never know for sure.
Nonetheless, anyone who was awake for the past four years would know that this is the way the health insurance bailout act came to be:
Obama was elected president and wanted health care reform
The democratic majority in both houses worked to write a bill
The GOP bitched and moaned that their input was not considered and that the democrats were playing politics in the same way the GOP was when they had majorities in both houses and GWB in the white house
The democrats caved and allowed the republicans to rewrite the bill
The GOP realized that if their bill passed with Obama in the white house, he would get credit for fixing the health care system - even if the passed bill fixed nothing
Realizing what they did, the GOP turned the noise machine up to 11
Realizing they were stuck, the democrats voted for the bill and Obama signed it - their only other option was to scrap it and accept being labelled as doing nothing.
In other words blaming the democrats for this pathetic bailout-disguised-as-reform makes as much sense as blaming Neil Armstrong for NASA cancelling the space shuttle program.
If you think the Mexican system is so great, move there.
Here, you failed to read. I didn't say it was great, I just said they at least managed to do something, which is more than we can say. Furthermore, your assertion of "move there" shows that you have no idea of how difficult it is for a US citizen to just up and leave this country to live somewhere else, even if they want to.
... nothing. President Lawnchair signed the massive bailout for the health insurance companies (which was conveniently disguised as "health care reform") which ultimately left us with the same broken system, but with people now forced to buy into it. We still have no standard of care, and nothing that actually resembled universal coverage.
And now to further accentuate how ridiculous that is, the Mexican government just beat us to health care reform as well. A significant portion of their country is embattled in violent conflict in the drug war, yet they can pass health care reform. Up here, we can't pass it because of a collection of idiots who are afraid of (their own lack of understanding of) "socialism".
Yeah, go ahead. Mod me down. I can take it. At least I said my piece.
Working 12-16 hours per day, 5-7 days a week, prevents the workers from having time available to find better jobs. Welcome to your new reality, USA. Freedom in slavery, etc, etc.
Pretty well nobody is willing to pay for better seats on the plane. Everyone wants to pay as little as possible because air travel stretches the budget of most people quite a bit, even when they get less expensive fares. To save money we have accepted less legroom, less customer service, less respect, more delay, etc. I've paid fees to check bags, I've been on planes where the bathroom is so tiny I could barely stand up. I've been on planes so small - on major carriers - that my carry-on bag had to be gate checked because it wouldn't fit in the bins.
These are the costs we agree to when we pay less for airfare.
I just removed it from my browser a while ago after I finally got sick of it crashing. I now use Okular to read PDFs and life is much better that way. I don't know why anyone would tolerate such a miserable plug-in.
A lot of published work involves a very large number of experiments, sometimes done on very expensive instrumentation over a fairly long span of time. If the costs for reproducing the results are not scaled to the complexity of the work, this new lab won't be able to keep their lights on for long...
I was working a full-time job that related to my undergrad major before I started grad school. I was then in a hurry to get started on a PhD thinking I was already on the old side of things (I was the oldest grad student in my starting class). I ended up setting myself up for abuse and neglect by not thinking through the process adequately and finding a mentor who would really mentor me and meet my career needs.
That left me with worse credentials for what I wanted to do next than what I had going in, and I effectively lost money in the process as grad student stipends are pretty well minimum wage.
So pick your options carefully. And go in with both eyes wide open; don't choose anything quickly or by feeling.
I suggest that everybody, Democrats, Republicans, come to the elections with one mission - put either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson in the office and nobody else.
That would be distinctly against the best interests of 99.99% of the country's population. Very few people yearn for or would benefit from a restoration of 1850's social and economic values.
Now some white guys might change and vote for Ryan, thats why he's important.
And who exactly would those white guys be? Nobody who voted for Obama would likely change to vote for a far-far-far-right conservative like Ryan. Perhaps some people who voted McCain (or did not vote at all) in 2008 and were thinking of skipping this one might vote Romney but they would not have voted Obama anyways.
In other words, the GOP just gave away this election to Obama. They no longer have any legitimate claim to the independent vote. If they get lucky the independents will just not show up to vote and maybe they will pick up enough disenfranchised conservatives to have a chance. But there is nothing even approaching moderate about Ryan.
Romney just surrendered this campaign to Obama. Ryan's far-right perspective on fiscal and social issues will drive away all the independent voters that Romney may have been able to pick up. The only hope for the GOP now is that they can suppress or discourage enough voters to manage to win just on the republicans showing up in larger numbers than the democrats.
Romney would have been better off choosing just about anyone else if he wanted to get undecided voters to come to his side.
Start voting for politicians who will protect your rights
I'd love to. Show me one
How about 2?
Ron Paul.
Garry Johnson.
You must have misread the request. He was asking for politicians who will protect rights, not politicians who will openly and happily sell rights to large corporations.
I do a fair bit of flying and while I don't particularly like the TSA, I don't hate them, either. They have a job I wouldn't care to have myself. They haven't made my life any worse than that of any other guy (or gal) in the line; I'd say I like them as much as I like the average cashier at WalMart.
From my experiences with TSA at a lot of different airports in this country, I would say they are doing their jobs as said jobs are prescribed to them. That, in a lot of cases, qualifies as a "good job". Not outstandingly good or bad, just "good".
Obviously, nobody could possibly want one for the purposes of demonstrating their skills at poking holes in sheets of paper from a distance.
Selecting this weapon for shooting at paper targets is like buying a Ferrari for your commute to work. Sure, it will work, and you might have more fun than the guy next to you, but there are less expensive (and arguably better suited) options available for that purpose.
I recognize your handle here; I think there was a time when you and I had a meaningful conversation some time in the past and you even understood what I said.
This clearly is not a case of that happening again, though. Are you just looking to pick a fight with someone? I'm not interested and I'm not inclined to repeat myself yet again just because you can't be bothered to actually read and comprehend what I write.
I agreed with the parent that a gun with no ammo is not particularly dangerous. My point after that though is that a gun of this type is made only for killing people. Comparing it to a shovel or a crowbar is not particularly reasonable as those tools are made for uses other than killing people, while this gun has no other intended purpose.
No matter how many safety mechanisms are built into this weapon, its purpose for existence is to kill people. I have taken gun safety, I own shotguns myself and shoot recreationally. I accept that the guns I use can kill people, though they were not designed for that specific purpose. This gun, however, was designed specifically to kill people.
All of the Halo games were among the most successful entertainment products of all time -- at the time they were released. Most of the physics was handled by a blackbox physics engine they bought from another company. That's why they couldn't fix the jump hacks in Halo 2... the glitch was in the physics engine that spared Bungie needing any advanced math to make great games. It was more economical for them to enjoy their ignorance and let the glitch stand.
A lot of game compamies do this. Just buy the latest Quake/Unreal/Serious engine and get on with your game.
To me that sounds like a great argument in favor of learning calculus, so that you can avoid that pitfall.
Realistic physics requires it. On top of that, the more math you learn before entering the field, the more opportunities will be available to you as a programmer. Don't cripple yourself while you're still young.
If you're a pacifist, I can respect that, but you don't get to tell other people they must be prey
I made no such statement. I did not say that people cannot own this gun, I said only that this gun is made for killing people. I happen to be a gun owner myself, I just don't own guns that are made for killing people - I own guns that are made for sport (trap, in particular) shooting.
Now, whether this particular firearm is suitable for most self defense scenarios is a different matter...
This gun is made for killing people, I would hope we could agree on that. Really a gun of this type is a rather lousy hunting rifle - at least, if you want to be sporting and you want to be able to eat your kill. If we can agree that it is designed to kill people, then what is left is the scenario. I prefer to expect that manufacturers do not make guns with the intent of aiding people in killing others just for the heck of it, so I would like to see this as a "self-defense" weapon. That said I have little doubt there are better weapons available for that purpose...
I would have to expect that the failure machine known as samzenpus would start by asking Malda if he is satisfied with the job he has done of further degrading this once-relevant technology site into a congregating place for conservative groupthink. The editorial reputation was pretty bad when Taco was here, now that samzenpus has more control it's become even worse.
So, it seems to me that, practically speaking, it was no more or less dangerous than a similarly-sized shovel or crowbar, independently of the presence of pregnant women and other vulnerable people.
I understand your argument that a gun without ammo is not particularly dangerous. However, you can't go to WalMart and buy anything for a shovel or crowbar that would make it capable of killing a crowd of people in short order. Even if you went carmageddon with a shovel and strapped it to the roof of a car you wouldn't be able to kill as many people with it as you could with a box of ammo for this gun.
Beyond that, shovels and crowbars have utilitarian purposes beyond killing people. This gun has no other purpose, it is made for killing people. Even if you were to purchase it for self-defense you would still be using it to kill people.
Slashdot Mirror
If the hack requires someone to physically open up the lock with a screwdriver and pull a plug out from the mechanism, it's not really something that can be done quickly and easily without likely attracting attention. Sure, a screwdriver is a lot less noticeable than say a blowtorch or a hacksaw, but most people would notice it if they were walking down the hallway and wonder what is going on.
In other words I doubt many people would find this to be a practical hack to employ. They'd likely me more successful with a little bit of social engineering at the front desk instead.
Look at the moderation and replies I get for my comments?
You frequently get moderated up, in spite of the fact that you are an arrogant and misinformed twot.
You think anybody wants to hear the truth?
The frequency with which you are moderated up suggests that no, people here do not want to hear the truth. If they wanted to hear the truth they would moderate you down to encourage you to actually read into what you are saying here. Your strange insistence that somehow you are the sole arbiter of what is - or is not - true is amusing.
I haven't lied yet and all I get is ridicule.
You have lied repeatedly. Many people have shown where you have lied (I am one of those people). I could show you where you have lied but then you would just lie about lying or link back to yourself to try to support your argument in spite of being clearly demonstrated to be a liar.
More impressive than your campaign of trying to bludgeon truth to death with ron paul mantras though is your new task of trying to use your sock puppets to drown out anyone who disagrees with you. How many do you have now? Do they get moderator points too?
Considering some of the drivel that makes the front page as of late, it would be easy to mistake this site for a parody of a tech news site. The only thing that makes that seem doubtful is that here, 110% of the editorial content is conservative.
The US did pass HealthCare. If it's not the plan you want, blame the Democrats
I don't know if you're blind, stupid, or just trolling. Being as you are an AC the third is very likely and of course we'll never know for sure.
Nonetheless, anyone who was awake for the past four years would know that this is the way the health insurance bailout act came to be:
In other words blaming the democrats for this pathetic bailout-disguised-as-reform makes as much sense as blaming Neil Armstrong for NASA cancelling the space shuttle program.
If you think the Mexican system is so great, move there.
Here, you failed to read. I didn't say it was great, I just said they at least managed to do something, which is more than we can say. Furthermore, your assertion of "move there" shows that you have no idea of how difficult it is for a US citizen to just up and leave this country to live somewhere else, even if they want to.
... nothing. President Lawnchair signed the massive bailout for the health insurance companies (which was conveniently disguised as "health care reform") which ultimately left us with the same broken system, but with people now forced to buy into it. We still have no standard of care, and nothing that actually resembled universal coverage.
And now to further accentuate how ridiculous that is, the Mexican government just beat us to health care reform as well. A significant portion of their country is embattled in violent conflict in the drug war, yet they can pass health care reform. Up here, we can't pass it because of a collection of idiots who are afraid of (their own lack of understanding of) "socialism".
Yeah, go ahead. Mod me down. I can take it. At least I said my piece.
Working 12-16 hours per day, 5-7 days a week, prevents the workers from having time available to find better jobs. Welcome to your new reality, USA. Freedom in slavery, etc, etc.
Pretty well nobody is willing to pay for better seats on the plane. Everyone wants to pay as little as possible because air travel stretches the budget of most people quite a bit, even when they get less expensive fares. To save money we have accepted less legroom, less customer service, less respect, more delay, etc. I've paid fees to check bags, I've been on planes where the bathroom is so tiny I could barely stand up. I've been on planes so small - on major carriers - that my carry-on bag had to be gate checked because it wouldn't fit in the bins.
These are the costs we agree to when we pay less for airfare.
After all, Assange couldn't have done it himself, could he?
I just removed it from my browser a while ago after I finally got sick of it crashing. I now use Okular to read PDFs and life is much better that way. I don't know why anyone would tolerate such a miserable plug-in.
We have a politics story on the front page, and it doesn't favor Ron Paul? OK, who are you and what have you done with slashdot?
A lot of published work involves a very large number of experiments, sometimes done on very expensive instrumentation over a fairly long span of time. If the costs for reproducing the results are not scaled to the complexity of the work, this new lab won't be able to keep their lights on for long...
I was working a full-time job that related to my undergrad major before I started grad school. I was then in a hurry to get started on a PhD thinking I was already on the old side of things (I was the oldest grad student in my starting class). I ended up setting myself up for abuse and neglect by not thinking through the process adequately and finding a mentor who would really mentor me and meet my career needs.
That left me with worse credentials for what I wanted to do next than what I had going in, and I effectively lost money in the process as grad student stipends are pretty well minimum wage.
So pick your options carefully. And go in with both eyes wide open; don't choose anything quickly or by feeling.
I suggest that everybody, Democrats, Republicans, come to the elections with one mission - put either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson in the office and nobody else.
That would be distinctly against the best interests of 99.99% of the country's population. Very few people yearn for or would benefit from a restoration of 1850's social and economic values.
Now some white guys might change and vote for Ryan, thats why he's important.
And who exactly would those white guys be? Nobody who voted for Obama would likely change to vote for a far-far-far-right conservative like Ryan. Perhaps some people who voted McCain (or did not vote at all) in 2008 and were thinking of skipping this one might vote Romney but they would not have voted Obama anyways.
In other words, the GOP just gave away this election to Obama. They no longer have any legitimate claim to the independent vote. If they get lucky the independents will just not show up to vote and maybe they will pick up enough disenfranchised conservatives to have a chance. But there is nothing even approaching moderate about Ryan.
Romney just surrendered this campaign to Obama. Ryan's far-right perspective on fiscal and social issues will drive away all the independent voters that Romney may have been able to pick up. The only hope for the GOP now is that they can suppress or discourage enough voters to manage to win just on the republicans showing up in larger numbers than the democrats.
Romney would have been better off choosing just about anyone else if he wanted to get undecided voters to come to his side.
Start voting for politicians who will protect your rights
I'd love to. Show me one
How about 2?
Ron Paul.
Garry Johnson.
You must have misread the request. He was asking for politicians who will protect rights, not politicians who will openly and happily sell rights to large corporations.
I do a fair bit of flying and while I don't particularly like the TSA, I don't hate them, either. They have a job I wouldn't care to have myself. They haven't made my life any worse than that of any other guy (or gal) in the line; I'd say I like them as much as I like the average cashier at WalMart.
From my experiences with TSA at a lot of different airports in this country, I would say they are doing their jobs as said jobs are prescribed to them. That, in a lot of cases, qualifies as a "good job". Not outstandingly good or bad, just "good".
Obviously, nobody could possibly want one for the purposes of demonstrating their skills at poking holes in sheets of paper from a distance.
Selecting this weapon for shooting at paper targets is like buying a Ferrari for your commute to work. Sure, it will work, and you might have more fun than the guy next to you, but there are less expensive (and arguably better suited) options available for that purpose.
I recognize your handle here; I think there was a time when you and I had a meaningful conversation some time in the past and you even understood what I said.
This clearly is not a case of that happening again, though. Are you just looking to pick a fight with someone? I'm not interested and I'm not inclined to repeat myself yet again just because you can't be bothered to actually read and comprehend what I write.
Perhaps my point was obtuse?
I agreed with the parent that a gun with no ammo is not particularly dangerous. My point after that though is that a gun of this type is made only for killing people. Comparing it to a shovel or a crowbar is not particularly reasonable as those tools are made for uses other than killing people, while this gun has no other intended purpose.
No matter how many safety mechanisms are built into this weapon, its purpose for existence is to kill people. I have taken gun safety, I own shotguns myself and shoot recreationally. I accept that the guns I use can kill people, though they were not designed for that specific purpose. This gun, however, was designed specifically to kill people.
All of the Halo games were among the most successful entertainment products of all time -- at the time they were released. Most of the physics was handled by a blackbox physics engine they bought from another company. That's why they couldn't fix the jump hacks in Halo 2 ... the glitch was in the physics engine that spared Bungie needing any advanced math to make great games. It was more economical for them to enjoy their ignorance and let the glitch stand.
A lot of game compamies do this. Just buy the latest Quake/Unreal/Serious engine and get on with your game.
To me that sounds like a great argument in favor of learning calculus, so that you can avoid that pitfall.
Realistic physics requires it. On top of that, the more math you learn before entering the field, the more opportunities will be available to you as a programmer. Don't cripple yourself while you're still young.
If you're a pacifist, I can respect that, but you don't get to tell other people they must be prey
I made no such statement. I did not say that people cannot own this gun, I said only that this gun is made for killing people. I happen to be a gun owner myself, I just don't own guns that are made for killing people - I own guns that are made for sport (trap, in particular) shooting.
Now, whether this particular firearm is suitable for most self defense scenarios is a different matter...
This gun is made for killing people, I would hope we could agree on that. Really a gun of this type is a rather lousy hunting rifle - at least, if you want to be sporting and you want to be able to eat your kill. If we can agree that it is designed to kill people, then what is left is the scenario. I prefer to expect that manufacturers do not make guns with the intent of aiding people in killing others just for the heck of it, so I would like to see this as a "self-defense" weapon. That said I have little doubt there are better weapons available for that purpose...
I would have to expect that the failure machine known as samzenpus would start by asking Malda if he is satisfied with the job he has done of further degrading this once-relevant technology site into a congregating place for conservative groupthink. The editorial reputation was pretty bad when Taco was here, now that samzenpus has more control it's become even worse.
So, it seems to me that, practically speaking, it was no more or less dangerous than a similarly-sized shovel or crowbar, independently of the presence of pregnant women and other vulnerable people.
I understand your argument that a gun without ammo is not particularly dangerous. However, you can't go to WalMart and buy anything for a shovel or crowbar that would make it capable of killing a crowd of people in short order. Even if you went carmageddon with a shovel and strapped it to the roof of a car you wouldn't be able to kill as many people with it as you could with a box of ammo for this gun.
Beyond that, shovels and crowbars have utilitarian purposes beyond killing people. This gun has no other purpose, it is made for killing people. Even if you were to purchase it for self-defense you would still be using it to kill people.