I would expect if you really thought it over you could come up with some uses for that hardware that don't require the latest, greatest, sexyest security. For example, you could probably build a lower-power print server using the 802.11b stuff; do you really need the best possible security for a print server?
Another possibility is to ask around and see if you can find someone who lives in a less-densely-populated area that could safely use less secure hardware. You might know someone who lives in the boonies, far from a road, who would appreciate a free network upgrade for whatever internet access they have (or don't have).
Or you could just put the whole lot up on ebay. I'm sure whats-her-name would appreciate the campaign contribution...
The Ubuntu Satanic Edition. This list had the Christian Edition, it really should have included the Satanic as well, which is just as much of a legitimate distro as they are both based on Ubuntu anyways. Yet for some reason this one gets snubbed regularly, even having difficulties getting listed at distrowatch for some reason (while their Christian brothers have no such problems).
... but I've only been seeing ads on TV for the Kin for about 2-3 weeks. And on top of that, only for a Kin on one network. I wouldn't exactly say its been a mass-market item so far; if it appealed to me (which it does not) I would have had to switch networks to use it as I am currently on a GSM network.
I would say if they are killing it already, it died from bad marketing (and bad corporate decisions) as anything.
Wow, Obama yet again doing the same thing as the guy who came before him. The only difference is that for some reason people might care about it this time.
you're just dumping together a bunch of right-wing sites you don't like because...wait for it...you visit left-wing sites
Wrong. But thanks for putting so much independent-minded thinking into the matter.
In other words, politics as usual.
An excellent summary of your previous wild-assed guess.
You don't even give a single example of anything.
So says the person who can't come up with an example of the "left-leaning slashdot" that they moaned about in another post. So says also the same person who attempted to paraphrase a study that they couldn't be bothered to cite.
Don't be so political in your life and you'll see the world objectively
Have you looked in a mirror, or read your own posts, recently? I suspect not.
I wish Daily Kos supporters would take that advice.
So kind of you to be so thoroughly impartial, non-judgemental, and unassuming.
I haven't read any of your posts before so I don't know if you're for real or just making a joke here. But either way your UID is low enough that you should be well aware of the strong conservative bend that slashdot has been following recently. We regularly see articles like this on the front page with serious conservative leanings, generally a few a week (or more). Along with this we generally see a few conservative ads a week on the slashdot front page. I'm not sure what's worse, that conservative commentators think people are stupid enough to accept their drivel as "journalism", or that slashdot puts it on the front page so readily.
There have been plenty of other examples of this happening as well. Just one blatant example was a few months ago in the Accidental Wii Suicide article. Anyone who knows anything knows that a 2-year-old kid does not commit suicide as the article headline and summary claimed. But because the conservative nutjobs were working so hard to turn the lunacy up to 11 to avoid the imagined possibility of gun control laws, they completely overlooked the real problem - bad parenting. Anyone who reads the actual article (and not just the conservative spin posted here) realizes that some idiot left a loaded weapon, ready to fire, within easy access of an unsupervised toddler. The gun is no more at fault than the Wii, or the shoes the kid was wearing. The gun owner should be tried for homicide.
Slashdot is left-leaning on almost every position it reports on
Except slashdot rarely reports on anything, you should know that slashdot doesn't have any reporters, they just pass on news stories from other sites most of the time. And the only slashdot employee I know of who calls himself a "journalist" is so conservative he makes Pol Pot look like Mother Theresa. So it is unlikely you would see a "report" from slashdot that was left-leaning.
from copyrights
Are you saying that conservatives want copyrights to extend for all eternity? I was not aware of that...
to environmentalism
Has it occurred to you that the earth is occupied by people from all realms of political persuasions?
Are you an angry Kos reader
Nope. I don't read Kos at all.
But I won't let that get in the way of your rant (not that I would expect you would, either).
... who hates seeing this story on the front page or something?
Hate is an awfully strong word. Although based on the way you write I suspect you use it fairly often.
But no, I do not "hate" seeing this story. I do, however, strongly disagree with the partisan conservative wording of the summary and headline. It could have been presented in a much more even manner, but someone intentionally chose to word it this way.
Even your own post contradicts your position by stating there haven't been any pro-conservative stories lately
Hell, it's already Tuesday afternoon in the US and this might be the first pro-conservative story they've run all week; in which case they have a lot of catching up to do in order to make their quota...
I don't make a habit of counting the pro-conservative stories because I often don't have the time to discuss them. This one was so blatantly obvious that I thought I would check in on the discussion to see what people were saying - I was not surprised when my posts were down-moderated for pointing out the conservative leanings of the summ
Because the statistical analysis used to reveal the fraud is a good examples of how science works: take the raw data and squeeze it for internal and external inconsistencies.
While the analysis may be scientific, the story - especially the way it was posted here - is decidedly not. Even the headline itself wreaks of a political vendetta. While science should not carry a bias, it also should not be used to attempt to cloak one.
Wrong. This is entirely political. Read the headline -
Daily Kos Pollster Made Up Numbers
Everyone knows the Daily Kos is a political news site with a liberal sway. If it was about the statistics then an appropriate headline would have been something like
Pollster made up numbers and sold them for money
Instead the headline as written carries a direct implication of Daily Kos intentionally handing out known bogus data.
Can anyone give a reasonable explanation for why this story is listed under "science.slashdot.org"? Clearly this is a political story and should have been placed as such.
if you just read the headline, you'd come away thinking that D.KOS were the culprits instead.
This is slashdot, after all. If they don't keep up their conservative credentials how will they continue to attract conservative advertising revenue?
Hell, it's already Tuesday afternoon in the US and this might be the first pro-conservative story they've run all week; in which case they have a lot of catching up to do in order to make their quota...
Because of course Fox News, World Net Daily, TownHall.com, and PowerLineBlog have never, ever, ever, passed on inaccurate numbers. This is the first time that the world has ever seen such a thing and clearly it is inherently a liberal problem, no doubt about that.
Their cars run on DC motors (or at least get power from a DC source). Yet the company is named after a man who is acknowledged as the father of the alternating current (at least in the US).
Otherwise I think they have a fine product (although I cannot afford it) and I hope them well. Furthermore if the company name helps to make Nikola Tesla better known in this country, I think that would be great as I view Tesla as amongst the greatest scientists to ever work in the US.
Because the one or two other people with the same tattoo totally outnumber the billions of other people with the same blank skin?
Do you know anyone with truly blank - as in featureless - skin? Such people are incredibly rare. Most people have naturally occurring features on their skin that are not the same color as the rest of their skin. Indeed patterns on skin are equally as unique as fingerprints and have been admitted as evidence in court when surveillance was able to image some part of a suspect but not the face. Even identical twins have different patterns on their skin naturally.
So actually, the unadulterated skin is more unique than the tattoo. Hence the tattoo that is supposed to be a "rebellious" or "individualistic" act ends up being just an act of conformity.
If he was posting for advice on the ultimate gaming PC, would you still be encouraging him to donate his money for one of these causing and flipping him crap for being "selfish"?
Not if it was worded that way, I would not. However the original post read
So, if you were going to put a tribute to the great math and science minds on your body forever, which ones would you choose?
Which rather plainly states that he wants great math and science remembered. And being as his body - and hence his tattoos - will not last "forever", there are other less selfish ways to show that he sees math and science as important.
If he wants a tattoo, that is his decision. But he shouldn't be trying to make a call for his own sainthood in the process. There are many better ways to honor science than with body art, and I listed just a few of them earlier. Basically the article wreaks heavily of "my friends have tattoos and I want one too, how can I make it science-y or math-y?".
As you continue your aimless replies your trolling gets more amusing, though no more accurate. You have much to learn, young one.
A novice troll like yourself can do a fairly good job at wasting my time. But if you're trying to anger (or even annoy) me you are failing miserably. There are plenty of skilled trolls around here, I suggest you read up on their methods before you try again.
I never said anything about forever. Nice of you to stay on topic.
You have a really short memory, apparently. Read back to your original troll in this thread and you can see that you used the word "forever" in your very first line:
"if you were going to put a tribute to the great math and science minds on your body forever, which ones would you choose?"
Your chose to include the word, you could have quoted without it, not quoted at all, or quoted and then expressed a different opinion. Instead you carried on the word "forever".
The fact is that you're making a broad assumption that is likely incorrect.
The fact is your trolling needs practice. Your skills are inept at best but thanks for trying.
Thanks for playing and have a nice day.
Thanks for amusing me. Keep practicing and maybe some day you'll pull it off with some degree of skill.
Is complete an utter crap. Your tattoo will degrade with the rest of your body after you die. So unless this guy is going to have his body added to Lenin's tomb, the tattoo very much will not last forever. Granted, he could have it carved into his bones, but that is way beyond the pain threshhold of most living beings (and bones can deteriorate under certain conditions as well).
So there are ways to try to leave a message "forever" but a tattoo is not one. This screams of someone feeling the need to be "different" while wreaking of someone who doesn't realize how completely lacking in "uniqueness" tattoos are.
You consider "damn" a swear word? Really? Is "heck" on your list of naughty words as well?
Can't even come up with something original for once in your life?
Nobody says a slashdot name needs to be "something original", it just can't be identical to one that already exists here. I chose my name not because I thought it would be "something original" but rather so I could keep track of my postings more easily (after posting AC for years).
If the person who submitted this story needs a tattoo to track their own body, then they probably have even larger psychological problems than we had expected. However in the end the dominant thinking behind a tattoo is "look how original I am", which fails miserably to accomplish that feat thanks to the vast numbers of people who have tattoos. In some areas it is getting to be more original to not get tattooed at all.
His question had nothing to do with trying to be unique
The original question of
"if you were going to put a tribute to the great math and science minds on your body forever, which ones would you choose?"
Has the underlying motivation of "look at how unique I am". Unfortunately there is hardly anything left in the world that is less unique than a tattoo (with perhaps the exception of a Toyota Camry). And if he really wants to create a tribute, there are many things that would be much, much, better for that purpose as well.
You probably should not comment on things for which you have no clue.
I am sorry to inform you that clearly even the simplest of socio-psychological principles escape you entirely. You likely have heard this before, though.
So you've saved up some money and you want to show the world how important science and math are to you. You've chosen for some odd reason to do that by purchasing something that will only benefit yourself. I would suggest you consider ways that your money could be used to help more people further or enter science:
Donate to a local museum
Donate to a local school to buy textbooks or supplies
Donate to a favorite research group or cause
Use it to buy a lobbyist's time in DC
Use it to buy a journal / magazine subscription for a nearby school that means something to you
Are just a few ways that you could use that money to make a difference in science that will help others. When you die your tattoo will eventually rot away with the rest of your body. But if you sponsored something that helped science or math progress, people would know of you for some time.
Come on, the math is simple here. There are six billion people on the planet right now. How many of them have tattoos already? The probability of you coming up with a tattoo that someone else doesn't already have is nearly zero.
In other words if you get a tattoo, someday later you'll meet someone else who has the same one, or someone who knows someone who has it. Then you'll realize that your attempt at "individuality" was a failure. At which point hopefully you went to a clean enough shop that you didn't pick up hepatitis in the process.
So our previous POTUS created the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) which is often cited as one of the largest bureaucracies ever. Then we suggest further expanding DHS while under the term of a new POTUS, and someone of the same party as the previous complains that the proposal
puts too much on the plate of the already overburdened Department of Homeland Security
Uh-huh. Like we already knew; say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss.
They've already stated they are going to start selling gTLDs themselves. Soon there will be no meaning - and more importantly no accountability - for the majority of all registrations. Anyone who is really looking to make money on something explicit will just wait for the crop of new gTLDs under which domains will be sold by people who are not held responsible in any way, shape, or form, by anyone, anywhere.
Most likely ICANN is setting up.xxx only to make a little more money off of it this way in comparison to what they would make by selling the.xxx gTLD in its entirety.
Slashdot Mirror
I would expect if you really thought it over you could come up with some uses for that hardware that don't require the latest, greatest, sexyest security. For example, you could probably build a lower-power print server using the 802.11b stuff; do you really need the best possible security for a print server?
Another possibility is to ask around and see if you can find someone who lives in a less-densely-populated area that could safely use less secure hardware. You might know someone who lives in the boonies, far from a road, who would appreciate a free network upgrade for whatever internet access they have (or don't have).
Or you could just put the whole lot up on ebay. I'm sure whats-her-name would appreciate the campaign contribution...
... lessons on how to ride it? This doesn't look like it would work quite the same as a typical street bike.
The Ubuntu Satanic Edition. This list had the Christian Edition, it really should have included the Satanic as well, which is just as much of a legitimate distro as they are both based on Ubuntu anyways. Yet for some reason this one gets snubbed regularly, even having difficulties getting listed at distrowatch for some reason (while their Christian brothers have no such problems).
... but I've only been seeing ads on TV for the Kin for about 2-3 weeks. And on top of that, only for a Kin on one network. I wouldn't exactly say its been a mass-market item so far; if it appealed to me (which it does not) I would have had to switch networks to use it as I am currently on a GSM network.
I would say if they are killing it already, it died from bad marketing (and bad corporate decisions) as anything.
Wow, Obama yet again doing the same thing as the guy who came before him. The only difference is that for some reason people might care about it this time.
IANAL but I thought that caller ID spoofing was illegal, as by doing so you are using someone else's identity without their consent.
you're just dumping together a bunch of right-wing sites you don't like because...wait for it...you visit left-wing sites
Wrong. But thanks for putting so much independent-minded thinking into the matter.
In other words, politics as usual.
An excellent summary of your previous wild-assed guess.
You don't even give a single example of anything.
So says the person who can't come up with an example of the "left-leaning slashdot" that they moaned about in another post. So says also the same person who attempted to paraphrase a study that they couldn't be bothered to cite.
Don't be so political in your life and you'll see the world objectively
Have you looked in a mirror, or read your own posts, recently? I suspect not.
I wish Daily Kos supporters would take that advice.
So kind of you to be so thoroughly impartial, non-judgemental, and unassuming.
There have been plenty of other examples of this happening as well. Just one blatant example was a few months ago in the Accidental Wii Suicide article. Anyone who knows anything knows that a 2-year-old kid does not commit suicide as the article headline and summary claimed. But because the conservative nutjobs were working so hard to turn the lunacy up to 11 to avoid the imagined possibility of gun control laws, they completely overlooked the real problem - bad parenting. Anyone who reads the actual article (and not just the conservative spin posted here) realizes that some idiot left a loaded weapon, ready to fire, within easy access of an unsupervised toddler. The gun is no more at fault than the Wii, or the shoes the kid was wearing. The gun owner should be tried for homicide.
Slashdot is left-leaning on almost every position it reports on
Except slashdot rarely reports on anything, you should know that slashdot doesn't have any reporters, they just pass on news stories from other sites most of the time. And the only slashdot employee I know of who calls himself a "journalist" is so conservative he makes Pol Pot look like Mother Theresa. So it is unlikely you would see a "report" from slashdot that was left-leaning.
from copyrights
Are you saying that conservatives want copyrights to extend for all eternity? I was not aware of that...
to environmentalism
Has it occurred to you that the earth is occupied by people from all realms of political persuasions?
Are you an angry Kos reader
Nope. I don't read Kos at all.
But I won't let that get in the way of your rant (not that I would expect you would, either).
... who hates seeing this story on the front page or something?
Hate is an awfully strong word. Although based on the way you write I suspect you use it fairly often.
But no, I do not "hate" seeing this story. I do, however, strongly disagree with the partisan conservative wording of the summary and headline. It could have been presented in a much more even manner, but someone intentionally chose to word it this way.
Even your own post contradicts your position by stating there haven't been any pro-conservative stories lately
Has your anger muddied your reading comprehension? Let's go back to my post that you couldn't seem to be bothered quoting directly, shall we? I stated
Hell, it's already Tuesday afternoon in the US and this might be the first pro-conservative story they've run all week; in which case they have a lot of catching up to do in order to make their quota...
I don't make a habit of counting the pro-conservative stories because I often don't have the time to discuss them. This one was so blatantly obvious that I thought I would check in on the discussion to see what people were saying - I was not surprised when my posts were down-moderated for pointing out the conservative leanings of the summ
Because the statistical analysis used to reveal the fraud is a good examples of how science works: take the raw data and squeeze it for internal and external inconsistencies.
While the analysis may be scientific, the story - especially the way it was posted here - is decidedly not. Even the headline itself wreaks of a political vendetta. While science should not carry a bias, it also should not be used to attempt to cloak one.
It's about polling and statistics, not politics.
Wrong. This is entirely political. Read the headline -
Daily Kos Pollster Made Up Numbers
Everyone knows the Daily Kos is a political news site with a liberal sway. If it was about the statistics then an appropriate headline would have been something like
Pollster made up numbers and sold them for money
Instead the headline as written carries a direct implication of Daily Kos intentionally handing out known bogus data.
This story is political, plain and simple.
Can anyone give a reasonable explanation for why this story is listed under "science.slashdot.org"? Clearly this is a political story and should have been placed as such.
if you just read the headline, you'd come away thinking that D.KOS were the culprits instead.
This is slashdot, after all. If they don't keep up their conservative credentials how will they continue to attract conservative advertising revenue?
Hell, it's already Tuesday afternoon in the US and this might be the first pro-conservative story they've run all week; in which case they have a lot of catching up to do in order to make their quota...
Because of course Fox News, World Net Daily, TownHall.com, and PowerLineBlog have never, ever, ever, passed on inaccurate numbers. This is the first time that the world has ever seen such a thing and clearly it is inherently a liberal problem, no doubt about that.
Their cars run on DC motors (or at least get power from a DC source). Yet the company is named after a man who is acknowledged as the father of the alternating current (at least in the US).
Otherwise I think they have a fine product (although I cannot afford it) and I hope them well. Furthermore if the company name helps to make Nikola Tesla better known in this country, I think that would be great as I view Tesla as amongst the greatest scientists to ever work in the US.
Because the one or two other people with the same tattoo totally outnumber the billions of other people with the same blank skin?
Do you know anyone with truly blank - as in featureless - skin? Such people are incredibly rare. Most people have naturally occurring features on their skin that are not the same color as the rest of their skin. Indeed patterns on skin are equally as unique as fingerprints and have been admitted as evidence in court when surveillance was able to image some part of a suspect but not the face. Even identical twins have different patterns on their skin naturally.
So actually, the unadulterated skin is more unique than the tattoo. Hence the tattoo that is supposed to be a "rebellious" or "individualistic" act ends up being just an act of conformity.
If he was posting for advice on the ultimate gaming PC, would you still be encouraging him to donate his money for one of these causing and flipping him crap for being "selfish"?
Not if it was worded that way, I would not. However the original post read
So, if you were going to put a tribute to the great math and science minds on your body forever, which ones would you choose?
Which rather plainly states that he wants great math and science remembered. And being as his body - and hence his tattoos - will not last "forever", there are other less selfish ways to show that he sees math and science as important.
If he wants a tattoo, that is his decision. But he shouldn't be trying to make a call for his own sainthood in the process. There are many better ways to honor science than with body art, and I listed just a few of them earlier. Basically the article wreaks heavily of "my friends have tattoos and I want one too, how can I make it science-y or math-y?".
As you continue your aimless replies your trolling gets more amusing, though no more accurate. You have much to learn, young one.
A novice troll like yourself can do a fairly good job at wasting my time. But if you're trying to anger (or even annoy) me you are failing miserably. There are plenty of skilled trolls around here, I suggest you read up on their methods before you try again.
I never said anything about forever. Nice of you to stay on topic.
You have a really short memory, apparently. Read back to your original troll in this thread and you can see that you used the word "forever" in your very first line:
"if you were going to put a tribute to the great math and science minds on your body forever, which ones would you choose?"
Your chose to include the word, you could have quoted without it, not quoted at all, or quoted and then expressed a different opinion. Instead you carried on the word "forever".
The fact is that you're making a broad assumption that is likely incorrect.
The fact is your trolling needs practice. Your skills are inept at best but thanks for trying.
Thanks for playing and have a nice day.
Thanks for amusing me. Keep practicing and maybe some day you'll pull it off with some degree of skill.
on your body forever
Is complete an utter crap. Your tattoo will degrade with the rest of your body after you die. So unless this guy is going to have his body added to Lenin's tomb, the tattoo very much will not last forever. Granted, he could have it carved into his bones, but that is way beyond the pain threshhold of most living beings (and bones can deteriorate under certain conditions as well).
So there are ways to try to leave a message "forever" but a tattoo is not one. This screams of someone feeling the need to be "different" while wreaking of someone who doesn't realize how completely lacking in "uniqueness" tattoos are.
You have swear word in your slashdot name?
You consider "damn" a swear word? Really? Is "heck" on your list of naughty words as well?
Can't even come up with something original for once in your life?
Nobody says a slashdot name needs to be "something original", it just can't be identical to one that already exists here. I chose my name not because I thought it would be "something original" but rather so I could keep track of my postings more easily (after posting AC for years).
If the person who submitted this story needs a tattoo to track their own body, then they probably have even larger psychological problems than we had expected. However in the end the dominant thinking behind a tattoo is "look how original I am", which fails miserably to accomplish that feat thanks to the vast numbers of people who have tattoos. In some areas it is getting to be more original to not get tattooed at all.
His question had nothing to do with trying to be unique
The original question of
"if you were going to put a tribute to the great math and science minds on your body forever, which ones would you choose?"
Has the underlying motivation of "look at how unique I am". Unfortunately there is hardly anything left in the world that is less unique than a tattoo (with perhaps the exception of a Toyota Camry). And if he really wants to create a tribute, there are many things that would be much, much, better for that purpose as well.
You probably should not comment on things for which you have no clue.
I am sorry to inform you that clearly even the simplest of socio-psychological principles escape you entirely. You likely have heard this before, though.
Are just a few ways that you could use that money to make a difference in science that will help others. When you die your tattoo will eventually rot away with the rest of your body. But if you sponsored something that helped science or math progress, people would know of you for some time.
Come on, the math is simple here. There are six billion people on the planet right now. How many of them have tattoos already? The probability of you coming up with a tattoo that someone else doesn't already have is nearly zero.
In other words if you get a tattoo, someday later you'll meet someone else who has the same one, or someone who knows someone who has it. Then you'll realize that your attempt at "individuality" was a failure. At which point hopefully you went to a clean enough shop that you didn't pick up hepatitis in the process.
puts too much on the plate of the already overburdened Department of Homeland Security
Uh-huh. Like we already knew; say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss.
They've already stated they are going to start selling gTLDs themselves. Soon there will be no meaning - and more importantly no accountability - for the majority of all registrations. Anyone who is really looking to make money on something explicit will just wait for the crop of new gTLDs under which domains will be sold by people who are not held responsible in any way, shape, or form, by anyone, anywhere.
.xxx only to make a little more money off of it this way in comparison to what they would make by selling the .xxx gTLD in its entirety.
Most likely ICANN is setting up