No matter how much the Pot Propaganda Pushers will claim otherwise, their product has side effects. it is not 100% safe. This side effect might, in terms of frequency, be on par with anal leakage for boner pills, but it does exist.
But the private sector can always do it better! The Libertarians say so!
I'm not entirely sure which way you're arguing here, as a lot of people errantly assume that ICANN is somehow a part of the US government. You may already know that the colossal fuck-ups known as ICANN are actually a nonprofit private organization. Personally I take exception with their "nonprofit" status as clearly they are, at the very least, driven by interest in producing profit for their members.
... so ICANN cares. Where were they when people were asking them for help shutting down spammer-friendly (and scammer and thief friendly) registrars? When the registrars could make more money, ICANN was happy to comply. Now something is up that could interfere with registrars' ability to make money, so we see from them again.
The rest of us, of course, can all go to hell as far as ICANN is concerned.
If the priority is evacuating injured soldiers from the front line, I would be concerned about this vehicle's ability to navigate narrow roads. We have a lot of warfare taking place in urban environments and your evacuation technology is only as good as its ability to get out of a given situation.
I am not a nuclear physicist, so I really don't know the answer to this. Hasn't a controlled meltdown been done in a lab experiment before though? If so, what is different with this one in comparison to past experiments?
It certainly sounds useful - if for no other reason than because we likely have much better detection equipment (and hence should get much better data) than we likely did the last time something like this was done.
My point isn't whether or not you have the right to defend yourself, my point is that the 2nd amendment (which is mentioned in the summary here on the front page) isn't about self-defense.
That's true, but it's not interesting or relevant.
You can be disinterested in it if you want, but being as the front page summary right here on slashdot said
the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment
Your argument against it being relevant doesn't hold water in this case.
If we are guaranteed the right to defend ourselves, then why are we limited to guns? What if I feel i need a belt full of grenades to defend myself, or land mines in my yard? How about a tank? Nuclear weapons perhaps if I am certain that a certain other nation is out to attack me?
My point isn't whether or not you have the right to defend yourself, my point is that the 2nd amendment (which is mentioned in the summary here on the front page) isn't about self-defense.
I'm sorry that this caused you to come completely unhinged like that.
The AiG this guy is from is the young-earth creationist group, with a lower-case "i". The AIG we hear of more often in the media is the "American Insurance Group", which is not related. The font that slashdot renders this in does not help in distinguishing a lower-case from a capiltalized I.
Really, nobody should ever log in to their system - especially if it is running a Microsoft OS - with admin rights for regular work. You're just asking for trouble when do you.
Throwing spammers in prison (or even pursuing the popular option of executing them) won't solve the problem. Spamming is an international epidemic driven by economics. As long as spammers can make money they will continue to send spam. The correct way to address this problem is to interrupt the flow of money so that the spammers don't turn a profit. Only once that is done will spam cease to be a problem, every other approach is only a stopgap measure for an arms race that we can only fail when we escalate.
I could be missing something here, but by my understanding PINs are usually only 4 digits long. I would think that the people who were able to snag the cards that they correspond to could probably come up with a clever way to figure out the PINs on most of these cards without ever needing to decrypt the data. I recall not long ago seeing a publication of the frequency of PINs in use today; it would seem that they could probably gain access to a significant share with just that list alone.
You have missed the point entirely. Filters might prevent you from reading spam, but they don't prevent it from being sent. Even more so, they don't prevent it from costing money. Sure you may use gmail as a "free" email service but someone has to pay for the power consumed by the servers running the filters. Someone has to pay the engineers who train those filters. Someone has to pay for the hard drives that store your mail to be processed by the filters (including the mail that sits in the spam quarantine for 1 month before being deleted). And all that will happen over time is that those who depend on filters will see their FP and FN rates go up while they continue to spend more money fighting this losing battle.
Many people don't know but Ford F150s and Expeditions already use aluminum for the hood.
The Mustang has had an aluminum hood since at least 1994. I once had to have my 95 Mustang towed and the tow truck driver said "the hood is no longer made of metal!" after failing to attach the magent-based light to said hood.
I can tell that both the designers and people who think this is a great idea don't actually use a pickup for a living. I use a pickup on a ranch, and I use it HARD so that is where I am coming from. The new pickups in the last 10 years just don't last anymore because they are making them lighter and more economical to drive, and they just can't take the abuse that workers put them through on a daily bases.
Independent studies place the F150 basically equal (depending on which metric) in durability with the Silverado 1500 and Ram 1500. If you are wearing out your trucks it might be time you look in to the 250 (or higher) series. The 150 series trucks from each of the manufacturers are designed to match their usual working demands - most people who buy them live in the city and drive them mostly on the road. The most common cargo (in this country especially) in the bed of a pickup is air.
The 150 trucks are designed mostly for the urban handyman who occasionally pulls around and launches his own fishing boat on the weekend. They're good trucks but don't try to overstate their purpose.
They didn't just have one guy say "hey, let's switch everything over to aluminum and see what happens". They had engineers work on it, they reviewed the costs, forecasted the risks and expected benefits, etc. They know what they are doing. There is little if anything left to chance on this. Most likely they did a number of aluminum prototypes and ran them around on the proving grounds with aluminum versions of existing body panels so as to not draw additional attention.
Big companies like Ford don't just do things like this on a whim, they can't afford to. The American car companies still have the black eye of their quality problems from the 80s and 90s; they are one misstep away from corporate ruin. While the F150 is still the top selling vehicle on the planet, they can't afford to take it for granted or to leave its fate to chance.
The statement of "before email filters were effective" is delirious at best. Filters will never, in the long term, be an effective anti-spam tool. All that filters do is drive spammers to change their syntax to make spam look less spammy so that they can get past filters. This creates a digital arms race then as people who use filters have to keep re-training their filters in reaction. This wastes, time, energy, and money.
Even worse, as time goes on the signal-to-noise ratio only gets worse as spammers get more creative and do a better job of sending spam that resembles wanted commercial email.
If you want to actually do something about the spam epidemic, don't fool yourself into thinking that your filters will do it. Spam is an economic problem, it needs economic solutions. Filters do not accomplish this.
I posted this same bit as a journal entry and it took very little time to see a standard conservative reply. I don't expect it will be long until we'll see the same one here.
Slashdot Mirror
No matter how much the Pot Propaganda Pushers will claim otherwise, their product has side effects. it is not 100% safe. This side effect might, in terms of frequency, be on par with anal leakage for boner pills, but it does exist.
But the private sector can always do it better! The Libertarians say so!
I'm not entirely sure which way you're arguing here, as a lot of people errantly assume that ICANN is somehow a part of the US government. You may already know that the colossal fuck-ups known as ICANN are actually a nonprofit private organization. Personally I take exception with their "nonprofit" status as clearly they are, at the very least, driven by interest in producing profit for their members.
... so ICANN cares. Where were they when people were asking them for help shutting down spammer-friendly (and scammer and thief friendly) registrars? When the registrars could make more money, ICANN was happy to comply. Now something is up that could interfere with registrars' ability to make money, so we see from them again.
The rest of us, of course, can all go to hell as far as ICANN is concerned.
If the priority is evacuating injured soldiers from the front line, I would be concerned about this vehicle's ability to navigate narrow roads. We have a lot of warfare taking place in urban environments and your evacuation technology is only as good as its ability to get out of a given situation.
... the same way we built it - on rock and roll
And now the song is stuck in your head, too. You're welcome.
I am not a nuclear physicist, so I really don't know the answer to this. Hasn't a controlled meltdown been done in a lab experiment before though? If so, what is different with this one in comparison to past experiments?
It certainly sounds useful - if for no other reason than because we likely have much better detection equipment (and hence should get much better data) than we likely did the last time something like this was done.
My point isn't whether or not you have the right to defend yourself, my point is that the 2nd amendment (which is mentioned in the summary here on the front page) isn't about self-defense.
That's true, but it's not interesting or relevant.
You can be disinterested in it if you want, but being as the front page summary right here on slashdot said
the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment
Your argument against it being relevant doesn't hold water in this case.
If we are guaranteed the right to defend ourselves, then why are we limited to guns? What if I feel i need a belt full of grenades to defend myself, or land mines in my yard? How about a tank? Nuclear weapons perhaps if I am certain that a certain other nation is out to attack me?
My point isn't whether or not you have the right to defend yourself, my point is that the 2nd amendment (which is mentioned in the summary here on the front page) isn't about self-defense.
I'm sorry that this caused you to come completely unhinged like that.
The text says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, however it does not specify for what purpose.
No, Alan Alda is far, far, too liberal for slashdot to interview.
If they collect the keywords, save them to a profile db, then sell that profile to others, that's a far more obvious violation of privacy.
Facebook is in the business of selling your information. If you don't like that, you should use a different communication mechanism.
If i send a private message to someone on facebook, I feel I deserve the same level of privacy as if I was using gmail to send it.
Isn't that what they are doing? GMail mines your email to give you targeted advertising as well.
The AiG this guy is from is the young-earth creationist group, with a lower-case "i". The AIG we hear of more often in the media is the "American Insurance Group", which is not related. The font that slashdot renders this in does not help in distinguishing a lower-case from a capiltalized I.
Really, nobody should ever log in to their system - especially if it is running a Microsoft OS - with admin rights for regular work. You're just asking for trouble when do you.
I heard this crazy woman wants to go, and I think it would be a shame to let her down.
Throwing spammers in prison (or even pursuing the popular option of executing them) won't solve the problem. Spamming is an international epidemic driven by economics. As long as spammers can make money they will continue to send spam. The correct way to address this problem is to interrupt the flow of money so that the spammers don't turn a profit. Only once that is done will spam cease to be a problem, every other approach is only a stopgap measure for an arms race that we can only fail when we escalate.
They are using cheese brine, not the cheese itself. The brine has salt in it but is mostly not cheese.
I could be missing something here, but by my understanding PINs are usually only 4 digits long. I would think that the people who were able to snag the cards that they correspond to could probably come up with a clever way to figure out the PINs on most of these cards without ever needing to decrypt the data. I recall not long ago seeing a publication of the frequency of PINs in use today; it would seem that they could probably gain access to a significant share with just that list alone.
You have missed the point entirely. Filters might prevent you from reading spam, but they don't prevent it from being sent. Even more so, they don't prevent it from costing money. Sure you may use gmail as a "free" email service but someone has to pay for the power consumed by the servers running the filters. Someone has to pay the engineers who train those filters. Someone has to pay for the hard drives that store your mail to be processed by the filters (including the mail that sits in the spam quarantine for 1 month before being deleted). And all that will happen over time is that those who depend on filters will see their FP and FN rates go up while they continue to spend more money fighting this losing battle.
I didn't know anyone would still dare call themselves an expert Pong or Breakout player any more.
Many people don't know but Ford F150s and Expeditions already use aluminum for the hood.
The Mustang has had an aluminum hood since at least 1994. I once had to have my 95 Mustang towed and the tow truck driver said "the hood is no longer made of metal!" after failing to attach the magent-based light to said hood.
I can tell that both the designers and people who think this is a great idea don't actually use a pickup for a living. I use a pickup on a ranch, and I use it HARD so that is where I am coming from. The new pickups in the last 10 years just don't last anymore because they are making them lighter and more economical to drive, and they just can't take the abuse that workers put them through on a daily bases.
Independent studies place the F150 basically equal (depending on which metric) in durability with the Silverado 1500 and Ram 1500. If you are wearing out your trucks it might be time you look in to the 250 (or higher) series. The 150 series trucks from each of the manufacturers are designed to match their usual working demands - most people who buy them live in the city and drive them mostly on the road. The most common cargo (in this country especially) in the bed of a pickup is air.
The 150 trucks are designed mostly for the urban handyman who occasionally pulls around and launches his own fishing boat on the weekend. They're good trucks but don't try to overstate their purpose.
They didn't just have one guy say "hey, let's switch everything over to aluminum and see what happens". They had engineers work on it, they reviewed the costs, forecasted the risks and expected benefits, etc. They know what they are doing. There is little if anything left to chance on this. Most likely they did a number of aluminum prototypes and ran them around on the proving grounds with aluminum versions of existing body panels so as to not draw additional attention.
Big companies like Ford don't just do things like this on a whim, they can't afford to. The American car companies still have the black eye of their quality problems from the 80s and 90s; they are one misstep away from corporate ruin. While the F150 is still the top selling vehicle on the planet, they can't afford to take it for granted or to leave its fate to chance.
The statement of "before email filters were effective" is delirious at best. Filters will never, in the long term, be an effective anti-spam tool. All that filters do is drive spammers to change their syntax to make spam look less spammy so that they can get past filters. This creates a digital arms race then as people who use filters have to keep re-training their filters in reaction. This wastes, time, energy, and money.
Even worse, as time goes on the signal-to-noise ratio only gets worse as spammers get more creative and do a better job of sending spam that resembles wanted commercial email.
If you want to actually do something about the spam epidemic, don't fool yourself into thinking that your filters will do it. Spam is an economic problem, it needs economic solutions. Filters do not accomplish this.
I posted this same bit as a journal entry and it took very little time to see a standard conservative reply. I don't expect it will be long until we'll see the same one here.