> Every now and then somebody cures a specific disease
I was under the impression that the last big "cure" was Polio in the 50s (although a vaccine & a cure are quite a bit different). What has been cured since then?
> I'm still waiting for the "shocking" pre-election surprise
Same here... If it happens, I would expect it at the end of this week/beginning of next week. My money is on something happening Sunday the 24th. That's not exactly a staggering guess, since there's only two weeks left & to have it happen 3 days prior would look a little fishy. Not that two weeks wouldn't, but less so.
> When I saw the ads I thought "it could be funny or really awful". Based on this review I figure on the latter.
I saw it yesterday, and it's not that bad. One thing I was impressed with is how unpolitical it was. Yes, there's a few jabs at politicians (and mostly actors), but in standard Matt & Trey style, they kept the one-sided insults to an absolute minimum. They make fun of just about everyone, regardless of politics. It's a decent movie, but I'm sure you could find a single South Park episode that was better overall.
As is what Penn insinuated. He should be ashamed of himself, saying that if you don't vote you are killing children.
It's one thing to state your political beliefs. It's entirely another to be an uninformed ignoramous with a sense of over-importance (ala, all of Hollywood) and tell people that if they don't agree with you that they are butchers.
> I don't know what orifice Kerry's going to pull his "two new divisions" from, but it's not going be the draft.
I was wondering that myself. I've heard both sides (IIRC) talk about increasing troop numbers. We're shorthanded as it is and I seriously doubt large numbers of people will suddenly sign up to go to war. Maybe they could pull troops out of somewhere else, but I honestly don't know from where.
Yeah, and pretty rare from me:) but sometimes I see, after the fact, how the "anonimity" and instantaneous nature of/. can lead me to say some pretty stupid things.
> people moderated his post up as informative, when it contains absolutely no information and [no evidence]
That I completely agree with. It could be considered "Interesting," even as a short story, but informative is a stretch, yes.
You are right that I made you seem to be saying things you did not, I apologize. And no, Indymedia didn't say that anything was removed, but unless they had something like an MD5 sum of the entire hard drive, they can't be sure until they have enough time to review the whole thing.
> I would have thought that you would offer a secure environment as part of your product out of the box? What does that tell us about the quality of your products?
Look, I think Bill Gates is the Devil incarnate just as much as your average Linux Zealot, but what would we say if he DID include virus protection software? That he was using his monopoly to take over that market too. And we'd probably be right in that case.
His stated reasoning makes some sense too. Virus protection and spyware detection does require a service to be provided from Microsoft, for definition updates. MS prefers to get their money in one big chunk & no longer be responsible for anything. If they have to offer def updates, they will be considered responsible if their website goes down & those are unavailable, causing a new virus to spread very quickly.
As for updates, good products will check the AV def website for updates at least once a week (if not once a day). Imagine what would happen to MS's servers if every one of their customers used Windows Update every single day (and downloaded a multi-megabyte file almost every time).
None of this even mentions that there is no Virus Protection on any Linux distribution I've ever used. Why is MS expected to incorporate it when the greatest OS in existence (IMO) isn't? Maybe because the underlying architecture is less prone to attack, or there aren't as many viruses targetted for it, but either way it isn't there.
> Under your logic, those features would only work if I paid a monthly premium.
That is completely asinine. The mechanics behind deploying an airbag does not change. Virus threats change constantly. Your brakes never encounter something they have never seen before. They do one thing: they squeeze together & are never expected to do anything else. Virus definitions need to be updated, your brakes do not. Come on, if you're going to argue something, especially in a close-to-first post, try using good arguments. Otherwise, you're a troll.
Wonder if there was any way for them to get something like MAC addresses (or even IPs) from any logs on there so they can track down individuals who posted content...
> they will put the hard question to you on the spot.
Which they should have no right to do, unless they witness you concealing something in your jacket, or you have a bulge shaped strangely similar to a shotgun...
Nor any reason to believe you. We all (hopefully) know that nothing should be taken at face value on/., you are just trying to start opposition without saying anything yet.
Yeah a million people sounds like overeager (VERRRRY) estimating.
> Perhaps you could have posted a link to these supposed photos?
Gee, if they've been confiscated & removed from the servers... NO, HE CAN'T!
> A police officer's job is stressful enough without having his/her house being a target of some asshole or paranoid schizophrenic who think's he's saving the world by harrassing your kids and your home.
A Protester's job is stressful enough without having a police officer bash his head in because he happened to be within a mile of some violence, much of which, I have no doubt, is precipitated by officers -- they may not even know it (but likely, do). And you want to talk about paranoid assholes? That's the definition of the common police officer!
> where are these supposed mirrors?
That's better than asking for a link to the originals...
> we'll never know whether he's telling the truth or he's making up most of this to gain notoriety.
And we'll never know if you are being an upstanding citizen by debunking his bullshit (which much of it probably is, if not all), or if you're just complaining that his opinion and experiences are different than yours.
My point is that just replying and saying "you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong," without proof of that is not doing anyone any good, and is probably bad for your health.:) But in your defense, anectodat evidence isn't really evidence, even if true. I'm sure there's a way to manipulate the story as presented to make the actions of the police seem justifiable, although I am not a writer, so I can't think of one.
> I dont see how photographing you in a public place violates your rights, or intimidates you.
While it may not violate rights, why would the police need photos of people unless they are using them to keep tabs on the activities of citizens? The feeling you get from this is that your photo will be placed in a database of "potential terrorists." That is not acceptable to me.
Of course, the people who would show up to protest are generally the type that think the government has such a database and wouldn't hesitate to use it: the police know this, and to make a big deal about it is to play to those fears. Hence, intimidation.
Personally, I don't have a problem with that, as long as there is no issue with individuals taking pictures of the police. When the police or government tries to mug the protestors of their cameras or images, I object strongly.
Slashdot Mirror
> Every now and then somebody cures a specific disease
I was under the impression that the last big "cure" was Polio in the 50s (although a vaccine & a cure are quite a bit different). What has been cured since then?
> That's not funny, that's obvious
That's what comedy is most of the time. The obvious things that are pointed out to you in a nonobvious way.
From the article:
"that seemed stupid. Of course, we hadn't counted on the DoD."
That's the best quote from the article and sums up quite a few of the USA's problems.
> maybe these gizmos would run on ethanol
I was thinking the same thing. What are the chances your laptop would run on gasoline? Not much.
> I'm still waiting for the "shocking" pre-election surprise
Same here... If it happens, I would expect it at the end of this week/beginning of next week. My money is on something happening Sunday the 24th. That's not exactly a staggering guess, since there's only two weeks left & to have it happen 3 days prior would look a little fishy. Not that two weeks wouldn't, but less so.
> stealing from "the Rich" and keeping for yourself isn't Robin Hood at all.
Not unless you then share that file with others, ala P2P. Yeah, it's a big stretch, but a possible argument.
> I'm Chris Van Hollen, and I eat children! Vote for me!
Whew, thank God you posted that real, official, not-made-up-at-all quote. Now I'll vote for him!
> When I saw the ads I thought "it could be funny or really awful". Based on this review I figure on the latter.
I saw it yesterday, and it's not that bad. One thing I was impressed with is how unpolitical it was. Yes, there's a few jabs at politicians (and mostly actors), but in standard Matt & Trey style, they kept the one-sided insults to an absolute minimum. They make fun of just about everyone, regardless of politics. It's a decent movie, but I'm sure you could find a single South Park episode that was better overall.
> That is vile.
As is what Penn insinuated. He should be ashamed of himself, saying that if you don't vote you are killing children.
It's one thing to state your political beliefs. It's entirely another to be an uninformed ignoramous with a sense of over-importance (ala, all of Hollywood) and tell people that if they don't agree with you that they are butchers.
> What I get out of his letter is the following.
What I get is:
1) He can't take a joke
2) Being uninformed is equal to genocide.
3) He is a fucking ignorant joke of a man (wait, I knew that before)
That comment makes me furious... because it's true.
> If you raise your fist to a cop, you have just ASSAULTED A COP.
If the cop beats you down with his night stick and pounds you to a bloody pulp, planting drugs and a gun on you, he is CALLED A HERO.
> BTW, the secretarty od State how forgot to deliver the comision to Marbury, was cheif justice John Marshal. I little comflict of intrest.
Can you rewrite that in English? I'm interested in learning what it's supposed to mean.
> I don't know what orifice Kerry's going to pull his "two new divisions" from, but it's not going be the draft.
I was wondering that myself. I've heard both sides (IIRC) talk about increasing troop numbers. We're shorthanded as it is and I seriously doubt large numbers of people will suddenly sign up to go to war. Maybe they could pull troops out of somewhere else, but I honestly don't know from where.
> apology (pretty rare on Slashdot!).
:) but sometimes I see, after the fact, how the "anonimity" and instantaneous nature of /. can lead me to say some pretty stupid things.
Yeah, and pretty rare from me
> because they want evidence off of them, possibly just incidental.
Good point. Perhaps a picture will be used to prove an accused person was present at a certain protest.
Duh, I'm a dolt, of course they aren't kept there.
> people moderated his post up as informative, when it contains absolutely no information and [no evidence]
That I completely agree with. It could be considered "Interesting," even as a short story, but informative is a stretch, yes.
You are right that I made you seem to be saying things you did not, I apologize. And no, Indymedia didn't say that anything was removed, but unless they had something like an MD5 sum of the entire hard drive, they can't be sure until they have enough time to review the whole thing.
> At worst, he's a popularity seeking liar.
Yeah, that's likely, but I can't say for sure.
> I would have thought that you would offer a secure environment as part of your product out of the box? What does that tell us about the quality of your products?
Look, I think Bill Gates is the Devil incarnate just as much as your average Linux Zealot, but what would we say if he DID include virus protection software? That he was using his monopoly to take over that market too. And we'd probably be right in that case.
His stated reasoning makes some sense too. Virus protection and spyware detection does require a service to be provided from Microsoft, for definition updates. MS prefers to get their money in one big chunk & no longer be responsible for anything. If they have to offer def updates, they will be considered responsible if their website goes down & those are unavailable, causing a new virus to spread very quickly.
As for updates, good products will check the AV def website for updates at least once a week (if not once a day). Imagine what would happen to MS's servers if every one of their customers used Windows Update every single day (and downloaded a multi-megabyte file almost every time).
None of this even mentions that there is no Virus Protection on any Linux distribution I've ever used. Why is MS expected to incorporate it when the greatest OS in existence (IMO) isn't? Maybe because the underlying architecture is less prone to attack, or there aren't as many viruses targetted for it, but either way it isn't there.
> Under your logic, those features would only work if I paid a monthly premium.
That is completely asinine. The mechanics behind deploying an airbag does not change. Virus threats change constantly. Your brakes never encounter something they have never seen before. They do one thing: they squeeze together & are never expected to do anything else. Virus definitions need to be updated, your brakes do not. Come on, if you're going to argue something, especially in a close-to-first post, try using good arguments. Otherwise, you're a troll.
> In case you have not noticed, Intel can no longer push for faster and faster clock speeds to push its hunk of junk up the hill.
Pop quiz, x86 users:
How many years ago was the first time you heard that from a Mac user? 5 years ago? 10? 15 maybe?
Wonder if there was any way for them to get something like MAC addresses (or even IPs) from any logs on there so they can track down individuals who posted content...
> anectodat
Wow, I slaughtered that one... "anecdotal"
> they will put the hard question to you on the spot.
Which they should have no right to do, unless they witness you concealing something in your jacket, or you have a bulge shaped strangely similar to a shotgun...
> There's absolutely no reason to believe you.
/., you are just trying to start opposition without saying anything yet.
:) But in your defense, anectodat evidence isn't really evidence, even if true. I'm sure there's a way to manipulate the story as presented to make the actions of the police seem justifiable, although I am not a writer, so I can't think of one.
Nor any reason to believe you. We all (hopefully) know that nothing should be taken at face value on
Yeah a million people sounds like overeager (VERRRRY) estimating.
> Perhaps you could have posted a link to these supposed photos?
Gee, if they've been confiscated & removed from the servers... NO, HE CAN'T!
> A police officer's job is stressful enough without having his/her house being a target of some asshole or paranoid schizophrenic who think's he's saving the world by harrassing your kids and your home.
A Protester's job is stressful enough without having a police officer bash his head in because he happened to be within a mile of some violence, much of which, I have no doubt, is precipitated by officers -- they may not even know it (but likely, do). And you want to talk about paranoid assholes? That's the definition of the common police officer!
> where are these supposed mirrors?
That's better than asking for a link to the originals...
> we'll never know whether he's telling the truth or he's making up most of this to gain notoriety.
And we'll never know if you are being an upstanding citizen by debunking his bullshit (which much of it probably is, if not all), or if you're just complaining that his opinion and experiences are different than yours.
My point is that just replying and saying "you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong," without proof of that is not doing anyone any good, and is probably bad for your health.
> I dont see how photographing you in a public place violates your rights, or intimidates you.
While it may not violate rights, why would the police need photos of people unless they are using them to keep tabs on the activities of citizens? The feeling you get from this is that your photo will be placed in a database of "potential terrorists." That is not acceptable to me.
Of course, the people who would show up to protest are generally the type that think the government has such a database and wouldn't hesitate to use it: the police know this, and to make a big deal about it is to play to those fears. Hence, intimidation.
Personally, I don't have a problem with that, as long as there is no issue with individuals taking pictures of the police. When the police or government tries to mug the protestors of their cameras or images, I object strongly.