Rush Limbaugh encouraged his listeners to temporarily switch allegiances and vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic Primaries with the explicit intent to push the weaker candidate through. And the dems cried foul then. We're supposed to lose honorably, not sink to their level. It's also probably a felony in some states.
I was going for comical exaggeration (funny), not social commentary (insightful). Not a lot of American citizens have disappeared (that we know of) for anti-government sentiment, but isn't the no-fly list at a million names and growing rapidly?
The only option at this point is to begin militant action against our failed government institution. Unfortunately we would have no backing because the TV still spews its garbage and the people are sated.
I think I hear the feds at my door for having read that.
Way to pick two examples and extrapolate that every download is just people stealing because it's easy.
Show me where Walmart and Best Buy keep their DVDs of Howard the Duck please.
I had been letting my subscription ride to accumulate veteran rewards. I earned the 3-year pets at the beginning of January and probably would've kept up the subscription forever, but the greed involved in NCSoft charging for what Cryptic generally threw out at random in patches was enough to make me finally cancel it.
Are there any sites or services in which you'd voluntarily look at ads to lend a hand? Well, I would voluntarily look at ads to lend City of Heroes a hand. That is, if I hadn't cancelled my account the moment they offered a $10 costume pack.
If that's the article I'm thinking of, I believe it said that cold temperatures extended the length of time that data stayed in RAM after power loss. And, we are talking about Canada here...
Chances are most people using Firefox would notice if they were suddenly not, and most people using IE weren't likely to install Firefox anyway. If anything, this could get a few people to say "Hey, there are other internet explorers? Maybe I should try a different one..."
where you have to go into "advanced" install of the update to even KNOW that it's pushing Google Crapbar, let alone to drop it. Not true. I've installed Java on hundreds of computers in the last year, and the option to install the Google Toolbar has always been along the next next next path. Yes, it's checked by default, and most people will next pass it, but it's not hidden in an advanced menu.
I'm not sure what procedure is for the Guinness Book. It sounded like it was more of a personal accomplishment anyway. Not to say that he's not going to milk it for the notoriety, but the article set it up as a personal accomplishment.
My point about speed limits is that they're written for idiots. Many people are capable of driving safely well over an arbitrarily defined limit. Many people aren't. Intelligence isn't a requirement for legally driving though, so speed limits are set below what's actually safe to accomodate them.
Better brakes combined with paying attention and a low reaction time will stop you much faster than standard brakes, a cell phone in one hand and a pen and paper in the other.
I've never been in an accident caused by my own inability to brake. I've had my car over 100 on public roads, but the only accident I've been in was going the speed limit in town (I was not at fault, for the record). I've avoided a deer at 4am at 90MPH on an unlit road, too.
There's no place where you can set a cross country speed record under controlled circumstances. Even if there was a cross country race track, then it would take a lot of the skill out anyway and really would be a meaningless accomplishment.
Speed limits aren't necessarily unfair, but they are written for the lowest common denominator. The guy whose car is loaded with those sensors, enhanced breaks, etc., and is focused on driving, is not the same kind of risk as the soccer mom on her cell phone doing the speed limit. The law is written for the unwashed masses, but not everyone is the same level of driver.
Speed limits are not a rigid law either. Here in Pennsylvania, there's no punishment for driving up to 5MPH over the limit, and I routinely drive past speed traps on I-78 at 15-20 over, and occasionally am passed while doing so, without issue. I'm sure in some states there's zero tolerance for speeding, but not everywhere.
I never really intended to defend this guy. I think it's cool that he broke the record, and with all the stupid crap going on in America, one guy driving excessively fast is not a big deal, but my morals may be different than yours. I just wanted to point out the math of comparing risks.
I don't think the US has been a democracy of late, but that's a topic for another time.
Words like "significant" and "meaningless" are pretty subjective. Smoking poses a significant risk to others, without their permission, in pursuit of a meaningless objective. You could say the same about any driving. Obeying a 25MPH speed limit driving past a park has a better chance of getting someone injured than driving fast on multi-lane highways. Does the 4 year old that runs in front of your car give you permission to hit him? Did you give him permission to make you swerve and hit the guy in the opposite lane? Why drive past a park anyway? There are always alternate routes. We could take public transportation, we could have communities where everyone parks in a garage at the edge of the neighborhood and takes a shuttle or even walks to their homes.
If you watch the video on the first page of the article where it's raining, they show their speedometer at 73MPH, 20 below their average. It took them 4 seconds to pass a truck in the rain, which comes out to a difference of about 10MPH. The truck poses a much greater risk to other motorists.
The deer that may end their lives only poses a risk to themselves, the deer, and other people who are driving 100+MPH. Which most of the comments here seem to support capital punishment for driving that fast anyway.
Perhaps all the other people on the road combined took an equal or greater risk. But individually, other vehicles were only near him at "unsafe" speeds for a few seconds and fractions of a mile. He was near himself for 31 hours and 3,000 miles. If risk is measured in units over time or distance, they took only a small fraction of the risk he did. If it's not, then he took some untold number of risks to the one risk taken by each other motorist. Either way, that's far from the accepted definition of "equal."
I work at a computer repair shop, and every single day I hear some variation of "as soon as you log in to MySpace you open a port in your firewall and that's why you have a virus." I've been asked before to block MySpace on customers' systems. My boss has complained that the store's computer has errors because someone logged on to MySpace (it has nothing to do with the 500+GB of customer backups on the system, because they're not on the same hard drive as Windows).
And now you go and post this? Despite the headline having no real basis in the article, and that the context implies that this exploit is not in the wild yet, it's going to be used to justify every past and future accusation.
If I'm lucky, my employers will only knee-jerk at the headline. If not, they'll read the entire article, knee-jerk at the headline anyway, and based on the statement, "it only affects older versions of the Firefox Web browser and does not affect Internet Explorer," argue that IE is superior in every way to Firefox. Just watch.
Slashdot Mirror
Rush Limbaugh encouraged his listeners to temporarily switch allegiances and vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic Primaries with the explicit intent to push the weaker candidate through. And the dems cried foul then. We're supposed to lose honorably, not sink to their level. It's also probably a felony in some states.
I was going for comical exaggeration (funny), not social commentary (insightful). Not a lot of American citizens have disappeared (that we know of) for anti-government sentiment, but isn't the no-fly list at a million names and growing rapidly?
The only option at this point is to begin militant action against our failed government institution. Unfortunately we would have no backing because the TV still spews its garbage and the people are sated.
I think I hear the feds at my door for having read that.
It's no longer on eBay, having ended more than 90 days ago, but you could probably find it somewhere by searching for the item ID 110078904033
Way to pick two examples and extrapolate that every download is just people stealing because it's easy. Show me where Walmart and Best Buy keep their DVDs of Howard the Duck please.
I had been letting my subscription ride to accumulate veteran rewards. I earned the 3-year pets at the beginning of January and probably would've kept up the subscription forever, but the greed involved in NCSoft charging for what Cryptic generally threw out at random in patches was enough to make me finally cancel it.
It was also optional to keep paying the subscription that had previously paid for the extra costume parts.
If that's the article I'm thinking of, I believe it said that cold temperatures extended the length of time that data stayed in RAM after power loss. And, we are talking about Canada here...
Chances are most people using Firefox would notice if they were suddenly not, and most people using IE weren't likely to install Firefox anyway. If anything, this could get a few people to say "Hey, there are other internet explorers? Maybe I should try a different one..."
I'm not sure what procedure is for the Guinness Book. It sounded like it was more of a personal accomplishment anyway. Not to say that he's not going to milk it for the notoriety, but the article set it up as a personal accomplishment.
My point about speed limits is that they're written for idiots. Many people are capable of driving safely well over an arbitrarily defined limit. Many people aren't. Intelligence isn't a requirement for legally driving though, so speed limits are set below what's actually safe to accomodate them.
Better brakes combined with paying attention and a low reaction time will stop you much faster than standard brakes, a cell phone in one hand and a pen and paper in the other.
I've never been in an accident caused by my own inability to brake. I've had my car over 100 on public roads, but the only accident I've been in was going the speed limit in town (I was not at fault, for the record). I've avoided a deer at 4am at 90MPH on an unlit road, too.
There's no place where you can set a cross country speed record under controlled circumstances. Even if there was a cross country race track, then it would take a lot of the skill out anyway and really would be a meaningless accomplishment.
Speed limits aren't necessarily unfair, but they are written for the lowest common denominator. The guy whose car is loaded with those sensors, enhanced breaks, etc., and is focused on driving, is not the same kind of risk as the soccer mom on her cell phone doing the speed limit. The law is written for the unwashed masses, but not everyone is the same level of driver.
Speed limits are not a rigid law either. Here in Pennsylvania, there's no punishment for driving up to 5MPH over the limit, and I routinely drive past speed traps on I-78 at 15-20 over, and occasionally am passed while doing so, without issue. I'm sure in some states there's zero tolerance for speeding, but not everywhere.
I never really intended to defend this guy. I think it's cool that he broke the record, and with all the stupid crap going on in America, one guy driving excessively fast is not a big deal, but my morals may be different than yours. I just wanted to point out the math of comparing risks.
I don't think the US has been a democracy of late, but that's a topic for another time.
Words like "significant" and "meaningless" are pretty subjective. Smoking poses a significant risk to others, without their permission, in pursuit of a meaningless objective. You could say the same about any driving. Obeying a 25MPH speed limit driving past a park has a better chance of getting someone injured than driving fast on multi-lane highways. Does the 4 year old that runs in front of your car give you permission to hit him? Did you give him permission to make you swerve and hit the guy in the opposite lane? Why drive past a park anyway? There are always alternate routes. We could take public transportation, we could have communities where everyone parks in a garage at the edge of the neighborhood and takes a shuttle or even walks to their homes.
If you watch the video on the first page of the article where it's raining, they show their speedometer at 73MPH, 20 below their average. It took them 4 seconds to pass a truck in the rain, which comes out to a difference of about 10MPH. The truck poses a much greater risk to other motorists.
The deer that may end their lives only poses a risk to themselves, the deer, and other people who are driving 100+MPH. Which most of the comments here seem to support capital punishment for driving that fast anyway.
Perhaps all the other people on the road combined took an equal or greater risk. But individually, other vehicles were only near him at "unsafe" speeds for a few seconds and fractions of a mile. He was near himself for 31 hours and 3,000 miles. If risk is measured in units over time or distance, they took only a small fraction of the risk he did. If it's not, then he took some untold number of risks to the one risk taken by each other motorist. Either way, that's far from the accepted definition of "equal."
I work at a computer repair shop, and every single day I hear some variation of "as soon as you log in to MySpace you open a port in your firewall and that's why you have a virus." I've been asked before to block MySpace on customers' systems. My boss has complained that the store's computer has errors because someone logged on to MySpace (it has nothing to do with the 500+GB of customer backups on the system, because they're not on the same hard drive as Windows).
/.
And now you go and post this? Despite the headline having no real basis in the article, and that the context implies that this exploit is not in the wild yet, it's going to be used to justify every past and future accusation.
If I'm lucky, my employers will only knee-jerk at the headline. If not, they'll read the entire article, knee-jerk at the headline anyway, and based on the statement, "it only affects older versions of the Firefox Web browser and does not affect Internet Explorer," argue that IE is superior in every way to Firefox. Just watch.
Thanks a lot,