I apologize for attempting to assert that your argument in this thread appeared to be the result a misunderstanding.
I obviously was entirely wrong at reading you, because I had zero expectation of a massive point by point response to what was essentially a, "Hey maybe they meant this instead" response, suggesting that not everyone always phrases things exactly as they mean it. I know that I didn't mean to provoke such a strong reaction, and I'm sorry.
"Common myth still spreading around that macs do not have viruses."
Myth? Please point to a current Mac virus.
Alrescha seems to to be challenging the idea that Macs can get viruses and the assertion that it is a myth that Macs do not get viruses. Stenchwarrior attempted to provide examples that run counter to what he perceived Alrescha's intent to be. You seem intent on attacking the quality of his examples on behalf of Alrescha, so it was only natural that he assume you also are challenging the idea that Macs can get viruses.
Stenchwarrior is merely attempting to point out that malicious programs "CAN" do damage to Macs, and while you are picking apart his attempt, you do not (at the core) seem to be disagreeing with him, just his specific examples and over the underlying intentions of Alrescha.
Now I can't speak to any specific examples of people on/. stating that Mac's can't be infected or exploited, but I know that's the impression many Mac users among my friends have, so I wouldn't be surprised to find people on/. that believe the same thing.
I seem to remember that there was a time when geeks read manuals, examined systems and learned new languages because that's what they liked to do. I'm beginning to think that many of the geeks out there aren't actually geeks, but cool kids in disguise.
I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that increasing knowledge is good for a business, or personal marketability. I was trying to suggest that the learning of new things (whether they are to be obsolete tomorrow or not) is a good pursuit for a human being in and of itself.
Somehow I doubt Lockheed-Martin received a contract for a main fuel tank that cracks and leaks when filled with fuel. And really, if they thought, "Hey it's good enough even with the cracks" then they really are bad people.
Oh good. Because I thought our planets problems were much more complicated than what people think of Assange and Wikileaks. If that's the only problem we can have everything fixed in time for the 2012 Armageddon.
Cape Canaveral is good launch location, all command and control buildings are well clear of any possible blast radius, as are the planned manufacturing facilities.
I'm all for good things for the JSC, I live in Houston, but moving the manufacturing to within a few miles of the pad reduces many risks of transportation after rocket assembly, and makes good sense in terms of logistics.
Why not use a cellphone for work calls at all and instead use the phone at your desk? This may shock most people on Slashdot, but the majority of jobs really don't require a cellphone.
I saw something different. I saw two distinct stylistic approaches depending on the storylines surrounding the designs. Some cars looking like the vehicles of the day to help the reader identify with the owner of the batmobile. Usually more for the noir and detective stories. Others so outlandish and advanced, as to underline the more fantastic and outrageous elements of superhero storlines.
I think you're mixing up "self-sustaining" and "sustaining" environments. We will know in a month or two if the environment can be sustained, not whether it will be self-sustaining. But that's all besides my point, which was that child proofing an environmental habitat may be very hard, considering that all our designs up till now have been based around adults. Plus other challenges, for instance creating diapers with limited materials and water.
I won't debate with you whether the possibility of sending people to Mars is science fiction or science fact, I'm not a rocket scientist. But I do think the Mars Society is doing some interesting work in furthering the technology that we know we need right now, as are other space agencies, programs and private companies.
As for guinea pigs, well, rarely is any progress made without risk. In space exploration the risk is either monetary or in human life, I think the question is which do we think is cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
I apologize for attempting to assert that your argument in this thread appeared to be the result a misunderstanding.
I obviously was entirely wrong at reading you, because I had zero expectation of a massive point by point response to what was essentially a, "Hey maybe they meant this instead" response, suggesting that not everyone always phrases things exactly as they mean it. I know that I didn't mean to provoke such a strong reaction, and I'm sorry.
"Common myth still spreading around that macs do not have viruses."
Myth? Please point to a current Mac virus.
Alrescha seems to to be challenging the idea that Macs can get viruses and the assertion that it is a myth that Macs do not get viruses. Stenchwarrior attempted to provide examples that run counter to what he perceived Alrescha's intent to be. You seem intent on attacking the quality of his examples on behalf of Alrescha, so it was only natural that he assume you also are challenging the idea that Macs can get viruses.
Stenchwarrior is merely attempting to point out that malicious programs "CAN" do damage to Macs, and while you are picking apart his attempt, you do not (at the core) seem to be disagreeing with him, just his specific examples and over the underlying intentions of Alrescha.
Now I can't speak to any specific examples of people on /. stating that Mac's can't be infected or exploited, but I know that's the impression many Mac users among my friends have, so I wouldn't be surprised to find people on /. that believe the same thing.
I know my plan is to start a power station that uses poor children as fuel a la Jonathan Swift.
You sound like Publilius Syrus,"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."
Of course he started out life as a slave, so I think he had lower standards for what one would consider "fair".
I seem to remember that there was a time when geeks read manuals, examined systems and learned new languages because that's what they liked to do. I'm beginning to think that many of the geeks out there aren't actually geeks, but cool kids in disguise.
I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that increasing knowledge is good for a business, or personal marketability. I was trying to suggest that the learning of new things (whether they are to be obsolete tomorrow or not) is a good pursuit for a human being in and of itself.
That's assuming that learning things isn't a good thing apart from vocational marketability.
So if we didn't eat the fruit, we'd be immortal, like cows.
I've never heard anyone call a garbage collector a sanitation engineer, though I have heard them called sanitation workers.
So you'd prefer your fictional engineers from Dilbert?
It's not transparent.
It didn't.
Somehow I doubt Lockheed-Martin received a contract for a main fuel tank that cracks and leaks when filled with fuel. And really, if they thought, "Hey it's good enough even with the cracks" then they really are bad people.
Oh good. Because I thought our planets problems were much more complicated than what people think of Assange and Wikileaks. If that's the only problem we can have everything fixed in time for the 2012 Armageddon.
Cape Canaveral is good launch location, all command and control buildings are well clear of any possible blast radius, as are the planned manufacturing facilities.
I'm all for good things for the JSC, I live in Houston, but moving the manufacturing to within a few miles of the pad reduces many risks of transportation after rocket assembly, and makes good sense in terms of logistics.
Don't see why consolidating the location of fabrication and launch pad is anything but commonsense, regardless of secondary political motivations.
You can live in a society that lives up to your desires. Move to Singapore.
It makes a difference to the person who's to be executed.
Most of them are probably still trying to figure out why we had beepers back in the 90's.
What California state office doesn't have a landline? What civil service jobs aren't primarily worked from an office?
Yeah, I'm really shocked at how detached from reality so many slashdotters are.
No wait...I'm over it. No longer shocked.
Why not use a cellphone for work calls at all and instead use the phone at your desk? This may shock most people on Slashdot, but the majority of jobs really don't require a cellphone.
The problem isn't design. The problem is you need a better TV, or the TV you have should be located closer to your couch.
I saw something different. I saw two distinct stylistic approaches depending on the storylines surrounding the designs. Some cars looking like the vehicles of the day to help the reader identify with the owner of the batmobile. Usually more for the noir and detective stories. Others so outlandish and advanced, as to underline the more fantastic and outrageous elements of superhero storlines.
I think you're mixing up "self-sustaining" and "sustaining" environments. We will know in a month or two if the environment can be sustained, not whether it will be self-sustaining. But that's all besides my point, which was that child proofing an environmental habitat may be very hard, considering that all our designs up till now have been based around adults. Plus other challenges, for instance creating diapers with limited materials and water.
I won't debate with you whether the possibility of sending people to Mars is science fiction or science fact, I'm not a rocket scientist. But I do think the Mars Society is doing some interesting work in furthering the technology that we know we need right now, as are other space agencies, programs and private companies.
As for guinea pigs, well, rarely is any progress made without risk. In space exploration the risk is either monetary or in human life, I think the question is which do we think is cheaper.