Shut the fuck up and stop telling people how to moderate. You're a huge asshole and a troll, h4rr4r. You're one of the biggest trolls left on Slashdot, actually. A lot of the other dickshits (spun comes to mind) packed their bags and left ages ago, yet you linger.
Are you mad that TechLA posts positively about MS? Does it hurt you inside? In the feelings? Even if he is a shill, his points and posts are actually valid, unlike yours. You have to resrot to screaming "shill" and "astroturfer" instead of actually contributing something to the conversation, or at least arguing against his points.
Only on Slashdot would your first post, on-topic, sensible post be modded off topic. Bing is good. Often better than Google. Maps and video search are far better for example, and general results are more consistent (because there's much less targeting/tracking/location-based influence).
As a Professional in Risk Analysis and Management of various tangible and intangible assets, the person or people controlling the purse strings never see the risk right in front of them. I fight on a daily basis to try to keep my clients informed of the clusterfuck hovering above them and it's hard work, if it wasn't for regulation I'd be out of a job because most companies wouldn't give a shit and not just because of trying to keep expenses low but because they're idiots. I spend so much time covering my ass and ensuring that everything I do or say is properly noted and recorded to ensure they don't blame me when the shit hits the fan that it makes up most of my overhead. The market will solve the problem by killing itself and anything around it in the process and it's not just because of greed, it's because people are idiots. The people in charge of these things in the corporate structure are usually just idiots and the people writing the regulation are usually just lazy or living in academic fantasy land or are in no way, shape or form divorced from conflicts of interest.
So basically: Because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything!
Once your registration expires or the conviction or registration requirement is overturned, sites that continue to claim you are a registered sex offender are not immune from libel/slander lawsuits if they keep the info up once they are notified that it is no longer current.
Most states REQUIRE that sites that have the full sex-offender-database online (vs. just a blog that happens to mention that one particular so-and-so is a registered sex offender as of the date of the posting) check it against the official list on a regular basis and remove outdated information.
Which doesn't matter, because in most cases you're on that registry for life.
I believe that most sexual crimes are perpetrated by members of the family too.
So really, this is just a witch hunt. I think most people would agree that homosexuality is not a choice, and most would agree that people do not elect to be sexually attracted to children.
They need counselling and in the extreme cases some form of chemical castration.
Castration isn't the word you're looking for here. Not only would that not be effective in most cases (gonads or not, it's about power, not an orgasm), you're ignoring the huge swath of female offenders. The drugs they load people up with for "chemical castration" are either not effective (because they seek to block testosterone), or are effective, and would more aptly called "chemical lobotomization".
And if there is one thing mothers that love L&O: SVU hate to hear, it's that their daughter/son is more likely going to get abused by her brother or boyfriend than that creepy looking guy down the street.
Their heads would explode if they learned they themselves were more likely to sexually assault their own children than some stranger.
There's a whole class of hipsters that go to school (are enrolled in - they don't have to actually attend) on your dime, get cheap/free housing on your dime, get food stamps to buy salmon and kashi cereal bars on your dime, and get to shop at stores you and I can't for their clothes. But it's okay - those clothes are shitty and we don't want them. But it's aggravating because they're paying pennies (or nothing) for these old rags when they used to be spending hundreds on anything and everything "vintage".
They're considered poor and in need (and qualified for the programs) because they have no income. Because they're students. But no one bothers to notice that they get plenty of money from mommy and daddy and don't need a handout.
It's like the fake hobo youth (18-30 year olds pretending to be homeless so they could panhandle) epidemic from 5-6 years all moved on to official welfare. You're lucky if you haven't seen these kids in your area.
So you're basically one of the morons who believes they're better than the machine and thus demand more control so they can feel special.
Traction control systems can typically be turned off if driving in mud or sand or whatnot.
Stopping fast on gravel by locking your brakes? What a joke. The difference would be so marginal that it would be covered by the extra effort it took you to stomp on your brakes. And why are you driving so fast on gravel in the first place? Because you live in bumfuck nowhere? Over 99% of the nation's roads are paved.
And your defense of carburetors is basically "I don't understand them thar electronical fuel jetson thingies and my mechanic don't neither."? Mileage? Who gives a fuck? Your 72 VW has shit performance, shitty emissions, and a shitty top speed of fucking 80 MPH. But hey, it can kind of keep up with a modern car in MPG!
The fact that someone's car was unable to switch to neutral does not mean that switching to neutral does not disengage the engine. Clearly there was a prior fault, as you've stated, that caused the issue in the first place.
You're basically arguing against superior shit because you understand old shit, and you're using stupid.001% of the time cases to try to justify it. Protip: You AREN'T special, you AREN'T a better / more demanding driver than 99.999% of people, and you're just clinging to shit you're familiar with because you're familiar with it. Might as well not have power steering or braking or inflated tires or headlights or the fucking care itself. Just ride a horse around. It gets like 20 miles per carrot.
Go read actual contracts signed by actual merchants. They all specifically preculde merchants from checking ID or the signature, even if the signature is blank.
How about you cite some evidence I can actually access? I don't know about checking the ID, but I don't believe for a minute that merchants aren't allowed to check the signature, which would be in direct contradiction to Visa published guidelines.
Visa says merchants have to check the signature. But they aren't allowed to check it against anything. Not an ID, not the name on the front of the card, not the receipt that they sign, nothing. It can be a smudge. It can be "Frosty Piss". It can be "See ID" (and no, this does not let them check your ID). As long as there's a smudge of ink there, it's signed. And if it's blank, the person can sign it right there in front of the merchant and then it's valid. So it's a useless step, and no one gives a shit.
You can go ask merchants to see their contracts with Visa/MC/etc. if you don't believe it. About the only merchant I know of who IS still allowed to verify signatures against an ID is the US Post Office.
As for IDs themselves, many states have laws that prohibit merchants from requiring ID / recording information from an ID / etc. (unless required for shipping).
If you don't know what they are you don't really exist in a major IT organization.
The point is AIX and DB2 are irrelevant. Anyone still using them is doing so because that's what they've used in the past, they're afraid of change, and they're willing to throw away money on a product that's barely better than the alternatives (and only in ways they'll never take advantage of). OR, they're one of the handful of organizations that actually do need big iron design, and since such organizations are so massive and disparate, the vast majority of people in the organization, even the tech guys, know nothing of their DB2/AIX/etc. installation.
Shit is so back end almost no one sees it, and those who do are afraid to change anything. And if they're forced to change something, it won't be an issue because there are plenty of viable alternatives that cost less (or nothing), are infinitely more light weight, and don't require 3 old billy goats that no one ever sees to maintain it.
I wish I could read Slashdot inverted. More and more, it's the AC posts that are actually sensical, while all the upmodded derpuses spew their shitty agendas about linux/apple/kibibytes/patents/piracy/bleeding hearts/etc.
Kids grow up fast. But the whole "First Five" campaign is a joke. A person's future or personality is in no way set in stone by too much tv, too few "I love you"s, a lack of socialization, etc. (If you don't believe me, go look at dogs, chimps, horses, any other domestic animal, and yes, people.)
The intense focus on early childhood development is all about giving parents the illusion of control in an increasingly disconnected society. It used to take a village to raise a child, now it takes a government program to tell parents exactly what to do. Either way, that illusion of control prevents parents from running around in a constant state of panic. It's more like 70% of the time instead of constant. Not quite as good as letting your kids loose on the neighborhood, but it'll do.
Poor has a well defined floor, though. If you have food, shelter, and clothing security, there's no need to consider you poor.
But the hipsters who use my tax dollars to:
- Go to some shitty art school
- Pay next to nothing in rent
- Buy salmon and lobster
- Wear the latest vintage scarves
So what does this mean for IBM's major products, like AIX and DB2?
You'd have to tell me what those are and convince me that they're still relevant before I can make a decision. Actually, no you don't. Regardless of what you say, that decision will be "Nothing. They'll sit around doing what they do now, and eventually be phased out but it won't matter because anyone using them will have countless other options and was only using them because that's what they had years ago.".
I'm also glad whenever a store checks my ID or the signature on the back of my card (which they are specifically forbidden from doing in their contracts with visa/american express/master card/discover).
"6. Check the signature. Be sure that the signature on the card matches the one on the sales draft. Do not accept an unsigned card."
Go read actual contracts signed by actual merchants. They all specifically preculde merchants from checking ID or the signature, even if the signature is blank.
This is because the agreements all have clauses that say you must match the terms of any competing card, to the benefit of the cardholder being able to complete the transaction. If American Express lets the merchant require a minimum transaction amount for credit, but Visa doesn't, a merchant who accepts both American Express and Visa is not allowed to enforce a minimum transaction amount on American Express users. The same goes for processing fees charged to the cardholder, ID verification, signature verification, signature requirements/thresholds, etc. The only cards that don't trigger the must match clauses are store-specific cards (like a Best Buy card, or a Victoria's secret card), and debit/prepaid cards (they're an entirely different class of transaction).
Furthermore, security features, such as the digits on the back of the card, programs like Verified by Visa, and RFID/Chip and PIN/whatever shit are all optional and intentionally shitty. Banks foist these features on merchants because it puts the burden on the merchant when fraud occurs.
If you save your credit card on Amazon, they ask for the digits on the back of the card. These digits are never supposed to be stored, but Amaazon either stores them anyway, or verifies it once and then runs all future transactions without it. The lack of those digits does nothing to prevent a transaction from actually going though.
If you have noscript installed and you buy something on Newegg with a Visa card, the Verified by Visa redirect will fail. 5 minutes later your order will still go through.
If I clone someone's RFID-enabled credit card, and then make a fraudulent purchase, the merchant is ultimately on the hook if the actual cardholder initiates a charge back.
It's all horseshit, and the people paying for it are:
- People who don't pay their balance off in full every month
- People who don't notice fraudulent transactions
- Merchants
90% of what I buy goes through american express. The other good thing about American Express is that they haven't jumped onto this "pay wave" band wagon in Australia. I don't know if "pay wave" exists anywhere else in the world, but for small purchases a visa card or master card can be waved in front of a plastic brick that doesn't work. What should happen is that the transaction is automatically authorised without a pin or signature, representing a complete U-turn on fraud prevention strategies. The ads on TV make it look instantaneous and fun, with young, attractive people dancing and smiling and running about and buying cool products. The reality is that the thing just beeps with red lights until the acne-infested store assistant loses patience and grabs your card before running a regular transaction using the chip or the magnetic strip. Genius.
We have them here in the US as well. I have never seen them work. And I'm glad, because they're terrible for security. I'm also glad whenever a store checks my ID or the signature on the back of my card (which they are specifically forbidden from doing in their contracts with visa/american express/master card/discover).
Banks profit from fraud because the vast majority of it goes unreported. Banks thus encourage fraud at every opportunity.
I think you're misunderstanding the function of advertising. Advertising is used to promote a product or service that can't promote itself on its own merits.
Every single time, "organic" search results will be better than ads.
If Google cared about search quality, they would ban advertisers who foist such ads onto users. Instead, they just charge them more and let them continue doing it.
Passing on referral information isn't really a security concern (unless some shitty site relies on referral headers for any sort of user action or authentication). It's a privacy concern.
Important, but no where near as important to an end user as stopping every random ad and script from loading and firing.
Wrong. Users go to a search engines to find things and expect unaltered results. No user ever wants to see ads, no matter how well "targeted".
Charging more for misplaced ads simply highlights the conflict of interest - Google recognizes that it's something users don't want, so they balance the other side of the conflict by charging advertisers more and allow the behavior to continue.
You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down... What one? What? What desert? It doesn't make any difference what desert, it's completely hypothetical. But, how come I'd be there? Maybe you're fed up. Maybe you want to be by yourself. Who knows? You look down and see a tortoise, Leon. It's crawling toward you... Tortoise? What's that? You know what a turtle is? Of course! Same thing. I've never seen a turtle... But I understand what you mean. You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back, Leon. Do you make up these questions, Mr. Holden? Or do they write 'em down for you? The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. What do you mean, I'm not helping? I mean: you're not helping! Why is that, Leon?
They're just questions, Leon. In answer to your query, they're written down for me. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response... Shall we continue?
It's called daylight running lights. Headlights are basically on all the time. It's stupid.
Putting the hand brake up one click disables the feature. Hollywood uses this trick all the time to ensure daytime scenes aren't littered with stupid out-of-place headlights.
Slashdot Mirror
Shut the fuck up and stop telling people how to moderate. You're a huge asshole and a troll, h4rr4r.
You're one of the biggest trolls left on Slashdot, actually. A lot of the other dickshits (spun comes to mind) packed their bags and left ages ago, yet you linger.
Are you mad that TechLA posts positively about MS? Does it hurt you inside? In the feelings?
Even if he is a shill, his points and posts are actually valid, unlike yours. You have to resrot to screaming "shill" and "astroturfer" instead of actually contributing something to the conversation, or at least arguing against his points.
Only on Slashdot would your first post, on-topic, sensible post be modded off topic.
Bing is good. Often better than Google. Maps and video search are far better for example, and general results are more consistent (because there's much less targeting/tracking/location-based influence).
As a Professional in Risk Analysis and Management of various tangible and intangible assets, the person or people controlling the purse strings never see the risk right in front of them. I fight on a daily basis to try to keep my clients informed of the clusterfuck hovering above them and it's hard work, if it wasn't for regulation I'd be out of a job because most companies wouldn't give a shit and not just because of trying to keep expenses low but because they're idiots. I spend so much time covering my ass and ensuring that everything I do or say is properly noted and recorded to ensure they don't blame me when the shit hits the fan that it makes up most of my overhead. The market will solve the problem by killing itself and anything around it in the process and it's not just because of greed, it's because people are idiots. The people in charge of these things in the corporate structure are usually just idiots and the people writing the regulation are usually just lazy or living in academic fantasy land or are in no way, shape or form divorced from conflicts of interest.
So basically: Because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything!
The first real Windows Phone 7 phone?
If there was a phone that could run Windows 7 (with decent performance and battery life), I'd buy 10.
Like the number of spiders the average human will swallow in their sleep, this is one statistic some people are simply better off not knowing.
Don't be misinformed. That rumor is just wrong.
Here's an infographic that explains the TRUTH. http://i.imgur.com/EyeGN.jpg
Once your registration expires or the conviction or registration requirement is overturned, sites that continue to claim you are a registered sex offender are not immune from libel/slander lawsuits if they keep the info up once they are notified that it is no longer current.
Most states REQUIRE that sites that have the full sex-offender-database online (vs. just a blog that happens to mention that one particular so-and-so is a registered sex offender as of the date of the posting) check it against the official list on a regular basis and remove outdated information.
Which doesn't matter, because in most cases you're on that registry for life.
I believe that most sexual crimes are perpetrated by members of the family too.
So really, this is just a witch hunt.
I think most people would agree that homosexuality is not a choice, and most would agree that people do not elect to be sexually attracted to children.
They need counselling and in the extreme cases some form of chemical castration.
Castration isn't the word you're looking for here. Not only would that not be effective in most cases (gonads or not, it's about power, not an orgasm), you're ignoring the huge swath of female offenders. The drugs they load people up with for "chemical castration" are either not effective (because they seek to block testosterone), or are effective, and would more aptly called "chemical lobotomization".
And if there is one thing mothers that love L&O: SVU hate to hear, it's that their daughter/son is more likely going to get abused by her brother or boyfriend than that creepy looking guy down the street.
Their heads would explode if they learned they themselves were more likely to sexually assault their own children than some stranger.
Sadly it's not sarcasm.
There's a whole class of hipsters that go to school (are enrolled in - they don't have to actually attend) on your dime, get cheap/free housing on your dime, get food stamps to buy salmon and kashi cereal bars on your dime, and get to shop at stores you and I can't for their clothes. But it's okay - those clothes are shitty and we don't want them. But it's aggravating because they're paying pennies (or nothing) for these old rags when they used to be spending hundreds on anything and everything "vintage".
They're considered poor and in need (and qualified for the programs) because they have no income. Because they're students.
But no one bothers to notice that they get plenty of money from mommy and daddy and don't need a handout.
It's like the fake hobo youth (18-30 year olds pretending to be homeless so they could panhandle) epidemic from 5-6 years all moved on to official welfare.
You're lucky if you haven't seen these kids in your area.
So you're basically one of the morons who believes they're better than the machine and thus demand more control so they can feel special.
Traction control systems can typically be turned off if driving in mud or sand or whatnot.
Stopping fast on gravel by locking your brakes? What a joke. The difference would be so marginal that it would be covered by the extra effort it took you to stomp on your brakes. And why are you driving so fast on gravel in the first place? Because you live in bumfuck nowhere? Over 99% of the nation's roads are paved.
And your defense of carburetors is basically "I don't understand them thar electronical fuel jetson thingies and my mechanic don't neither."? Mileage? Who gives a fuck? Your 72 VW has shit performance, shitty emissions, and a shitty top speed of fucking 80 MPH. But hey, it can kind of keep up with a modern car in MPG!
The fact that someone's car was unable to switch to neutral does not mean that switching to neutral does not disengage the engine. Clearly there was a prior fault, as you've stated, that caused the issue in the first place.
You're basically arguing against superior shit because you understand old shit, and you're using stupid .001% of the time cases to try to justify it. Protip: You AREN'T special, you AREN'T a better / more demanding driver than 99.999% of people, and you're just clinging to shit you're familiar with because you're familiar with it. Might as well not have power steering or braking or inflated tires or headlights or the fucking care itself. Just ride a horse around. It gets like 20 miles per carrot.
Go read actual contracts signed by actual merchants.
They all specifically preculde merchants from checking ID or the signature, even if the signature is blank.
How about you cite some evidence I can actually access? I don't know about checking the ID, but I don't believe for a minute that merchants aren't allowed to check the signature, which would be in direct contradiction to Visa published guidelines.
Visa says merchants have to check the signature. But they aren't allowed to check it against anything. Not an ID, not the name on the front of the card, not the receipt that they sign, nothing. It can be a smudge. It can be "Frosty Piss". It can be "See ID" (and no, this does not let them check your ID). As long as there's a smudge of ink there, it's signed. And if it's blank, the person can sign it right there in front of the merchant and then it's valid. So it's a useless step, and no one gives a shit.
You can go ask merchants to see their contracts with Visa/MC/etc. if you don't believe it.
About the only merchant I know of who IS still allowed to verify signatures against an ID is the US Post Office.
As for IDs themselves, many states have laws that prohibit merchants from requiring ID / recording information from an ID / etc. (unless required for shipping).
If you don't know what they are you don't really exist in a major IT organization.
The point is AIX and DB2 are irrelevant. Anyone still using them is doing so because that's what they've used in the past, they're afraid of change, and they're willing to throw away money on a product that's barely better than the alternatives (and only in ways they'll never take advantage of). OR, they're one of the handful of organizations that actually do need big iron design, and since such organizations are so massive and disparate, the vast majority of people in the organization, even the tech guys, know nothing of their DB2/AIX/etc. installation.
Shit is so back end almost no one sees it, and those who do are afraid to change anything. And if they're forced to change something, it won't be an issue because there are plenty of viable alternatives that cost less (or nothing), are infinitely more light weight, and don't require 3 old billy goats that no one ever sees to maintain it.
Basically, WHOOSH.
My parents deprived me when I was a child. I can prove it now since it's all recorded in my DNA!
(yes, this is a joke. laugh.)
They deprived of you wit and humor?
I wish I could read Slashdot inverted.
More and more, it's the AC posts that are actually sensical, while all the upmodded derpuses spew their shitty agendas about linux/apple/kibibytes/patents/piracy/bleeding hearts/etc.
Kids grow up fast.
But the whole "First Five" campaign is a joke. A person's future or personality is in no way set in stone by too much tv, too few "I love you"s, a lack of socialization, etc. (If you don't believe me, go look at dogs, chimps, horses, any other domestic animal, and yes, people.)
The intense focus on early childhood development is all about giving parents the illusion of control in an increasingly disconnected society. It used to take a village to raise a child, now it takes a government program to tell parents exactly what to do. Either way, that illusion of control prevents parents from running around in a constant state of panic. It's more like 70% of the time instead of constant. Not quite as good as letting your kids loose on the neighborhood, but it'll do.
Now idiots like Deepak Chopra have a leg to stand on.
I saw this clown on that clown show a week or two ago.
He is insane, and he called the other clown (the one with orange hair) insane.
Neither clown was funny.
Poor has a well defined floor, though. If you have food, shelter, and clothing security, there's no need to consider you poor.
But the hipsters who use my tax dollars to:
- Go to some shitty art school
- Pay next to nothing in rent
- Buy salmon and lobster
- Wear the latest vintage scarves
are all "poor" and "in need".
Or have the liberals been lying to me?
So what does this mean for IBM's major products, like AIX and DB2?
You'd have to tell me what those are and convince me that they're still relevant before I can make a decision.
Actually, no you don't. Regardless of what you say, that decision will be "Nothing. They'll sit around doing what they do now, and eventually be phased out but it won't matter because anyone using them will have countless other options and was only using them because that's what they had years ago.".
I'm also glad whenever a store checks my ID or the signature on the back of my card (which they are specifically forbidden from doing in their contracts with visa/american express/master card/discover).
http://usa.visa.com/merchants/risk_management/card_present.html
"6. Check the signature. Be sure that the signature on the card matches the one on the sales draft. Do not accept an unsigned card."
Go read actual contracts signed by actual merchants.
They all specifically preculde merchants from checking ID or the signature, even if the signature is blank.
This is because the agreements all have clauses that say you must match the terms of any competing card, to the benefit of the cardholder being able to complete the transaction.
If American Express lets the merchant require a minimum transaction amount for credit, but Visa doesn't, a merchant who accepts both American Express and Visa is not allowed to enforce a minimum transaction amount on American Express users.
The same goes for processing fees charged to the cardholder, ID verification, signature verification, signature requirements/thresholds, etc.
The only cards that don't trigger the must match clauses are store-specific cards (like a Best Buy card, or a Victoria's secret card), and debit/prepaid cards (they're an entirely different class of transaction).
Furthermore, security features, such as the digits on the back of the card, programs like Verified by Visa, and RFID/Chip and PIN/whatever shit are all optional and intentionally shitty. Banks foist these features on merchants because it puts the burden on the merchant when fraud occurs.
If you save your credit card on Amazon, they ask for the digits on the back of the card. These digits are never supposed to be stored, but Amaazon either stores them anyway, or verifies it once and then runs all future transactions without it. The lack of those digits does nothing to prevent a transaction from actually going though.
If you have noscript installed and you buy something on Newegg with a Visa card, the Verified by Visa redirect will fail. 5 minutes later your order will still go through.
If I clone someone's RFID-enabled credit card, and then make a fraudulent purchase, the merchant is ultimately on the hook if the actual cardholder initiates a charge back.
It's all horseshit, and the people paying for it are:
- People who don't pay their balance off in full every month
- People who don't notice fraudulent transactions
- Merchants
90% of what I buy goes through american express. The other good thing about American Express is that they haven't jumped onto this "pay wave" band wagon in Australia. I don't know if "pay wave" exists anywhere else in the world, but for small purchases a visa card or master card can be waved in front of a plastic brick that doesn't work. What should happen is that the transaction is automatically authorised without a pin or signature, representing a complete U-turn on fraud prevention strategies. The ads on TV make it look instantaneous and fun, with young, attractive people dancing and smiling and running about and buying cool products. The reality is that the thing just beeps with red lights until the acne-infested store assistant loses patience and grabs your card before running a regular transaction using the chip or the magnetic strip. Genius.
We have them here in the US as well. I have never seen them work.
And I'm glad, because they're terrible for security.
I'm also glad whenever a store checks my ID or the signature on the back of my card (which they are specifically forbidden from doing in their contracts with visa/american express/master card/discover).
Banks profit from fraud because the vast majority of it goes unreported.
Banks thus encourage fraud at every opportunity.
I think you're misunderstanding the function of advertising.
Advertising is used to promote a product or service that can't promote itself on its own merits.
Every single time, "organic" search results will be better than ads.
If Google cared about search quality, they would ban advertisers who foist such ads onto users. Instead, they just charge them more and let them continue doing it.
Passing on referral information isn't really a security concern (unless some shitty site relies on referral headers for any sort of user action or authentication).
It's a privacy concern.
Important, but no where near as important to an end user as stopping every random ad and script from loading and firing.
Wrong.
Users go to a search engines to find things and expect unaltered results.
No user ever wants to see ads, no matter how well "targeted".
Charging more for misplaced ads simply highlights the conflict of interest - Google recognizes that it's something users don't want, so they balance the other side of the conflict by charging advertisers more and allow the behavior to continue.
You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down...
What one?
What?
What desert?
It doesn't make any difference what desert, it's completely hypothetical.
But, how come I'd be there?
Maybe you're fed up. Maybe you want to be by yourself. Who knows? You look down and see a tortoise, Leon. It's crawling toward you...
Tortoise? What's that?
You know what a turtle is?
Of course!
Same thing.
I've never seen a turtle... But I understand what you mean.
You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back, Leon.
Do you make up these questions, Mr. Holden? Or do they write 'em down for you?
The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.
What do you mean, I'm not helping?
I mean: you're not helping! Why is that, Leon?
They're just questions, Leon. In answer to your query, they're written down for me. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response... Shall we continue?
It's called daylight running lights.
Headlights are basically on all the time.
It's stupid.
Putting the hand brake up one click disables the feature.
Hollywood uses this trick all the time to ensure daytime scenes aren't littered with stupid out-of-place headlights.