Why should the interest rate depend on a credit check..? If I was advertised a certain rate on the website and then they turned around and said "actually, the real interest rate is 5%", I'd tell them where to go.
And they'd tell you where to go. And you'd have to walk, because you didn't get the car loan.
Lots of restrictions on speech are permitted by it, for example:
Restriction on speech by state laws.
Restriction on speech by city statutes.
Restriction on speech by corporations.
Restriction on speech by individuals.
The constitution does not enumerate your rights, it enumerates the powers of the federal government. The federal government may not abridge free speech, but that doesn't mean that it can't be abridged.
The constitution does indeed numerate rights. And anything not specified is reserved for the states and the people. The purpose of the government is to protect the people. This includes protecting them against any and all efforts to restrict their rights. The word "unalienable" has a meaning - it means no entity can rightfully strip those rights from you, ever. The fact that we aren't living up to that ideal is unfortunate. The fact that you believe a person or a corporation should have any legal influence over another adult is disgusting.
Yeah? Where under "no law" are any of those things specified? Court decisions don't count. As far as I'm concerned they are in violation. If you want to restrict speech, you need to amend the actual law in the manner specified. You can't just say, "Oh, they didn't mean that..." and then substitute your personal feelings. It couldn't be more clear.
Correct.
Any restriction of any speech is 100% unconstitutional, and nothing beyond a constitutional amendment or a new constitution can change that.
There is no interpretation needed to come to this conclusion. You just have to read simple English.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"A much more appropriate question is: "Is it legal to access someone else's accounts without their permission.""
No, that's not an appropriate question. The answer is a clear-cut, resounding, "NO".
His add-on simply sniffs the open air for cookies from a list of sites that use http instead of https. Then you get a little "log in" button to take that cookie as your own.
While effective, it's trivial to do, and doesn't uncover any new exploits or weaknesses.
Firesheep is only intended for illegal purposes, thus Firesheep itself may be deemed illegal in many countries, or the use of it may be justifiably restricted to certain activities (such as penetration testing).
This wasn't an unpatched exploit that a big company took months to fix. This wasn't some obscure vector that went unacknowledged for years. This was a fucking design decision. Sending credentials in the clear is retarded. This shit needs to stop, and if it takes an asshole like Eric Butler trolling Facebook and Twitter users at Starbucks to get it changed, so be it. Companies don't cater to the experts, they cater to the masses. The only way to get shit changed is to make the masses bitch.
What we can conclude from this fiasco is:
Butler is an asshat. Many major sites don't give a shit about security. Many major sites do give a shit about public perception. In order to get things fixed, we need asshats like Butler pointing at the wide open door and shouting to the plebes, "LOOK WHAT I CAN DO!".
The US cares that much why? Its only a trade matter, as we still use primitave imperial measurements. Maybe if we had switched to metric like they had told us we were going to every year in grade school this would be a big deal, but right now, who cares?
Because prices, taxes, tariffs, etc. care about pounds and kilograms. We still have a department of weights and measures, and they still do extremely important work. The fact that you don't ever notice any problems means they're doing their jobs.
it actually is a product for dumb people, with lot of time to waste and no sense of worth.
coincidentally, the target democratic is extremely profitable.
I completely agree with you. And I'd say the same thing about people who like Halo. Or WoW. And I myself can't stop playing Minecraft.
Video games in general are products for dumb people, or, more accurately, people's dumb time - when they want to veg out and be unproductive for a bit. Same goes for movies, tv, books, etc.
Even if you're playing a strategy game, or chess, or some hypothetical protein folding game, you're not engaging your brain in the same way you do when working. Work vs play. You're "off" when you decided to play a game, and you'll stay "off" while playing it. This is why "edutainment" will never work. Our mental state drives what we want to do, not the other way around.
Games like Minecraft, Farmville, and Tetris do so well because they can capitalize on people's down time even if they just have a few minutes. In class waiting for the professor to show up? Check your farm. On the bus? Check your WoW auctions. Code compiling? Hop on the Minecraft server to check on the world. Taking a shit? Might as well drop a deuce to the Tetris theme.
The target demographic is no more profitable than "hardcore" gamers (who shell out for expensive hardware, controllers, games, DLC, etc.), or "anyone with any hobby at all".
I hate Farmville because it's a game that doesn't appeal to me, and I see it everywhere. I don't hate it because it's successful, or because games I would like to see do well are going ignored. These are just simple results of what people want.
The core problem is that we don't think and visualize the way computers expect input.
If you want to try to get computers to do what we want based on our thoughts, and you've got Photoshop Brain installed, I could see eventually training users to be able to draw a damned good picture of a cat. Think really hard about a cat, and it'll appear on screen. Then, looking at that rough cat shape on screen, focus on specific areas and flesh out the details. Users would have to spend months or years learning to use the interface, and then learning to think and focus on concrete details and images, instead of the fuzzy, nebulous way we do now.
After all of that, we've got a decent cat. But with no transparency, and on a single, flat layer, etc.
If you want to futz around with using your mind to control a virtual input device, there's really no point beyond activating simple triggers.
We can't get voice control to work for shit, and that's only based on the shit we say. The shit we think is far more scattered and nebulous. Typing would probably never work. But being able to think about a door control to open or close a door, or being able to turn lights on or off, etc. would be doable.
We already have systems that let disabled users use their mind to control a mouse and operate a PC. Typing is done via a virtual keyboard. We can definitely improve on this scenario, but I doubt we'll ever get meat to think like metal. Your average person is going to vastly prefer a mouse and keyboard in 20 years just as they do now.
Quantum mechanics is NOT a description of nature. It is a probability theory which predicts the outcome of future observations. You do not need to describe nature in order to predict it: you are predicting the distribution of outcomes of a lot of observations. This is exactly the same as not needing to know the physics of dice throwing in order to predict the outcome of a large number of throws.
Quantum mechanics is the behavior of things at a quantum level.
Our collective models of quantum mechanics are called quantum theory.
Our best models are probabilistic. If we could violate causality and the uncertainty principle, we may very well be able to throw away the probability portion of our models. Just as how we could determine the exact outcome of a die roll if we had an accurate enough representation of the die and surrounding environment at the time of the roll.
How about you get a service pack out there for Vista and 7 that include WinFS support and all that other jazz you promised for blackcomb/longhorn whatever?
Firefox is still a great browser (despite it's quirks, like the shitty way they handle file input fields). I don't like Chrome, I'm not going to jump into the IE9 beta, and Safari is pure shit unless you're running it under OS X (and even then, I don't like the interface). Opera is the best browser, without question. I'm just too lazy to switch to it. Plus, I heard it was made by Canadians. So there's a problem.
The bottom line is that despite whatever shitty graph Apple or Google trot out to show their browser is "faster", Firefox is still great and getting better. I don't give a rat's ass about how fast you can run shitty javascript or render useless CSS3 horse shit. I block and tweak all that shit anyway. I care about making the browser do what I fucking want it to do.
How do I block it? With several of Firefox's many addons. You know, the kind that actually BLOCK elements instead of hiding them. How do I tweak it? Again, Firefox's many addons.
Just because Firefox isn't the "hottest" browser right now anymore doesn't mean shit. Nerds will still love it because it's free and open. Tin foil hatters will still love it because it doesn't send every fucking keystroke to Google. Non-hipsters will still love it despite the lack of Saint Jobs' seal of approval. Regular users will still love it because it's a great browser with tons of options and extensibility.
There's no need to cry over Mozilla. Seems to me they're doing fine. Making an office suite will never be more than a side project for them. Why? Because MS is the king of the office suite segment, and for good reason. If you think the office suite segment is stagnant, that just shows that you don't do anything beyond simple text documents and tables in excel (or calc if you're a masochist). I'll join anyone and everyone who wants to shit on the ribbon UI. I'll agree that MS should use open formats so other shit can work with them. But to say the segment is stagnant, and then to falsely claim that you'd get excited over the prospect of a new contender, is a joke.
It seems to me the author of this "story" isn't getting excited about a possible office suite contender, they're TRYING to get excited for Mozilla again. The problem here is that Mozilla isn't the washed-up has-been the author seems to claim (or fear) they are. Not by any measure. Despite all the buzz, Chrome and Safari are still inferior to Firefox in many important ways.
This shit is so reminiscent of console fanboys fearing for Nintendo's future and trying to reason out what they should do to get back on top after the N64 and Gamecube.
Enjoy the fucking browsers and the choices you didn't have a few years ago. Enjoy the other projects those companies work on. There's absolutely no need to pine over Mozilla. They haven't "lost", they're not going away, and the fact that you prefer another browser isn't some sort of act of betrayal.
It's all moot anyway - anyone with a brain knows that Mozilla is going to be putting more focus into Calendaring and its TBird integration now. Not some office suite.
Of course, we don't need to limit ourselves to 2G. 9G is doable for decent periods of time. And we don't need to reach 11.2 km.s - we can use traditional engines after launching to continue upward.
Of course, it's still completely pointless. Even if we wanted to reach only 1km/s, and were willing to go with 10G, we'd have a track over 10 km in radius, and the vast majority of energy would be spent accelerating the ship in directions we ultimately didn't give a shit about going.
Straight up is the way to go. Initial acceleration is pointless.
Except for the guy in the truck who was slumped over the steering wheel because he was asleep / blacked out from being too drunk / comatose from some medical issue.
No kudos to him. No shit on him if it wasn't his fault (stroke or some shit), of course, but certainly no kudos.
The US is going down the shitter very, very fast. And you can't even stop that by voting as there's not even a "lesser evil" anymore: there's just a populist-colored big evil and a religion-colored big evil.
No one in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts.
[Points to sword]
This you can trust.
Replace sword with gun and we have our answer. And it still counts as the riddle of steel.
Because satellite signals are extremely susceptible to atmospheric interference.
Raw size does matter here. A larger receptor is better.
You may as well try to reproduce a high quality studio microphone with an array of dollar store clip on mics, and then toss out the typical dismissive bullshit claim of "The rest is just software!".
When did nerds stop saying "wow, technically impressive" and start saying "ooh, shiny?" I always thought it was the artsy types that went for Apple, not nerds. When did nerds start caring what they looked like or what normal people thought about us or how pretty our computers were? I mean, a cool looking handmade computer case is one thing, but fashion?
Nerds don't use Apple. Hipsters use Apple. Hipsters use Apple and pose as nerds. "Nerd culture" is "in" now, despite the fact that what's "in" is by no means nerd culture.
But you can rest, assured that real nerds are sitting at home, in their parents' basements, right now, stewing and hating the world.
What I want to know is: how can you justify the cost of tape?
Tape is cheap.
And why isn't a raid6 array a valid backup location?
RAID isn't backup. It's fault tolerance.
What, exactly, does tape provide you in terms of archival veracity and longevity that current drives do not? Assuming no significant sunk cost for tape hardware, you're still looking at similar if not greater costs per GB of tape storage as you would be disk, whether you're looking at LTO 3 or LTO 5. Throw in $1,000 to $3,000 for your standalone chassis tape drive... you'd have to burn through hundreds of single-use 1.5TB hard drives to justify tape on cost (and even then, questionably - tape is more expensive per raw GB than drives).
Properly stored tape will last eons. Hard drives will not. Tapes are more durable. Broken tapes are user-serviceable. Data is far more recoverable from broken tape than from a broken hard drive. The costs you cite are ridiculous for a simple home setup.
The whole 'raid isn't backup' argument seems a misnomer to me these days.
And people with this mentality still seem like idiots to me, these days. You're wrong. Plain and simple. Online storage is vulnerable to getting fried. Offline storage is monumentally less so.
Yes, bad backup practices make tape less reliable, but it's much more difficult to put good practices in place for effective tape backup than it is for hard disks.
How so? Insert tape, go, wait, label, toss (literally, toss) into box. Put it in a fire safe if you want.
With a hard drive you've got: Connect drive, go, wait, disconnect drive, carefully store drive somewhere.
Were you planning on using an internal drive? Power down, open case, connect drive, boot up, etc.
External drive that you keep attached? That's not a backup - it's simply a live copy.
With filesystems like ZFS (with CoW and a number of other nice features that make tape further irritating in comparison), I don't see the point at all.
Backups store bits. File systems store files. The two are COMPLETELY separate. No matter how robust and fault tolerant a file system is, it is still prone to COMPLETE DESTRUCTION due to hardware failure, system corruption, etc.
No, raid isn't a backup in and of itself - but neither is a single tape.
A offline copy of live data is the definition of a backup.
A raid5 live copy of your data with periodic/daily/whatever diffentials to external drive, however, seems like a pretty good backup to me.
RAID 5 is costly and slow compared to RAID 0 (which is not RAID). If you're doing backups already, why the hell would you go with RAID 5? Downtime is irrelevant for 99.9999% of home users. The bottleneck in downtime will be the time it takes to get a replacement drive shipped out, not the time it takes to rebuild the array.
If you think you're a special type of user who can't possibly stand losing, in the worst case scenario, 24 hours worth of data, then go with RAID 1+0. Faster than RAID 5 with a hot spare, just as fault tolerant, you get the same storage, and when shit goes wrong and you have to rebuild you're not running with degraded performance.
The bottom line is that RAID is not, and never will be, a backup solution. It will not, and never will be, considered part of any backup plan. RAID is for staying online. Nothing more.
A lot of dumb fucks like to shit on anything that's old, a little slow, or a little cumbersome (or more accurately, unfamiliar to them), without ever stopping to think of why things are done a certain way.
Tape is the best backup method we have today. There's a reason it's still the standard. There's a reason it's been around for as long as it has.
Facebook was mainly hacked together using PHP over a couple of nights.
No, it wasn't. A basic site that let you:
Upload a picture
Add a blurb
Fill out basic profile information
was "hacked together using PHP over a couple of nights".
Facebook took many years to become the massive thing it is today. And it took many programmers who are much more skilled than Zuckerberg to do it. And it's still a piece of shit.
Stop making my sentences wrong by changing their correct meaning. I've never seen a PDF display improperly on any reader.
Horse shit. I have come across many a PDF that:
Wouldn't display, at all. Wouldn't load the embedded fonts. Wouldn't properly apply the security restrictions. Wouldn't stop rotating pages when physically printed, despite any combination of rotation options across the PDF reader and the printer driver. Wouldn't kern a bog-standard font for shit. I shouldn't have to zoom to 125% or something to get the word "failure" to stop rendering as "fa i lur e". Etc. Etc.
Evaluate employees based on whether or not they perform their duties, not whether or not they look busy.
Hold the managers to the same standard.
If you need to squeeze more blood from the rock that is your personnel, realize that blocking sites, banning cell phone use, etc. will only drive them to do the minimum to avoid being fired. If that's what you want, go for it.
If you want good workers, treat them like decent people. Work isn't play, but it doesn't have to be a prison, either. In the 70s we realized we should allow personal calls at work so long as they didn't take up all of your time and impact your work performance. In the 2000s, we realized that people also have personal email accounts.
Maybe by 2030 we'll realize that people also have social lives. Hiring and firing won't be contingent on a clean slate social network profile. Socializing while at work will be tolerated as long as it doesn't impact your performance.
...we wouldn't.There is no possible threat to the Earth which humans could ever make even the smallest abount of diffence about. Instead there is a threat to civilisation. Pedantic, I know but the only threat to the earth is crashing into a star or another planet. Humanity compared is much more fragile, threatened by a mere mile wide rock or similar.
Your post sneakily mocks the global warming crowd. This makes your post better.
The SmartWater liquid can also be pasted inside cables, making them easier to trace — and less appealing to scrap metal buyers, helping to cut demand for stolen copper.
I doubt it'll survive the fucking forge. We've all seen Terminator 2, right?
Hey Bob, I've got some cable I need to sell. Quickly.
I'll give you $150 for it. Go toss it into the big pit of molten goop.
That was the solution to the balance of power pre-WW1 if anyone remembers a bit of history. We all saw how that ended up.
Meh, basing the entire future of the internet on "Go on, do it, I dare you" will not end well for anyone. I can already see an RIAA/MPAA sponsored 'attack' taking down most of the internet (and them meddlin` filesharers!) for a few weeks.
I like how you ignore the 60+ years after WWII. MAD absolutely does work. There have been dozens of near world-ending situations where fingers were literally on the actual buttons to send nuclear weapons at other countries.
It doesn't matter what got us into those situations (political turmoil, technical glitches), it was MAD that prevented us from pushing the button.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should the interest rate depend on a credit check..? If I was advertised a certain rate on the website and then they turned around and said "actually, the real interest rate is 5%", I'd tell them where to go.
And they'd tell you where to go.
And you'd have to walk, because you didn't get the car loan.
Lots of restrictions on speech are permitted by it, for example:
The constitution does not enumerate your rights, it enumerates the powers of the federal government. The federal government may not abridge free speech, but that doesn't mean that it can't be abridged.
The constitution does indeed numerate rights. And anything not specified is reserved for the states and the people. The purpose of the government is to protect the people. This includes protecting them against any and all efforts to restrict their rights. The word "unalienable" has a meaning - it means no entity can rightfully strip those rights from you, ever. The fact that we aren't living up to that ideal is unfortunate. The fact that you believe a person or a corporation should have any legal influence over another adult is disgusting.
Not all speech is protected:
Yeah? Where under "no law" are any of those things specified? Court decisions don't count. As far as I'm concerned they are in violation. If you want to restrict speech, you need to amend the actual law in the manner specified. You can't just say, "Oh, they didn't mean that..." and then substitute your personal feelings. It couldn't be more clear.
Correct.
Any restriction of any speech is 100% unconstitutional, and nothing beyond a constitutional amendment or a new constitution can change that.
There is no interpretation needed to come to this conclusion. You just have to read simple English.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
10 simple words.
Not all touch screens are capacitive.
We also have good touch screens, which respond to actual touch, by any object.
"A much more appropriate question is: "Is it legal to access someone else's accounts without their permission.""
No, that's not an appropriate question.
The answer is a clear-cut, resounding, "NO".
His add-on simply sniffs the open air for cookies from a list of sites that use http instead of https. Then you get a little "log in" button to take that cookie as your own.
While effective, it's trivial to do, and doesn't uncover any new exploits or weaknesses.
Firesheep is only intended for illegal purposes, thus Firesheep itself may be deemed illegal in many countries, or the use of it may be justifiably restricted to certain activities (such as penetration testing).
This wasn't an unpatched exploit that a big company took months to fix.
This wasn't some obscure vector that went unacknowledged for years.
This was a fucking design decision.
Sending credentials in the clear is retarded. This shit needs to stop, and if it takes an asshole like Eric Butler trolling Facebook and Twitter users at Starbucks to get it changed, so be it. Companies don't cater to the experts, they cater to the masses. The only way to get shit changed is to make the masses bitch.
What we can conclude from this fiasco is:
Butler is an asshat.
Many major sites don't give a shit about security.
Many major sites do give a shit about public perception.
In order to get things fixed, we need asshats like Butler pointing at the wide open door and shouting to the plebes, "LOOK WHAT I CAN DO!".
The US cares that much why? Its only a trade matter, as we still use primitave imperial measurements. Maybe if we had switched to metric like they had told us we were going to every year in grade school this would be a big deal, but right now, who cares?
Because prices, taxes, tariffs, etc. care about pounds and kilograms. We still have a department of weights and measures, and they still do extremely important work. The fact that you don't ever notice any problems means they're doing their jobs.
it actually is a product for dumb people, with lot of time to waste and no sense of worth.
coincidentally, the target democratic is extremely profitable.
I completely agree with you.
And I'd say the same thing about people who like Halo. Or WoW.
And I myself can't stop playing Minecraft.
Video games in general are products for dumb people, or, more accurately, people's dumb time - when they want to veg out and be unproductive for a bit. Same goes for movies, tv, books, etc.
Even if you're playing a strategy game, or chess, or some hypothetical protein folding game, you're not engaging your brain in the same way you do when working. Work vs play. You're "off" when you decided to play a game, and you'll stay "off" while playing it. This is why "edutainment" will never work. Our mental state drives what we want to do, not the other way around.
Games like Minecraft, Farmville, and Tetris do so well because they can capitalize on people's down time even if they just have a few minutes. In class waiting for the professor to show up? Check your farm. On the bus? Check your WoW auctions. Code compiling? Hop on the Minecraft server to check on the world. Taking a shit? Might as well drop a deuce to the Tetris theme.
The target demographic is no more profitable than "hardcore" gamers (who shell out for expensive hardware, controllers, games, DLC, etc.), or "anyone with any hobby at all".
I hate Farmville because it's a game that doesn't appeal to me, and I see it everywhere.
I don't hate it because it's successful, or because games I would like to see do well are going ignored. These are just simple results of what people want.
The core problem is that we don't think and visualize the way computers expect input.
If you want to try to get computers to do what we want based on our thoughts, and you've got Photoshop Brain installed, I could see eventually training users to be able to draw a damned good picture of a cat. Think really hard about a cat, and it'll appear on screen. Then, looking at that rough cat shape on screen, focus on specific areas and flesh out the details. Users would have to spend months or years learning to use the interface, and then learning to think and focus on concrete details and images, instead of the fuzzy, nebulous way we do now.
After all of that, we've got a decent cat.
But with no transparency, and on a single, flat layer, etc.
If you want to futz around with using your mind to control a virtual input device, there's really no point beyond activating simple triggers.
We can't get voice control to work for shit, and that's only based on the shit we say. The shit we think is far more scattered and nebulous.
Typing would probably never work.
But being able to think about a door control to open or close a door, or being able to turn lights on or off, etc. would be doable.
We already have systems that let disabled users use their mind to control a mouse and operate a PC. Typing is done via a virtual keyboard. We can definitely improve on this scenario, but I doubt we'll ever get meat to think like metal. Your average person is going to vastly prefer a mouse and keyboard in 20 years just as they do now.
Quantum mechanics is NOT a description of nature. It is a probability theory which predicts the outcome of future observations. You do not need to describe nature in order to predict it: you are predicting the distribution of outcomes of a lot of observations. This is exactly the same as not needing to know the physics of dice throwing in order to predict the outcome of a large number of throws.
Quantum mechanics is the behavior of things at a quantum level.
Our collective models of quantum mechanics are called quantum theory.
Our best models are probabilistic. If we could violate causality and the uncertainty principle, we may very well be able to throw away the probability portion of our models. Just as how we could determine the exact outcome of a die roll if we had an accurate enough representation of the die and surrounding environment at the time of the roll.
How about you get a service pack out there for Vista and 7 that include WinFS support and all that other jazz you promised for blackcomb/longhorn whatever?
Imagine if this story wasn't so shitty.
Firefox is still a great browser (despite it's quirks, like the shitty way they handle file input fields).
I don't like Chrome, I'm not going to jump into the IE9 beta, and Safari is pure shit unless you're running it under OS X (and even then, I don't like the interface). Opera is the best browser, without question. I'm just too lazy to switch to it. Plus, I heard it was made by Canadians. So there's a problem.
The bottom line is that despite whatever shitty graph Apple or Google trot out to show their browser is "faster", Firefox is still great and getting better. I don't give a rat's ass about how fast you can run shitty javascript or render useless CSS3 horse shit. I block and tweak all that shit anyway. I care about making the browser do what I fucking want it to do.
How do I block it? With several of Firefox's many addons. You know, the kind that actually BLOCK elements instead of hiding them.
How do I tweak it? Again, Firefox's many addons.
Just because Firefox isn't the "hottest" browser right now anymore doesn't mean shit. Nerds will still love it because it's free and open. Tin foil hatters will still love it because it doesn't send every fucking keystroke to Google. Non-hipsters will still love it despite the lack of Saint Jobs' seal of approval. Regular users will still love it because it's a great browser with tons of options and extensibility.
There's no need to cry over Mozilla. Seems to me they're doing fine. Making an office suite will never be more than a side project for them. Why? Because MS is the king of the office suite segment, and for good reason. If you think the office suite segment is stagnant, that just shows that you don't do anything beyond simple text documents and tables in excel (or calc if you're a masochist). I'll join anyone and everyone who wants to shit on the ribbon UI. I'll agree that MS should use open formats so other shit can work with them. But to say the segment is stagnant, and then to falsely claim that you'd get excited over the prospect of a new contender, is a joke.
It seems to me the author of this "story" isn't getting excited about a possible office suite contender, they're TRYING to get excited for Mozilla again. The problem here is that Mozilla isn't the washed-up has-been the author seems to claim (or fear) they are. Not by any measure. Despite all the buzz, Chrome and Safari are still inferior to Firefox in many important ways.
This shit is so reminiscent of console fanboys fearing for Nintendo's future and trying to reason out what they should do to get back on top after the N64 and Gamecube.
Enjoy the fucking browsers and the choices you didn't have a few years ago. Enjoy the other projects those companies work on. There's absolutely no need to pine over Mozilla. They haven't "lost", they're not going away, and the fact that you prefer another browser isn't some sort of act of betrayal.
It's all moot anyway - anyone with a brain knows that Mozilla is going to be putting more focus into Calendaring and its TBird integration now. Not some office suite.
You are correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_circular_motion
Of course, we don't need to limit ourselves to 2G. 9G is doable for decent periods of time.
And we don't need to reach 11.2 km.s - we can use traditional engines after launching to continue upward.
Of course, it's still completely pointless. Even if we wanted to reach only 1km/s, and were willing to go with 10G, we'd have a track over 10 km in radius, and the vast majority of energy would be spent accelerating the ship in directions we ultimately didn't give a shit about going.
Straight up is the way to go. Initial acceleration is pointless.
Kudos to everyone involved in the story.
Except for the guy in the truck who was slumped over the steering wheel because he was asleep / blacked out from being too drunk / comatose from some medical issue.
No kudos to him.
No shit on him if it wasn't his fault (stroke or some shit), of course, but certainly no kudos.
The US is going down the shitter very, very fast. And you can't even stop that by voting as there's not even a "lesser evil" anymore: there's just a populist-colored big evil and a religion-colored big evil.
Replace sword with gun and we have our answer.
And it still counts as the riddle of steel.
This won't work.
Why?
Because satellite signals are extremely susceptible to atmospheric interference.
Raw size does matter here.
A larger receptor is better.
You may as well try to reproduce a high quality studio microphone with an array of dollar store clip on mics, and then toss out the typical dismissive bullshit claim of "The rest is just software!".
When did nerds stop saying "wow, technically impressive" and start saying "ooh, shiny?" I always thought it was the artsy types that went for Apple, not nerds. When did nerds start caring what they looked like or what normal people thought about us or how pretty our computers were? I mean, a cool looking handmade computer case is one thing, but fashion?
Nerds don't use Apple.
Hipsters use Apple.
Hipsters use Apple and pose as nerds.
"Nerd culture" is "in" now, despite the fact that what's "in" is by no means nerd culture.
But you can rest, assured that real nerds are sitting at home, in their parents' basements, right now, stewing and hating the world.
What I want to know is: how can you justify the cost of tape?
Tape is cheap.
And why isn't a raid6 array a valid backup location?
RAID isn't backup. It's fault tolerance.
What, exactly, does tape provide you in terms of archival veracity and longevity that current drives do not? Assuming no significant sunk cost for tape hardware, you're still looking at similar if not greater costs per GB of tape storage as you would be disk, whether you're looking at LTO 3 or LTO 5. Throw in $1,000 to $3,000 for your standalone chassis tape drive... you'd have to burn through hundreds of single-use 1.5TB hard drives to justify tape on cost (and even then, questionably - tape is more expensive per raw GB than drives).
Properly stored tape will last eons.
Hard drives will not.
Tapes are more durable.
Broken tapes are user-serviceable.
Data is far more recoverable from broken tape than from a broken hard drive.
The costs you cite are ridiculous for a simple home setup.
The whole 'raid isn't backup' argument seems a misnomer to me these days.
And people with this mentality still seem like idiots to me, these days. You're wrong. Plain and simple. Online storage is vulnerable to getting fried. Offline storage is monumentally less so.
Yes, bad backup practices make tape less reliable, but it's much more difficult to put good practices in place for effective tape backup than it is for hard disks.
How so? Insert tape, go, wait, label, toss (literally, toss) into box. Put it in a fire safe if you want.
With a hard drive you've got: Connect drive, go, wait, disconnect drive, carefully store drive somewhere.
Were you planning on using an internal drive? Power down, open case, connect drive, boot up, etc.
External drive that you keep attached? That's not a backup - it's simply a live copy.
With filesystems like ZFS (with CoW and a number of other nice features that make tape further irritating in comparison), I don't see the point at all.
Backups store bits.
File systems store files.
The two are COMPLETELY separate. No matter how robust and fault tolerant a file system is, it is still prone to COMPLETE DESTRUCTION due to hardware failure, system corruption, etc.
No, raid isn't a backup in and of itself - but neither is a single tape.
A offline copy of live data is the definition of a backup.
A raid5 live copy of your data with periodic/daily/whatever diffentials to external drive, however, seems like a pretty good backup to me.
RAID 5 is costly and slow compared to RAID 0 (which is not RAID). If you're doing backups already, why the hell would you go with RAID 5? Downtime is irrelevant for 99.9999% of home users. The bottleneck in downtime will be the time it takes to get a replacement drive shipped out, not the time it takes to rebuild the array.
If you think you're a special type of user who can't possibly stand losing, in the worst case scenario, 24 hours worth of data, then go with RAID 1+0. Faster than RAID 5 with a hot spare, just as fault tolerant, you get the same storage, and when shit goes wrong and you have to rebuild you're not running with degraded performance.
The bottom line is that RAID is not, and never will be, a backup solution. It will not, and never will be, considered part of any backup plan. RAID is for staying online. Nothing more.
A lot of dumb fucks like to shit on anything that's old, a little slow, or a little cumbersome (or more accurately, unfamiliar to them), without ever stopping to think of why things are done a certain way.
Tape is the best backup method we have today.
There's a reason it's still the standard.
There's a reason it's been around for as long as it has.
Facebook was mainly hacked together using PHP over a couple of nights.
No, it wasn't.
A basic site that let you:
Fill out basic profile information
was "hacked together using PHP over a couple of nights".
Facebook took many years to become the massive thing it is today. And it took many programmers who are much more skilled than Zuckerberg to do it. And it's still a piece of shit.
Stop making my sentences wrong by changing their correct meaning. I've never seen a PDF display improperly on any reader.
Horse shit.
I have come across many a PDF that:
Wouldn't display, at all.
Wouldn't load the embedded fonts.
Wouldn't properly apply the security restrictions.
Wouldn't stop rotating pages when physically printed, despite any combination of rotation options across the PDF reader and the printer driver.
Wouldn't kern a bog-standard font for shit. I shouldn't have to zoom to 125% or something to get the word "failure" to stop rendering as "fa i lur e".
Etc.
Etc.
Evaluate employees based on whether or not they perform their duties, not whether or not they look busy.
Hold the managers to the same standard.
If you need to squeeze more blood from the rock that is your personnel, realize that blocking sites, banning cell phone use, etc. will only drive them to do the minimum to avoid being fired. If that's what you want, go for it.
If you want good workers, treat them like decent people. Work isn't play, but it doesn't have to be a prison, either. In the 70s we realized we should allow personal calls at work so long as they didn't take up all of your time and impact your work performance. In the 2000s, we realized that people also have personal email accounts.
Maybe by 2030 we'll realize that people also have social lives. Hiring and firing won't be contingent on a clean slate social network profile. Socializing while at work will be tolerated as long as it doesn't impact your performance.
...we wouldn't.There is no possible threat to the Earth which humans could ever make even the smallest abount of diffence about. Instead there is a threat to civilisation. Pedantic, I know but the only threat to the earth is crashing into a star or another planet. Humanity compared is much more fragile, threatened by a mere mile wide rock or similar.
Your post sneakily mocks the global warming crowd.
This makes your post better.
The SmartWater liquid can also be pasted inside cables, making them easier to trace — and less appealing to scrap metal buyers, helping to cut demand for stolen copper.
I doubt it'll survive the fucking forge.
We've all seen Terminator 2, right?
Hey Bob, I've got some cable I need to sell. Quickly.
I'll give you $150 for it. Go toss it into the big pit of molten goop.
Hey, the heck with somebody else's hardware, can I make my own?
How hard could it be?
Depends on whether or not you want it to work, or if you care about power consumption.
Protip: That spare Linux box ain't gonna cut it.
Western Union.
10 out of 10 Nigerian Scammers agree.
Deterrent through force of arms never worked.
That was the solution to the balance of power pre-WW1 if anyone remembers a bit of history. We all saw how that ended up.
Meh, basing the entire future of the internet on "Go on, do it, I dare you" will not end well for anyone. I can already see an RIAA/MPAA sponsored 'attack' taking down most of the internet (and them meddlin` filesharers!) for a few weeks.
I like how you ignore the 60+ years after WWII.
MAD absolutely does work. There have been dozens of near world-ending situations where fingers were literally on the actual buttons to send nuclear weapons at other countries.
It doesn't matter what got us into those situations (political turmoil, technical glitches), it was MAD that prevented us from pushing the button.