>> "Ridicule is the first recourse of the weak minded." > Said the guy who got burned.
I'm sorry, you'll have to use proper english if you want me to understand.
You mean like stop signs?
Yes, exactly like stop signs. Road safety is adversely affected by streetside advertising because it distracts the attention away from the road ahead.
But don't take my word for it: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/resfinds/drf168- 00. asp ---- However, roughly speaking, the general conclusion is that between 10% and 30% of all accidents have driver distraction as a contributory factor, and that, of these, roughly a third are specifically caused by external-to-vehicle driver distraction. Young (aged 17-21) drivers are particularly prone to external-to-vehicle driver distraction. ----
So the estimate is that 3% of all RTA's are caused by external-to-vehicle driver distraction.
There are 50,000 deaths and 3.5 million injuries anually from RTA's in the EU. (http://www.ukcycling.net/news/index.php?story=499 )
So 3% represents 1,500 deaths and 450,000 injuries anually.
>I said lighten up. I thank you not to issue instruction to me, it is a serious subject.
> It isn't a bad thing when an advertisement attracts your awareness of something you were already interested in. To assume that it is dangerous is ridiculous.
Street advertising is like junk mail, 99% of it holds no interest at all. In fact I can't find a single product in my house that is advertised on billboards or TV except a few food products. Consumerism *is* dangerous. Street advertising is a form of pollution. Why is it wrong to question it's validity?
I don't need to assume that it is dangerous, it is a field for scientific study.
1,500 deaths, 450,000 injuries
> Give it a rest, hyporcrite. We all know you have responded to an advertisement recently. Either you're weak minded, you are simply wrong.
We are all weak minded. What you know about me is approximately nothing. As I said, most advertised products hold *no* interest for me whatsoever. Why should I 'give it a rest'? What is my incentive to keep quiet on a subject that is having a negative impact on my life and the people around me. Does the passive observer feel threatened?
> Truely weak minded people see danger where there is none.
That's as maybe. Calling someone paranoid is not a valid rebuttal.
Those who do not understand a subject and who cannot enter into discourse with reasoning and insight use insult and ridicule.
> Done trying to sound like Yoda? Sound like Yoda is something I do not.
Ridicule is the first recourse of the weak minded. Street advertising steals your attention and imprints itself on your brain. The one who says he is 'unaffected' is the one who is the lost sheep. If it didn't affect the weak it wouldn't work.
It's your users you should be worrying about, not the outside world.
Remote roots are the least of your headaches. Escalating privileges of logged in users is a very real threat. When OpenBSD talks of "no remote exploits" you have to rememeber to add the caveat "in the default install" which paints a different picture.
Root considered harmful is more than a cute saying.
Root is a design choice and it is an achilles heel of the Unix family.
Likewise administrator, though Windows has a fair few more bad design choices from a security perspective.
And guess what? When the creators of Unix decided to take what they had learned and start again root was one of the first things to hit the bit bucket.
I've had email sent to me via the address I posted here and/. auto obfuscates it in various ways.
It is retarded to think that "fred at sheila dot com" won't get converted.
Once one has written one's harvester, it is prudent for one to inspect the results and tweak it. It's for profit not fun! If it is possible to increaes the yield in *any* measure it will be done by someone somwhere.
"...show the heads of Nintendo characters superimposed on famous images, including players in the rock band Kiss, a person straddling the now-demolished Berlin Wall and no less an icon than the Mona Lisa"
looks like the advertising budget was slashed to $99 too
I was off sick at the time and instead of the payslip I was expecting I opened the envelope and it was my P45. It was a Saturday morning too so I had to wait until Monday before I could even speak to anyone about it.
(a P45 is the document you present to your next employer regarding the tax etc. you have paid)
Statistically your company, like hundreds of others, is doomed to fail.
You need to work out how you are going to survive before you work out how to grow.
Technical skill is not enough, you need people for support, sales, accounting and other admin.
Try not to borrow money, surviving without debt is a great lesson.
If you are the leader, be ready to give up the reigns when necessary, you won't need to micro-manage everything and one day even your presence might be a liability.
Slashdot Mirror
>> "Ridicule is the first recourse of the weak minded."
:- 00. asp
9 )
> Said the guy who got burned.
I'm sorry, you'll have to use proper english if you want me to understand.
You mean like stop signs?
Yes, exactly like stop signs. Road safety is adversely affected by streetside advertising because it distracts the attention away from the road ahead.
But don't take my word for it
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/resfinds/drf168
----
However, roughly speaking, the general conclusion is that between 10% and 30% of all accidents have driver distraction as a contributory factor, and that, of these, roughly a third are specifically caused by external-to-vehicle driver distraction. Young (aged 17-21) drivers are particularly prone to external-to-vehicle driver distraction.
----
So the estimate is that 3% of all RTA's are caused by external-to-vehicle driver distraction.
There are 50,000 deaths and 3.5 million injuries anually from RTA's in the EU. (http://www.ukcycling.net/news/index.php?story=49
So 3% represents 1,500 deaths and 450,000 injuries anually.
>I said lighten up.
I thank you not to issue instruction to me, it is a serious subject.
> It isn't a bad thing when an advertisement attracts your awareness of something you were already interested in. To assume that it is dangerous is ridiculous.
Street advertising is like junk mail, 99% of it holds no interest at all. In fact I can't find a single product in my house that is advertised on billboards or TV except a few food products. Consumerism *is* dangerous. Street advertising is a form of pollution. Why is it wrong to question it's validity?
I don't need to assume that it is dangerous, it is a field for scientific study.
1,500 deaths, 450,000 injuries
> Give it a rest, hyporcrite. We all know you have responded to an advertisement recently. Either you're weak minded, you are simply wrong.
We are all weak minded. What you know about me is approximately nothing.
As I said, most advertised products hold *no* interest for me whatsoever. Why should I 'give it a rest'? What is my incentive to keep quiet on a subject that is having a negative impact on my life and the people around me. Does the passive observer feel threatened?
> Truely weak minded people see danger where there is none.
That's as maybe. Calling someone paranoid is not a valid rebuttal.
Those who do not understand a subject and who cannot enter into discourse with reasoning and insight use insult and ridicule.
> Done trying to sound like Yoda?
Sound like Yoda is something I do not.
You really do sound threatened. Why is that?
Milk drinkers are weak minded.
Advertising works, of that, there is no doubt.
No I didn't get it out of anyone's sig thanks.
how much more do you need?
Oh, there seems to be a bug in this program, I'll take a quick look in the source code and see what it's doing. Oh, I only have the binary.
Ridicule is the first recourse of the weak minded.
Street advertising steals your attention and imprints itself on your brain.
The one who says he is 'unaffected' is the one who is the lost sheep.
If it didn't affect the weak it wouldn't work.
The passive observer is a collaborator.
See, they've got you already.
work, breed, die
The reviewer says it like it is a good thing.
Advertising hoarding is soul destroying.
Try as we might to filter it out of the web and tv what are you going to do, not go outside!
" YOU WILL CONSUME "
I'm a plan9 user, you can't get more unreasonable than that :>
the real world can die, thanks.
It's your users you should be worrying about, not the outside world.
Remote roots are the least of your headaches. Escalating privileges of logged in users is a very real threat. When OpenBSD talks of "no remote exploits" you have to rememeber to add the caveat "in the default install" which paints a different picture.
Root considered harmful is more than a cute saying.
Root is a design choice and it is an achilles heel of the Unix family.
Likewise administrator, though Windows has a fair few more bad design choices from a security perspective.
And guess what? When the creators of Unix decided to take what they had learned and start again root was one of the first things to hit the bit bucket.
I think not
Windows, like Unix, is insecure *by design*.
You can't fix that with a bunch of smart people looking for buffer overruns.
*the most advanced software platform in existence*
It's just a VM and it exists because it's the only way MS could rescue themselves out of their leaky boat of an OS.
Hanging on to the coat-tails gives it legitimacy, kind of like having Cytrix exist as a third source of x86 chips should Intel & AMD go bust.
Your list of languages is hardly a broad base to make such a sweeping statement.
Though I wish it had been the license of "Bad Taste" instead.
In a solid gold bed with ivory posts.
With sheets made from human skin.
Pillows stuffed with the feathers of the golden eagle.
And a quilt filled with panda fur.
Osama bin Laden serves drinks and Saddam Hussein turns over the tv and changes the cd/dvd.
As the fortune so prophetically mentioned.
has been for years
they spam :m ain
info@yourdomain
sales@yourdomain
help@yourdo
webmaster@yourdomain
postmaster@yourdomain
etc.etc.
I've had email sent to me via the address I posted here and /. auto obfuscates it in various ways.
It is retarded to think that "fred at sheila dot com" won't get converted.
Once one has written one's harvester, it is prudent for one to inspect the results and tweak it.
It's for profit not fun! If it is possible to increaes the yield in *any* measure it will be done by someone somwhere.
It will be running on Hurd.
I'm glad all this shit is happening to Gnome because it will kill it stone dead.
Gnomes new slogan : "Where did Microsoft want to go yesterday?"
fools
"...show the heads of Nintendo characters superimposed on famous images, including players in the rock band Kiss, a person straddling the now-demolished Berlin Wall and no less an icon than the Mona Lisa"
looks like the advertising budget was slashed to $99 too
bah, i went to a solicitor specialising in employment
64k - that was flat rate no call charges
I find it really annoying
"scientists say that if successful this project could end world hunger and all wars forever"
No, it was unfair dismissal.
I investigated suing and I would have got around 200 for winning.
The company let me keep my always on 64k internet which was worth 100 a month so I didn't bother.
Not even a letter.
I was off sick at the time and instead of the payslip I was expecting I opened the envelope and it was my P45. It was a Saturday morning too so I had to wait until Monday before I could even speak to anyone about it.
(a P45 is the document you present to your next employer regarding the tax etc. you have paid)
Statistically your company, like hundreds of others, is doomed to fail.
You need to work out how you are going to survive before you work out how to grow.
Technical skill is not enough, you need people for support, sales, accounting and other admin.
Try not to borrow money, surviving without debt is a great lesson.
If you are the leader, be ready to give up the reigns when necessary, you won't need to micro-manage everything and one day even your presence might be a liability.