OK, maybe not completely magic, but close enough to magic for an approximate engineering schematic. That's the big difference I've seen between engineers and scientists. Engineers will typically accept a little bit of magic as long as the result is a functional schematic. Scientists will deny the existence of any magic in the system and dig ridiculously deep into any system showing magical symptoms.
All that aside, I agree. Nobody on slashdot thinks that a strong password will defend against phishing attacks - Only common sense can do that. But, although they won't strictly-speaking defend against a key-logger on your system, they may help keep the key-logger off.
A little off-topic, I guess, but Joshua has got to be one of the nerdiest passwords around (although any nerd worth his salt would salt it appropriately.)
I took a week-long network security/penetration course from this guy who literally named his first-born Joshua just as a tribute.
Maybe "duty" was a bad choice of words, as it's not a chore. But it is stressful for the guy and something that we're pretty well saddled with whether we like it or not. Hopefully, we like it. If not, we have to cowboy up and take the responsibility on anyway. The problem is that some women put the responsibility entirely on the guys and expect us to cater to them without putting out much if any effort on their own.
Still, even though I know how to work a bra and am proficient in their operation, it's still often more fun to just playfully "demand" that it be removed. (Although, since I'm in a long term relationship - 10+ years married w/ kids, the bra is usually gone long before bed-time). There are plenty of fun foreplay games to play other than showing off brazier maneuvers.
OK - mod-bomb me. I can't even fathom how this post relates to TFA =). Again - WTF is this discussion doing on slashdot?!?
But really people, is it so freaking hard to just take us out to dinner, kiss our neck afterwords in an intimate and quiet environment, and actually DO the foreplay (and for those in longer-term relationships, not have it become formulaic?)
That goes both ways (especially if you're talking about a long term relationship). We guys accept the duty of keeping things interesting, but chicks have to play too if things are going to keep going well after a decade into the relationship. But I agree - Mood >> biological process. There is very little less sexy to a guy than a chick that just wants to score a baby. Ugh - I'd rather fly solo, thanks.
...They can tell me down to the molecular level how conception works, but they can't even get the damn condom out of the wrapper and a bra off without completely ruining it...
Again, it all comes down to mood. I find the best way to remove a bra is to make sure that things are moving smoothly and then say, "Lose the bra". Beats even the 1-handed Fonzie-level-cool maneuver and, assuming that the environment is right, can actually warm things up. (Of course, that is not always appropriate and a guy should be prepared to adjust.)
On topic, though, I can personally testify that a guy who is thoroughly turned on and has been for a while will, um, launch much more thoroughly and with more velocity than somebody who's just going through the motions.
But that assumes there is a easy way to separate the urea from the water and other things that flow down the sewer lines.... Of course there's an easy way. You have one line explicitly for liquid waste and another for solid waste. Problem solved!
You sound like a safety-skeptic. But, as long as one life is saved, isn't it all worth it?
Oh wait... If for the same price you could have saved 2 lives doing something more senisble I guess not... Or if the life you saved was some numb-skull who'll just waste himself a week later doing something else equally as stupid... Or if it was just a virtual life that never wouldn't have been spent regardless of your actions...
Damn I hate the phrase "as long as one life is saved"... It's almost as bad as "Won't someone think of the children". When I get home I'm tearing the label off of my kid's mattress reminding me not to set it on fire.
Really? Asking why people would go to their grave believing a lie is somehow deep? There have been a helluva lotta people that have gone to their graves believing contradicting things. Even if you believe that one subset of them had it right, most of them had it wrong. Dying for a belief does not necessarily make your belief correct, it just means that you believed it strongly or had other motivators.
Just because somebody decides to be a martyr (or in Paul's case leave an easy life for a tough one) does not mean that they were thinking critically and rationally.
Why would Paul write so strongly about the resurrection even in prison?
What makes you think that Paul wrote that gospel? The Bible was assembled by committee and included the the works submitted and voted in. Is it based on faith alone that you assume that the gospels were not embellished before publication?
Thats really a small number though that could depend on multiple variables. How do we know that the same amount of cars passed through it? For all we know there could have been a road that was under construction that people use now. Also did the road get any more improvements? What about weather? There would be a big difference if last year there were lots of storms. Etc.
"Small" is entirely relative. Granted that road improvements, construction, weather, etc. could have affected numbers. (Freakish weather is less "variable" than the presence of bleeding billboards.) You are correct that there aren't enough data to do a thorough statistical analysis, but you seem to be grasping at straws. From 14 to 0 could be very statistically significant depending on the standard deviation from year-to-year and the elimination of outside influence. Just because 14 is "small" compared to your local Interstate exit doesn't mean that it's negligible for this stretch of NZ highway.
"TFA" is worthless, but speculating on potential spikes in common, relatively flat variables should not eliminate the speculation on effects of observable variation in very prominent and very uncommon variables. Put more simply, and in a car analogy, if you install a set of used tires and 2 blow out during your normal commute home, look first at your tires and then at potential anomalies in the road.
Plus, for all we know, most of those 14 deaths could have happened with one or two cars.
OK, if you're in NZ (or really pretty much anywhere but India) 14 people in "one or two" cars would be a lot. 14 people in my car (or most any car) would require opening the sun-roof and me meeting a bunch of midgets. If you're going to pedant statistics, refrain from speculating on obvious outliers. 14 deaths in a 1-car wreck on a NZ highway? *Scoff*
OK, maybe I phrased that badly. My kids, of course, have SSNs assigned. But I see no reason to give those numbers to them until they're ready to go off to school. I can't imagine why somebody would give his SSN to his 10 year old - I don't even understand why a 10 year old would need to know his own, much less his parents.
I wonder how they (Google) will react.. would guess that big corporations get quite pissed by this kind of stuff. Let's wait and see..
They've got the talent, the resources, and the legal team. This seems like an excellent time for Google to "be evil" and take the law into their own hands.
The only reason why the RIAA has not actively pursued these cases is because the most popular is owned by Google who can afford great lawyers and with an informed judge might create some copyright reform.
You might not realize this, but the RIAA was chasing copyright infringers long before YouTube was owned by Google. If you're convinced that fear of Google is "the only reason" that the RIAA isn't chasing straight downloaders, you may want to check your logic.
OK, I'm as paranoid as the next guy (well, typically - I guess it depends on the "next guy"). But your post smells suspiciously like tin foil.
Ever listened to a YouTube video that had an audio track under copyright? The RIAA (or canadian equivalents) would love to sue you for that.
That would not be "making available" said copyrighted content. So far, we've yet to see the RIAA chase anything like that or even show serious interest in trying.
Posted a comment critical of the government? Next thing you know you wind up on a non-disclosed "watch list" and can't leave the country.
Right. That's why Bill Maher lives under house arrest. Watch this: The government has become a police state and Obama is a communist trying to sell our country to the Chinese!!! Let 'em come and get me. Meh.
Viewed porn of someone 17 by accident? The government would love to lock you away.
The government would not "love to lock you away" for that. Imprisonment is expensive as is identifying and prosecuting criminals. Government enforcement of dangerous perversion focuses almost entirely on child predators or people abusing their own kids. While there are some nut-job politicians that grand stand and use the "won't somebody think of the children" in inappropriate situations to further silly causes and occasional ludicrous local enforcement of badly written statutory laws, it's hardly the focus or intent of the FBI.
I don't want to come off as a "go-go-government, let's dump our civil rights and throw open our doors to surveilance" apologist, but let's keep things in perspective here. When you blow things out of proportion like that it does not help your case - It make you look overly paranoid and ignorant.
...they go because it offers something they want, once you stop offering that, then people stop coming, it's so simple even an MBA could figure it out...
A single MBA? Probably. Even quickly. An entire board? They need a couple of purchases encouraged by an enthusiastic idiot before they'll figure it out (or go bankrupt in the process.)
3 cheers for the appropriate correction to the FP. Cheap and power-efficient are 2 of the variables that need to be evaluated when looking for a processor. The cheaper and more power efficient the better, of course. And, for Facebook, apparently those are the most important factors.
However, for my home box I may be willing to spend 50% more power for a 40% speed gain, depending on what the baseline is. Also, I may be willing to drop an extra $100 for a 20% speed gain, again depending on the baseline. Also, since I'm running a single CPU, my multitasking needs are radically different than somebody like Facebook. And, since I'm doing multimedia and GUIs, my task needs are radically different than a processor meant to serve as a cell in a server farm. Even a single/dual CPU server has radically different needs than a huge server farm.
Google/Facebook/Slashdot's needs are special because they're big. This should be a duh moment.
To what end? The same thing has occurred to me, but I can't fathom a useful end-product. If we want to study the behavior of exotic bacteria/whatever, we can replicate the conditions here on Earth much more cheaply than rocketing them off into space (not to mention they'd be much easier to watch/study). And if you've got some fantasy of them evolving into super-fish or whatever, you'd better be REALLY patient. (And, again, even if you're hoping for macro-evolution, we could replicate the environment more easily than visiting it.) If it's dead, I see no benefit of adding life.
My vote - It's much more interesting to just keep it pristine and see what's there (even if it's nothing.) And, if there is life, it would be far more interesting to see something (however primitive) that had a fresh start rather than something that started here.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure about that?
OK, maybe not completely magic, but close enough to magic for an approximate engineering schematic. That's the big difference I've seen between engineers and scientists. Engineers will typically accept a little bit of magic as long as the result is a functional schematic. Scientists will deny the existence of any magic in the system and dig ridiculously deep into any system showing magical symptoms.
All that aside, I agree. Nobody on slashdot thinks that a strong password will defend against phishing attacks - Only common sense can do that. But, although they won't strictly-speaking defend against a key-logger on your system, they may help keep the key-logger off.
A little off-topic, I guess, but Joshua has got to be one of the nerdiest passwords around (although any nerd worth his salt would salt it appropriately.)
I took a week-long network security/penetration course from this guy who literally named his first-born Joshua just as a tribute.
Maybe "duty" was a bad choice of words, as it's not a chore. But it is stressful for the guy and something that we're pretty well saddled with whether we like it or not. Hopefully, we like it. If not, we have to cowboy up and take the responsibility on anyway. The problem is that some women put the responsibility entirely on the guys and expect us to cater to them without putting out much if any effort on their own.
Still, even though I know how to work a bra and am proficient in their operation, it's still often more fun to just playfully "demand" that it be removed. (Although, since I'm in a long term relationship - 10+ years married w/ kids, the bra is usually gone long before bed-time). There are plenty of fun foreplay games to play other than showing off brazier maneuvers.
OK - mod-bomb me. I can't even fathom how this post relates to TFA =). Again - WTF is this discussion doing on slashdot?!?
Future employers? I posted that from work. I'm making interesting reading for my current (and hopefully not soon-to-be-former) employer!
But really people, is it so freaking hard to just take us out to dinner, kiss our neck afterwords in an intimate and quiet environment, and actually DO the foreplay (and for those in longer-term relationships, not have it become formulaic?)
That goes both ways (especially if you're talking about a long term relationship). We guys accept the duty of keeping things interesting, but chicks have to play too if things are going to keep going well after a decade into the relationship. But I agree - Mood >> biological process. There is very little less sexy to a guy than a chick that just wants to score a baby. Ugh - I'd rather fly solo, thanks.
...They can tell me down to the molecular level how conception works, but they can't even get the damn condom out of the wrapper and a bra off without completely ruining it...
Again, it all comes down to mood. I find the best way to remove a bra is to make sure that things are moving smoothly and then say, "Lose the bra". Beats even the 1-handed Fonzie-level-cool maneuver and, assuming that the environment is right, can actually warm things up. (Of course, that is not always appropriate and a guy should be prepared to adjust.)
On topic, though, I can personally testify that a guy who is thoroughly turned on and has been for a while will, um, launch much more thoroughly and with more velocity than somebody who's just going through the motions.
Wow - WTF is this discussion doing on slashdot?!?
But that assumes there is a easy way to separate the urea from the water and other things that flow down the sewer lines....
Of course there's an easy way. You have one line explicitly for liquid waste and another for solid waste. Problem solved!
Water is a liquid. I think you missed a step.
Clean renewable energy is worse for the environment than radioactive waste?
Typically. Yeah. Do the math. Hell - Pick something easy like manufacturing costs of solar cells or transmission/storage costs for wind.
Nuclear == Sensible green.
You sound like a safety-skeptic. But, as long as one life is saved, isn't it all worth it?
Oh wait... If for the same price you could have saved 2 lives doing something more senisble I guess not... Or if the life you saved was some numb-skull who'll just waste himself a week later doing something else equally as stupid... Or if it was just a virtual life that never wouldn't have been spent regardless of your actions...
Damn I hate the phrase "as long as one life is saved"... It's almost as bad as "Won't someone think of the children". When I get home I'm tearing the label off of my kid's mattress reminding me not to set it on fire.
All of the people that died here believed in a much later resurrection and died for that belief. It doesn't make Koresh Jesus.
(And he's far from the first resurrected Jesus that has inspired his disciples to follow him unto death.)
...well-written retort to a troll post.
Really? Asking why people would go to their grave believing a lie is somehow deep? There have been a helluva lotta people that have gone to their graves believing contradicting things. Even if you believe that one subset of them had it right, most of them had it wrong. Dying for a belief does not necessarily make your belief correct, it just means that you believed it strongly or had other motivators.
Just because somebody decides to be a martyr (or in Paul's case leave an easy life for a tough one) does not mean that they were thinking critically and rationally.
Paul wrote NO Gospel.
OK. I absolutely have to correct this. There were four gospels, one of them Paul's. First came John, then Paul, then George, and finally Ringo.
Oh, crap... I may be mixing theology here... OK fine. His story is an epistle - I stand corrected.
Why would Paul write so strongly about the resurrection even in prison?
What makes you think that Paul wrote that gospel? The Bible was assembled by committee and included the the works submitted and voted in. Is it based on faith alone that you assume that the gospels were not embellished before publication?
Thats really a small number though that could depend on multiple variables. How do we know that the same amount of cars passed through it? For all we know there could have been a road that was under construction that people use now. Also did the road get any more improvements? What about weather? There would be a big difference if last year there were lots of storms. Etc.
"Small" is entirely relative. Granted that road improvements, construction, weather, etc. could have affected numbers. (Freakish weather is less "variable" than the presence of bleeding billboards.) You are correct that there aren't enough data to do a thorough statistical analysis, but you seem to be grasping at straws. From 14 to 0 could be very statistically significant depending on the standard deviation from year-to-year and the elimination of outside influence. Just because 14 is "small" compared to your local Interstate exit doesn't mean that it's negligible for this stretch of NZ highway.
"TFA" is worthless, but speculating on potential spikes in common, relatively flat variables should not eliminate the speculation on effects of observable variation in very prominent and very uncommon variables. Put more simply, and in a car analogy, if you install a set of used tires and 2 blow out during your normal commute home, look first at your tires and then at potential anomalies in the road.
Plus, for all we know, most of those 14 deaths could have happened with one or two cars.
OK, if you're in NZ (or really pretty much anywhere but India) 14 people in "one or two" cars would be a lot. 14 people in my car (or most any car) would require opening the sun-roof and me meeting a bunch of midgets. If you're going to pedant statistics, refrain from speculating on obvious outliers. 14 deaths in a 1-car wreck on a NZ highway? *Scoff*
They have always had a definition.
The problem was that it was just a beta version. They'll be unveiling the 'Release' definition shortly.
OK, maybe I phrased that badly. My kids, of course, have SSNs assigned. But I see no reason to give those numbers to them until they're ready to go off to school. I can't imagine why somebody would give his SSN to his 10 year old - I don't even understand why a 10 year old would need to know his own, much less his parents.
"Oh, I enter these things all the time. It's okay, I use my dad's email address and social security number."
Umm.. Why in the hell would a parent give his SSN to a 10 year old? My kids don't even have their own SSNs at this point, much less mine.
I wonder how they (Google) will react.. would guess that big corporations get quite pissed by this kind of stuff. Let's wait and see..
They've got the talent, the resources, and the legal team. This seems like an excellent time for Google to "be evil" and take the law into their own hands.
We could only hope.
The only reason why the RIAA has not actively pursued these cases is because the most popular is owned by Google who can afford great lawyers and with an informed judge might create some copyright reform.
You might not realize this, but the RIAA was chasing copyright infringers long before YouTube was owned by Google. If you're convinced that fear of Google is "the only reason" that the RIAA isn't chasing straight downloaders, you may want to check your logic.
OK, I'm as paranoid as the next guy (well, typically - I guess it depends on the "next guy"). But your post smells suspiciously like tin foil.
Ever listened to a YouTube video that had an audio track under copyright? The RIAA (or canadian equivalents) would love to sue you for that.
That would not be "making available" said copyrighted content. So far, we've yet to see the RIAA chase anything like that or even show serious interest in trying.
Posted a comment critical of the government? Next thing you know you wind up on a non-disclosed "watch list" and can't leave the country.
Right. That's why Bill Maher lives under house arrest. Watch this:
The government has become a police state and Obama is a communist trying to sell our country to the Chinese!!!
Let 'em come and get me. Meh.
Viewed porn of someone 17 by accident? The government would love to lock you away.
The government would not "love to lock you away" for that. Imprisonment is expensive as is identifying and prosecuting criminals. Government enforcement of dangerous perversion focuses almost entirely on child predators or people abusing their own kids. While there are some nut-job politicians that grand stand and use the "won't somebody think of the children" in inappropriate situations to further silly causes and occasional ludicrous local enforcement of badly written statutory laws, it's hardly the focus or intent of the FBI.
I don't want to come off as a "go-go-government, let's dump our civil rights and throw open our doors to surveilance" apologist, but let's keep things in perspective here. When you blow things out of proportion like that it does not help your case - It make you look overly paranoid and ignorant.
...they go because it offers something they want, once you stop offering that, then people stop coming, it's so simple even an MBA could figure it out...
A single MBA? Probably. Even quickly. An entire board? They need a couple of purchases encouraged by an enthusiastic idiot before they'll figure it out (or go bankrupt in the process.)
YMMV.
Um... I think we actually agree. That sucks, I was hoping for an extended argument.
Oh well, I guess there are worse things than resolving a dispute and reaching a logical end... I'll get over it.
Cheers.
3 cheers for the appropriate correction to the FP. Cheap and power-efficient are 2 of the variables that need to be evaluated when looking for a processor. The cheaper and more power efficient the better, of course. And, for Facebook, apparently those are the most important factors.
However, for my home box I may be willing to spend 50% more power for a 40% speed gain, depending on what the baseline is. Also, I may be willing to drop an extra $100 for a 20% speed gain, again depending on the baseline. Also, since I'm running a single CPU, my multitasking needs are radically different than somebody like Facebook. And, since I'm doing multimedia and GUIs, my task needs are radically different than a processor meant to serve as a cell in a server farm. Even a single/dual CPU server has radically different needs than a huge server farm.
Google/Facebook/Slashdot's needs are special because they're big. This should be a duh moment.
Yeah, I want you around my kids.
You're responding to Anonymous Coward.
Rule #1 of parenting is never leave your kids alone with someone until after they agree to tell you their name.
To what end? The same thing has occurred to me, but I can't fathom a useful end-product. If we want to study the behavior of exotic bacteria/whatever, we can replicate the conditions here on Earth much more cheaply than rocketing them off into space (not to mention they'd be much easier to watch/study). And if you've got some fantasy of them evolving into super-fish or whatever, you'd better be REALLY patient. (And, again, even if you're hoping for macro-evolution, we could replicate the environment more easily than visiting it.) If it's dead, I see no benefit of adding life.
My vote - It's much more interesting to just keep it pristine and see what's there (even if it's nothing.) And, if there is life, it would be far more interesting to see something (however primitive) that had a fresh start rather than something that started here.
Perhaps we can contract the launch out to North Korea? I hear they've been making some real strides in that area and could use the $$.