Because official repositories NEVER get compromised, unless it's some screensaver, in which case "it's your own fucking fault, you should/could have read the source code first".
Or you find something where a dependency isn't fulfilled, and you are told (after trawling various newsgroups for hours), to start adding third-party repositories to complete the installation. Meaning EXACTLY the same trust model as Windows.
Even the registry has a graphical treeview... And what is so cryptic about navigating Local Machine, Software, Microsoft, Windows, Current Version, Run to edit those startup programs ?
As compared to ls -l/etc/init.d/rc.d/ or whatever the hell named directory where Linux stores the startup commands ?
Is is wetter under water, if you're there when it rains? Is it shorter to New York, than it is by a plane? Between myself and I, I wonder who's the dumber Is it hotter down south, than it is in the summer?
I'm a nut, I'm a nut My live don't ever get in a rut, whoop-whoop-whoop-whoop The head on my shoulders is sorta loose And I ain't got the sense God gave a goose Lord, I ain't crazy, but... I'm a nut
etc. etc.
As there is no scientific evidence that the radiation emitted from cellphones is in any way dangerous, lower OR higher radiation is no more OR less safer.
Your statement makes as much sense as saying a refrigerator set at 4oC is "safer" than one set at 3oC, in terms of potential frostbite injuries.
Can we stop with the sensationalist non-stories about people sitting behind corporate intranet filters.
Just because you use a computer at work, that doesn't mean you have carte blanche to surf wherever and whenever you want. You are there to work, not play Farmville.
And what corporate filter WOULDN'T have the word "sex" on it's blacklist ?
There are no sinister connotations, no "big-brother" censorship issues, this is simply what's called a false-positive.
As opposed to your logic which means charging 1000 people for 1 murder, when in fact each individual only made one pin prick. Will they all get 1/1000th of a 7 year sentence (2.5 days each in prison), I wonder ?
If the RIAA used your logic, then every user should be charged with infringing 1/1000th of a copyrighted work, and the damages per person should be applied accordingly. Think that will happen ?
The ratio system is a very accurate guide... it should be argued that anyone with a ratio over 1 is guilty of distributing 1 or more full copies... and anyone with a ratio of only 0.1 or less (typical of the majority of leeches), have only distributed 1/10th or less of a copyrighted work (which of course you might argue under fair use).
Don't forget there are sensible countries who see downloading for personal use as legal (as it should be).
Well what do you THINK they were doing... what they always do, seek as much information as possible without consent... everything they do is opt-out, rather than opt-in, much to the ire of Rupert Murdoch.
No one "accidentally" either scans or records WLAN or MAC addresses... anymore than a spammer would "accidentally" send Viagra e-mails to 6 billion people.
Most people stopped leaving their houses unlocked in about 1955.
My point was rather about the point they insist on referring to the websites he accessed as "secure". If they were truly secure, he wouldn't have got in using the default setup passwords, and apparently no IP restriction controls whatsoever.
What he did was no different than referer spoofing a porn site or trying typical passwords to access a messageboard.
But use the emotive words like "secure" and "hacked" and he becomes the greatest threat to security since a certain Osama Bin Laden.
It's a fucking joke that the US will happily lock up a clumsy cyber-explorer in Gitmo without due process or trial for seeing a set of files that should have been locked down, and at the same time bang on about "freedom of speech" and not obeying other countries libel laws for US citizens when overseas. They want it both ways.
The problem being, the people who are most vocal about racism tend to see it where none exists.
This is why we are not allowed to refer to blackboards in classrooms, and have to use chalkboards instead.
Despite the fact it is patently a board and coloured black, someone, somewhere decided he was "offended" by it, and rather than face an accusation of racism, we had to change the bloody language.
If you have ever in your life heard a joke about Jews, or Irish, or Germans, or any nationality you like, and found yourself stifling a giggle, then you are JUST as racist as those you would condemn.
All nationality based humour ever created would be "hate speech" according to you...there can be no exceptions, otherwise you are just paying lip-service to your belief.
There is a difference between an application that uses memory as cache (when needed) and releases it afterwards, and something ike Firefox that just allocates and allocates even when you have closed 19 of your 20 tabs, and it's still holding on to half a gig or more, causing excessive swapping when you need to alt-tab to something else.
A rise in temperature causes a rise in CO2, which in turn causes an even bigger rise in temperature.
The point being that pre-industrial times, there were periods where the CO2 concentration was much higher than today, the temperature was higher, and Mother Nature found equilibrium.
There were also times where temperature and CO2 were much lower (ala Little Ice Age), and Mother Nature again found equilibrium... and guess what... the human race DIDN'T die out.
So, on the basis that whatever we do, Mother Nature will find equilibrium anyway.
If that also means the ice caps (or Himalayas) melt some more, then so be it... once of the big pressing concerns for the future is going to be the supply of clean potable water anyway.
But forget Carbon Credits and all that bullshit... we have to accept that an industrialised advanced civilization is going to consume resources and produce waste (how can it survive otherwise)... so let's finance positive things like planting 2 trees for every 1 that is cut. What we need is more carbon sinks, what better way than trees ?
Or we could blame everything on human CO2 emissions, correlate them against temperature, and find that... CO2 LAGS TEMPERATURE BY 200 YEARS... oops, no wait, that doesn't support the AGW position, so let's bury that right away.
All by itself: do *you* really think too arrogant that a human can significative alter his 13,7 football fields share within his lifespan?
No, I don't think it's unrealistic. What IS unrealistic to to blame ONLY man to the exclusion of all other contributing factors, which is what the A in AGW and all the real debate is about.
Have we affected the planet ? Yes, for sure.
Have we affected it MORE than other "naturally occurring" phenomena ? Show me !
Will reducing man's contribution in a real way (not Carbon Credits, or other bullshit), have a significant slowing affect considering the input of the above mentioned phenomena ? Again, show me !
This blinkered "it's all mans' fault" is nonsense. It's partly mans' fault at best.
Do you really think it takes too much arrogance to imagine that a single man can alter 13,7 football fields within his lifetime through farming, mining, driving, building, etc.?
As opposed to the sun which has a surface area of 6088000000000 Km^2 ?
That's 887 Km^2/habitant, or 164,377 of your "real international standards units" (football fields).
Do you really think it takes too much arrogance to imagine that the variations in radiation from a superheated ball of gas at 5505C (9941F) might, just possibly, have some bearing on the situation ?
In 1807, Davy proposed the name aluminium for the metal, undiscovered at that time, and later agreed to change it to aluminum. Shortly thereafter, the name aluminum was adopted to conform with the "ium" ending of most elements.
Aluminium was also the accepted spelling in the U.S. until 1925, at which time the American Chemical Society decided to use the name aluminum thereafter in their publications.
So yet again, it turns out it was Americans who decided they had to be different to everyone else and bugger about with the language.
You only have to look at the names of the other Group 13 elements to see the problem...
My point is that it is a sad thing that we can't find a better way to get people's attention.
Oh, I agree with you, but unfortunately there isn't.
Consumer advocates and reviewers are most often biased and often financed to give positive / negative reviews and advice "sanctioned" by their controlling bodies. There's no-one I'd really say I could trust to give an honest opinion of some product.
Personal boycotting of products has no impact whatsoever because of the sheer volume of sales, any more than protest voting for a minority political party has any impact on the outcome between the two major parties.
A court case is the only way to get the medias' attention off Big Brother and Search for a Star long enough to actually raise public awareness over a large enough group to matter to the beancounters.
Capitalism DOES work, unfortunately that's not the same as working "for the people".
Any increase / decrease is still measured in the same units as the base quantity. So your statement is meaningless... is a negative value of "watts per day" STILL a measure of power INCREASE ???
41.66W * 24 hours = 1000Wh
Facepalm... A WattHour is already the amount of Watts consumed in ONE hour... it's a rate of consumption. By your logic:-
A fridge using 41.66W * 24 hours uses 1000Wh. A light bulb using 10W * 168 hours uses 1680Wh.
Holy shit, that light bulb uses more electricity than the fridge... of course it's used more electricity, but over a completely different time period... your comparing apples and oranges.
Both Watts per Day and Kilowatt Hours are both rates of consumption as they involve power (in watts) divided by a time period (usually to compare the relative consumption of two appliances).
The only issue is the (confusing) use of "per"...
KWh (KiloWattHours) and Wd (WattDays) can be converted back and forth using the above stated 0.00004167 (essentially 1/24000) conversion factor.
A hash is a fixed length representation of some function.
All of the N of characters have to be compared before a match can be declared, so surely every hash comparison should take an identical amount of time ? It doesn't even expose the possible length of the original password via timing attacks, and all hashes are the same length when using the same function.
Slashdot Mirror
Because official repositories NEVER get compromised, unless it's some screensaver, in which case "it's your own fucking fault, you should/could have read the source code first".
Or you find something where a dependency isn't fulfilled, and you are told (after trawling various newsgroups for hours), to start adding third-party repositories to complete the installation. Meaning EXACTLY the same trust model as Windows.
Even the registry has a graphical treeview ... And what is so cryptic about navigating Local Machine, Software, Microsoft, Windows, Current Version, Run to edit those startup programs ?
As compared to ls -l /etc/init.d/rc.d/ or whatever the hell named directory where Linux stores the startup commands ?
Blinkered much ?
but lower radiation also means safer to use
Is is wetter under water, if you're there when it rains?
Is it shorter to New York, than it is by a plane?
Between myself and I, I wonder who's the dumber
Is it hotter down south, than it is in the summer?
I'm a nut, I'm a nut ... I'm a nut
My live don't ever get in a rut, whoop-whoop-whoop-whoop
The head on my shoulders is sorta loose
And I ain't got the sense God gave a goose
Lord, I ain't crazy, but
etc. etc.
As there is no scientific evidence that the radiation emitted from cellphones is in any way dangerous, lower OR higher radiation is no more OR less safer.
Your statement makes as much sense as saying a refrigerator set at 4oC is "safer" than one set at 3oC, in terms of potential frostbite injuries.
Come one, everyone knows that a boolean can have the values TRUE, FALSE and FILE_NOT_FOUND.
Yes, like the "no verified therapeutic claims" you see on quack-medicine advertisements.
You know the one written in dark gray on a black background in a 6 point font at the very bottom of the screen that flashes up for like 0.25 seconds ?
Can we stop with the sensationalist non-stories about people sitting behind corporate intranet filters.
Just because you use a computer at work, that doesn't mean you have carte blanche to surf wherever and whenever you want. You are there to work, not play Farmville.
And what corporate filter WOULDN'T have the word "sex" on it's blacklist ?
There are no sinister connotations, no "big-brother" censorship issues, this is simply what's called a false-positive.
Nothing more to see, please move along.
As opposed to your logic which means charging 1000 people for 1 murder, when in fact each individual only made one pin prick. Will they all get 1/1000th of a 7 year sentence (2.5 days each in prison), I wonder ?
If the RIAA used your logic, then every user should be charged with infringing 1/1000th of a copyrighted work, and the damages per person should be applied accordingly. Think that will happen ?
The ratio system is a very accurate guide ... it should be argued that anyone with a ratio over 1 is guilty of distributing 1 or more full copies ... and anyone with a ratio of only 0.1 or less (typical of the majority of leeches), have only distributed 1/10th or less of a copyrighted work (which of course you might argue under fair use).
Don't forget there are sensible countries who see downloading for personal use as legal (as it should be).
Well what do you THINK they were doing ... what they always do, seek as much information as possible without consent ... everything they do is opt-out, rather than opt-in, much to the ire of Rupert Murdoch.
No one "accidentally" either scans or records WLAN or MAC addresses ... anymore than a spammer would "accidentally" send Viagra e-mails to 6 billion people.
They were mining, nothing more to say.
Most people stopped leaving their houses unlocked in about 1955.
My point was rather about the point they insist on referring to the websites he accessed as "secure". If they were truly secure, he wouldn't have got in using the default setup passwords, and apparently no IP restriction controls whatsoever.
What he did was no different than referer spoofing a porn site or trying typical passwords to access a messageboard.
But use the emotive words like "secure" and "hacked" and he becomes the greatest threat to security since a certain Osama Bin Laden.
It's a fucking joke that the US will happily lock up a clumsy cyber-explorer in Gitmo without due process or trial for seeing a set of files that should have been locked down, and at the same time bang on about "freedom of speech" and not obeying other countries libel laws for US citizens when overseas. They want it both ways.
The problem being, the people who are most vocal about racism tend to see it where none exists.
This is why we are not allowed to refer to blackboards in classrooms, and have to use chalkboards instead.
Despite the fact it is patently a board and coloured black, someone, somewhere decided he was "offended" by it, and rather than face an accusation of racism, we had to change the bloody language.
If you have ever in your life heard a joke about Jews, or Irish, or Germans, or any nationality you like, and found yourself stifling a giggle, then you are JUST as racist as those you would condemn.
All nationality based humour ever created would be "hate speech" according to you .. .there can be no exceptions, otherwise you are just paying lip-service to your belief.
Do you REALLY want to live in a world like that ?
Sorry, hacking into secure military sites
Had the sites been "secure" he wouldn't have been able to "hack" into them using u:admin p:admin
The doors were wide open, my 12 year old could have got into them.
There is a difference between an application that uses memory as cache (when needed) and releases it afterwards, and something ike Firefox that just allocates and allocates even when you have closed 19 of your 20 tabs, and it's still holding on to half a gig or more, causing excessive swapping when you need to alt-tab to something else.
Yes indeed it has been discussed ...
A rise in temperature causes a rise in CO2, which in turn causes an even bigger rise in temperature.
The point being that pre-industrial times, there were periods where the CO2 concentration was much higher than today, the temperature was higher, and Mother Nature found equilibrium.
There were also times where temperature and CO2 were much lower (ala Little Ice Age), and Mother Nature again found equilibrium ... and guess what ... the human race DIDN'T die out.
So, on the basis that whatever we do, Mother Nature will find equilibrium anyway.
If that also means the ice caps (or Himalayas) melt some more, then so be it ... once of the big pressing concerns for the future is going to be the supply of clean potable water anyway.
But forget Carbon Credits and all that bullshit ... we have to accept that an industrialised advanced civilization is going to consume resources and produce waste (how can it survive otherwise) ... so let's finance positive things like planting 2 trees for every 1 that is cut. What we need is more carbon sinks, what better way than trees ?
Or we could blame everything on human CO2 emissions, correlate them against temperature, and find that ... CO2 LAGS TEMPERATURE BY 200 YEARS ... oops, no wait, that doesn't support the AGW position, so let's bury that right away.
All by itself: do *you* really think too arrogant that a human can significative alter his 13,7 football fields share within his lifespan?
No, I don't think it's unrealistic. What IS unrealistic to to blame ONLY man to the exclusion of all other contributing factors, which is what the A in AGW and all the real debate is about.
Have we affected the planet ? Yes, for sure.
Have we affected it MORE than other "naturally occurring" phenomena ? Show me !
Will reducing man's contribution in a real way (not Carbon Credits, or other bullshit), have a significant slowing affect considering the input of the above mentioned phenomena ? Again, show me !
This blinkered "it's all mans' fault" is nonsense. It's partly mans' fault at best.
Do you really think it takes too much arrogance to imagine that a single man can alter 13,7 football fields within his lifetime through farming, mining, driving, building, etc.?
As opposed to the sun which has a surface area of 6088000000000 Km^2 ?
That's 887 Km^2/habitant, or 164,377 of your "real international standards units" (football fields).
Do you really think it takes too much arrogance to imagine that the variations in radiation from a superheated ball of gas at 5505C (9941F) might, just possibly, have some bearing on the situation ?
According to whose wishes ???
In 1807, Davy proposed the name aluminium for the metal, undiscovered at that time, and later agreed to change it to aluminum. Shortly thereafter, the name aluminum was adopted to conform with the "ium" ending of most elements.
Aluminium was also the accepted spelling in the U.S. until 1925, at which time the American Chemical Society decided to use the name aluminum thereafter in their publications.
So yet again, it turns out it was Americans who decided they had to be different to everyone else and bugger about with the language.
You only have to look at the names of the other Group 13 elements to see the problem ...
Ga = Gallium
In = Indium
TI = Thallium
See anything common with the naming ?
You say erb, and we say herb ... because there's a fucking 'h' in it.
Hello, not ello.
High, not igh.
Herb, not erb.
Honour, not onour (or even onor).
This whole 'unsounded h' nonsense wouldn't exist if you yanks would learn to pronounce words properly.
but the merlin engines on the falcon 9 have been shown to be infinitely more reusable and reliable
Hate to be pedantic, but does that mean we'll still be using the same engine when the universe implodes ? Infinite is a very long time after all ...
My point is that it is a sad thing that we can't find a better way to get people's attention.
Oh, I agree with you, but unfortunately there isn't.
Consumer advocates and reviewers are most often biased and often financed to give positive / negative reviews and advice "sanctioned" by their controlling bodies. There's no-one I'd really say I could trust to give an honest opinion of some product.
Personal boycotting of products has no impact whatsoever because of the sheer volume of sales, any more than protest voting for a minority political party has any impact on the outcome between the two major parties.
A court case is the only way to get the medias' attention off Big Brother and Search for a Star long enough to actually raise public awareness over a large enough group to matter to the beancounters.
Capitalism DOES work, unfortunately that's not the same as working "for the people".
Watts per day is a measure of power increase.
Any increase / decrease is still measured in the same units as the base quantity. So your statement is meaningless ... is a negative value of "watts per day" STILL a measure of power INCREASE ???
41.66W * 24 hours = 1000Wh
Facepalm ... A WattHour is already the amount of Watts consumed in ONE hour ... it's a rate of consumption. By your logic :-
A fridge using 41.66W * 24 hours uses 1000Wh.
A light bulb using 10W * 168 hours uses 1680Wh.
Holy shit, that light bulb uses more electricity than the fridge ... of course it's used more electricity, but over a completely different time period ... your comparing apples and oranges.
Both Watts per Day and Kilowatt Hours are both rates of consumption as they involve power (in watts) divided by a time period (usually to compare the relative consumption of two appliances).
The only issue is the (confusing) use of "per" ...
KWh (KiloWattHours) and Wd (WattDays) can be converted back and forth using the above stated 0.00004167 (essentially 1/24000) conversion factor.
A pound is a place to store stray dogs.
I never said Watts per Hour WAS a unit of power / energy.
It's a rate of consumption of power / energy.
Don't worry, hardly anyone actually reads what is written anyway.
Sorry, what ?
A hash is a fixed length representation of some function.
All of the N of characters have to be compared before a match can be declared, so surely every hash comparison should take an identical amount of time ? It doesn't even expose the possible length of the original password via timing attacks, and all hashes are the same length when using the same function.
Most land turtles aren't quite as endangered.
So couldn't we teach them to swim and solve the problem that way ?