We're all smart IT types here. Can we agree that filtering email based on file extension is possibly the most useless strategy ever?
When my company firewall bounces an internal email because it has information.mdb attached (which is the file they asked me to build for them), but it doesn't bounce the renamed information.totallynotanmdb, it does not make the users feel safer in any way.
Another fun trick is that they will accept credits from other universities, but only if they deem the content of the course to be "equivalent" to one of their courses. (Meaning you have to find a course in New Uni's catalogue that matches the course you took at Old Uni, otherwise they don't recognize it.)
Remembering that New Uni wants you to take as many courses as possible from *them*, any variation allows them to refuse you transfer credit.
Hmm. How about just not living on campus? I didn't. I shared a house with a bunch of folks, and we were free to get all the unfiltered internets we could carry, and lived like normal people.
Some universities require on-campus living. Rice did back in the 90s, for instance - you weren't permitted to live off-campus for at least your first year.
University of Alberta (where I went) didn't have that rule, but the on-campus "apartments" (using the term laughingly) did have ethernet hooked up directly to the campus network - in that day it beat the living hell out of 56K modem.
This. I used to work for a uni and we made every effort to look after people, even those using "unsupported" OSs like Linux. (half of the 3rd line support guys had Linux desktops, so it was only "unsupported" officially - in practice everything worked fine.)
Seriously - universities don't support Linux?
Hell, when I went to school (back in the dark ages of the mid-90s), you could walk over to the IT folks, and they'd loan you the Linux install discs! And that was before the current "plug USB stick into computer, reboot and get Ubuntu" ease of use.
But anyway - if the university is being douches about their firewalls, get your own USB stick/mifi widget, and start making loud noises about how you're having to spend money because IT can't keep a network secure *and* usable at the same time.
I say fine. Let them declare a no fly zone. Let's see how well that actually works out.
That was my thought - the Feds can threaten, but do any of those politicians seriously want to be the ones defending the punishment of a no-fly zone because they really think you need to be groped?
So a prison camp for terrorists is "kidnapping" now?
"Prison" implies that they're arrested and charged with a crime. (If they were POWs, they would have been released at the end of hostilities). The US has made it clear that they intend neither to prosecute or release these people - they just want to keep them locked away.
So, you can't (or won't) prove they're guilty of anything, and you won't let them go - sounds a lot closer to "creepy guy plucking kids off the street" than to "democracy in action" to me.
A girl protests and a guy thinks its a mock-protest
Pro tip for the gentlemen in the crowd - if she says "no", even if you think it's a mock protest, stop and back off. If she's interested she'll tell you. If she's not you look like a non-sleeze (thus increasing the chances for a yes later on).
The hunters were legally hunting on private property. The retard brought his drone to break the law by interfering with lawful hunting, then got his toy shot down:
OK, I keep seeing this argument (the "it's illegal to interfere with lawful hunting" riff), but exactly how are they interfering? Are they claiming that the RC was scaring away their game? That the RC was buzzing them and interfering with the shot?
These guys weren't hunters. They were shooting at pre-captured birds that were being released at pre-determined times. Blood sport is not the same as hunting.
Exactly - they might as well be shooting kittens for all the "hunting" that's involved.
Hunting for food is fine in my book even if you have a supermarket nearby - as long as you're actually using the animal you've killed, at least you've done something productive with your day. Keeping the head for a trophy isn't my thing, but if you're eating the rest of the animal, at least you're using that part too.
Killing an animal just for the trophy head is creepy and wasteful. Killing tame animals for "sport" is sick and lazy. Calling it "hunting" is insulting to real hunters.
With the exception of federally-controlled routes, airspace over your property belongs to you, just as (without prior agreements to the contrary), the mineral rights under your property also belong to you.
Wait, what?
I'm not American, so I gotta ask - you're saying that private planes, ultralights, hang gliders, hot air balloons - if they fly over your property, you believe you can legally shoot them down for trespassing?
Try it. You will have to involve a judge to compel me to get a tow truck to remove your car from my property. But you sir are not allowed onto my land, and your car should not have been there in the first place. Breaking the law by trespassing does not grant you a "right of way" or any other claim on someone else's land.
So, do you regularly seize cars that use your driveway for three-point turns?
Just checking the level of crazy, here (in my neck of woods, if that sort of thing really bugs you the answer is to put up a little gate or chain across the driveway).
The UN fancies itself as a nascent world government. I don't know about the rest of the world, but the US isn't going to go along with putting the Internet in the hands of the same people that made Qaddafi's Libya chair of the Human Rights Commission.
Not to burst the bubble, but you guys *still* have those folks you kidnapped in Cuba - the US is somewhat lacking in moral authority at the moment.
People didn't mind the US running the Internet when they did that. And you guys did a decent job of it for a lot of years. And screwing with your own citizenry is fine - they're your people, after all. But these new no-due course shutdowns, against people who aren't actually breaking the law in the country they're in? Go figure that China and Russia want a piece of that action.
I suppose it could be interpreted that way, except I voted NDP.:)
And your case isn't true everywhere - my riding (Edmonton Centre) had the following results:
Conservatives: 23552
NDP: 12634
Liberal: 10969
Green, Pirate, and Marxist-Leninist combined: 2014 (most of that is Green)
The savvy reader will note that NDP+Liberal > Conservatives. We can argue over which way the left should have leaned, but it's hard to deny that if there was only one left party (let's call it the LDP) they would have won. That's what I mean by vote-splitting.
Can a doctor "fire" a patient for continuing to smoke?
For continuing to drink? How are we defining "drink?"
For continuing to overeat?
For continuing to eat lots of red meat? Fried food? Salt?
For not being on the caveman diet?
Yep, yep, yep, and yep. In particular, I believe I've heard a few doing the smoking thing (for much the same reason).
Of course, the contrast is that with the exception of smoking, those other "bad habits" will only kill you, at no risk to everyone else you come in contact with.
Amusingly, you seem to have missed this link in your search (it's 6th on the list), where it proceeds to rip the "study" apart. (Short answer: it's the same correlation that connects ice-cream sales and swimming pool deaths; hence, ice-cream causes drowning.)
If I was just a bit more cynical, I'd suggest that they're getting exactly the care they deserve.
But I'm not *quite* that cynical.
Let's remember folks, this isn't doctors saying "I won't treat you". This is doctors saying "This is the best option for you, and if you choose not to follow this advice, you should find a doctor who's advice you *will* follow." And if you can't find a doctor who says what you want, perhaps the problem is with what you want.
First of all, who says physicans are "Professionals", any more than Lawers and Politicians. Many are, but many are not - just try asking one of them for alternative care other than pills.
That depends on the doctor - the biggest hurdle "alternative care" faces at the moment is the lack of hard research showing it works, and that's starting to change.
Second, if parents have legitimate concerns about alergeric reactions to the contents of the vacines, why shouldn't they able to opt-out of them for their kids?
I have allergies. They can be worked around.
Also, slight strawman here - no-one's saying this kid is *forced* to get vaccinated. The parents can still choose not to - the doctor is just choosing not to continue care in that case. Everyone's got a choice.
Third, the drug companies have only one first priority - profit for share-holders.
And this is relevant how? Last I heard, drug companies aren't big fans of vaccines because they're cheap and non-profitable.
On a side note, I agree that it's the doctors' right to see what patients they want (as long as the decision is not based on certain criteria like race/color/religion/gender/etc). Stupidity is not a protected group.
Hell, let's make it simpler - if your doctor says "you need to do X" and you refuse, then you need to find a new doctor because you obviously don't trust the one you have. And if you don't listen to your doctor, there's plenty of other patients who will, so why not let someone else get care?
That's because their goal isn't to convince you - it's to make you stop talking (else risk being Labelled). And if you stop talking, then You Supported This Too and can't complain next election.
At least you got a canned reply from your MP. I got a canned reply from my MP's secretary (Laurie Hawn is my MP, Jordan is apparently his roundfiler.)
Thank you for sharing your comments and concerns with us on lawful access and electronic surveillance. Mr. Hawn greatly appreciates hearing from his constituents, and I will pass your comments on to him.
If there is anything else we can help you with, please feel free to contact our office.
There's near-zero chance of getting Toews on a remotely-hostile talk show (because we don't have many, and Harper pretty much bans his people from talking off-point)
Second, none of our opposition parties have quite found the fortitude to call them out in that way. (Which is more's the pity that Layton died - he was that sort of firebrand.)
Slashdot Mirror
* .exe and .dll are not allowed in e-mail
We're all smart IT types here. Can we agree that filtering email based on file extension is possibly the most useless strategy ever?
When my company firewall bounces an internal email because it has information.mdb attached (which is the file they asked me to build for them), but it doesn't bounce the renamed information.totallynotanmdb, it does not make the users feel safer in any way.
Agreed
Another fun trick is that they will accept credits from other universities, but only if they deem the content of the course to be "equivalent" to one of their courses. (Meaning you have to find a course in New Uni's catalogue that matches the course you took at Old Uni, otherwise they don't recognize it.)
Remembering that New Uni wants you to take as many courses as possible from *them*, any variation allows them to refuse you transfer credit.
Hmm. How about just not living on campus? I didn't. I shared a house with a bunch of folks, and we were free to get all the unfiltered internets we could carry, and lived like normal people.
Some universities require on-campus living. Rice did back in the 90s, for instance - you weren't permitted to live off-campus for at least your first year.
University of Alberta (where I went) didn't have that rule, but the on-campus "apartments" (using the term laughingly) did have ethernet hooked up directly to the campus network - in that day it beat the living hell out of 56K modem.
This. I used to work for a uni and we made every effort to look after people, even those using "unsupported" OSs like Linux. (half of the 3rd line support guys had Linux desktops, so it was only "unsupported" officially - in practice everything worked fine.)
Seriously - universities don't support Linux?
Hell, when I went to school (back in the dark ages of the mid-90s), you could walk over to the IT folks, and they'd loan you the Linux install discs! And that was before the current "plug USB stick into computer, reboot and get Ubuntu" ease of use.
But anyway - if the university is being douches about their firewalls, get your own USB stick/mifi widget, and start making loud noises about how you're having to spend money because IT can't keep a network secure *and* usable at the same time.
If Texas bans TSA in it's airports, then the FAA can simply stop all flights to and from Texas airports ...
You won't get scanned if there are no flights ...
Technically legal. But where are you going to find a politician willing to be the Guy Who Cancelled Flights To Texas?
I say fine. Let them declare a no fly zone. Let's see how well that actually works out.
That was my thought - the Feds can threaten, but do any of those politicians seriously want to be the ones defending the punishment of a no-fly zone because they really think you need to be groped?
So a prison camp for terrorists is "kidnapping" now?
"Prison" implies that they're arrested and charged with a crime. (If they were POWs, they would have been released at the end of hostilities). The US has made it clear that they intend neither to prosecute or release these people - they just want to keep them locked away.
So, you can't (or won't) prove they're guilty of anything, and you won't let them go - sounds a lot closer to "creepy guy plucking kids off the street" than to "democracy in action" to me.
A girl protests and a guy thinks its a mock-protest
Pro tip for the gentlemen in the crowd - if she says "no", even if you think it's a mock protest, stop and back off. If she's interested she'll tell you. If she's not you look like a non-sleeze (thus increasing the chances for a yes later on).
The hunters were legally hunting on private property. The retard brought his drone to break the law by interfering with lawful hunting, then got his toy shot down:
OK, I keep seeing this argument (the "it's illegal to interfere with lawful hunting" riff), but exactly how are they interfering? Are they claiming that the RC was scaring away their game? That the RC was buzzing them and interfering with the shot?
These guys weren't hunters. They were shooting at pre-captured birds that were being released at pre-determined times. Blood sport is not the same as hunting.
Exactly - they might as well be shooting kittens for all the "hunting" that's involved.
Hunting for food is fine in my book even if you have a supermarket nearby - as long as you're actually using the animal you've killed, at least you've done something productive with your day. Keeping the head for a trophy isn't my thing, but if you're eating the rest of the animal, at least you're using that part too.
Killing an animal just for the trophy head is creepy and wasteful. Killing tame animals for "sport" is sick and lazy. Calling it "hunting" is insulting to real hunters.
With the exception of federally-controlled routes, airspace over your property belongs to you, just as (without prior agreements to the contrary), the mineral rights under your property also belong to you.
Wait, what?
I'm not American, so I gotta ask - you're saying that private planes, ultralights, hang gliders, hot air balloons - if they fly over your property, you believe you can legally shoot them down for trespassing?
Try it. You will have to involve a judge to compel me to get a tow truck to remove your car from my property. But you sir are not allowed onto my land, and your car should not have been there in the first place. Breaking the law by trespassing does not grant you a "right of way" or any other claim on someone else's land.
So, do you regularly seize cars that use your driveway for three-point turns?
Just checking the level of crazy, here (in my neck of woods, if that sort of thing really bugs you the answer is to put up a little gate or chain across the driveway).
The UN fancies itself as a nascent world government. I don't know about the rest of the world, but the US isn't going to go along with putting the Internet in the hands of the same people that made Qaddafi's Libya chair of the Human Rights Commission.
Not to burst the bubble, but you guys *still* have those folks you kidnapped in Cuba - the US is somewhat lacking in moral authority at the moment.
People didn't mind the US running the Internet when they did that. And you guys did a decent job of it for a lot of years. And screwing with your own citizenry is fine - they're your people, after all. But these new no-due course shutdowns, against people who aren't actually breaking the law in the country they're in? Go figure that China and Russia want a piece of that action.
Within six months, it will be electronic oldmen running the world.
We could only be so lucky, that the "old men" of the Internet were put back in charge.
I suppose it could be interpreted that way, except I voted NDP. :)
And your case isn't true everywhere - my riding (Edmonton Centre) had the following results:
The savvy reader will note that NDP+Liberal > Conservatives. We can argue over which way the left should have leaned, but it's hard to deny that if there was only one left party (let's call it the LDP) they would have won. That's what I mean by vote-splitting.
And amusingly, that link is *in* his link (sixth in line when I checked).
But it does make a good demonstration of an attempted echo chamber - if I just say it over and over and over again, maybe it'll become true!
70% paediatricians malpractice
[citation needed]
Can a doctor "fire" a patient for continuing to smoke? For continuing to drink? How are we defining "drink?" For continuing to overeat? For continuing to eat lots of red meat? Fried food? Salt? For not being on the caveman diet?
Yep, yep, yep, and yep. In particular, I believe I've heard a few doing the smoking thing (for much the same reason).
Of course, the contrast is that with the exception of smoking, those other "bad habits" will only kill you, at no risk to everyone else you come in contact with.
Hmm.. let's see what sites are on this search:
Notice a pattern?
Amusingly, you seem to have missed this link in your search (it's 6th on the list), where it proceeds to rip the "study" apart. (Short answer: it's the same correlation that connects ice-cream sales and swimming pool deaths; hence, ice-cream causes drowning.)
If I was just a bit more cynical, I'd suggest that they're getting exactly the care they deserve.
But I'm not *quite* that cynical.
Let's remember folks, this isn't doctors saying "I won't treat you". This is doctors saying "This is the best option for you, and if you choose not to follow this advice, you should find a doctor who's advice you *will* follow." And if you can't find a doctor who says what you want, perhaps the problem is with what you want.
First of all, who says physicans are "Professionals", any more than Lawers and Politicians. Many are, but many are not - just try asking one of them for alternative care other than pills.
That depends on the doctor - the biggest hurdle "alternative care" faces at the moment is the lack of hard research showing it works, and that's starting to change.
Second, if parents have legitimate concerns about alergeric reactions to the contents of the vacines, why shouldn't they able to opt-out of them for their kids?
I have allergies. They can be worked around.
Also, slight strawman here - no-one's saying this kid is *forced* to get vaccinated. The parents can still choose not to - the doctor is just choosing not to continue care in that case. Everyone's got a choice.
Third, the drug companies have only one first priority - profit for share-holders.
And this is relevant how? Last I heard, drug companies aren't big fans of vaccines because they're cheap and non-profitable.
On a side note, I agree that it's the doctors' right to see what patients they want (as long as the decision is not based on certain criteria like race/color/religion/gender/etc). Stupidity is not a protected group.
Hell, let's make it simpler - if your doctor says "you need to do X" and you refuse, then you need to find a new doctor because you obviously don't trust the one you have. And if you don't listen to your doctor, there's plenty of other patients who will, so why not let someone else get care?
That's because their goal isn't to convince you - it's to make you stop talking (else risk being Labelled). And if you stop talking, then You Supported This Too and can't complain next election.
That's true here - but we have two problems:
There's near-zero chance of getting Toews on a remotely-hostile talk show (because we don't have many, and Harper pretty much bans his people from talking off-point)
Second, none of our opposition parties have quite found the fortitude to call them out in that way. (Which is more's the pity that Layton died - he was that sort of firebrand.)