Why don't they just put up a normal sized fence, but cover it in cock lube so that it's really slippery and anyone who tries to climb it will just fall off?
To prevent people from jumping over, they should put tasers along the top, with computer-guided targeting systems that will shoot the tasers into the genitalia of anyone jumping the fence.
If somebody does make it over, they can just beat the person in the groin with sticks.
Sure, then the White House grounds would be inundated with masochists getting their jollies by scaling the fence; soon, as the prisons fill with them the ACLU gets involved, declaring the security practice "discriminatory," and our courts are clogged with lawsuits declaring the right to have one's testicles electrocuted is guaranteed in the Constitution. The Department of Health and Human Services will find some US code that can be interpreted loosely to agree with that assertion and circumvent Congress, forcing states to provide Testicle Electrocution centers. Due to cost concerns the states will be allowed to make electric car charging stations dual purpose ("charge your electric car...or your nuts"), but soon angry parents will protest because charging stations near schools will have to allow guys to pull out their nuts in public. The teachers' unions won't allow the government to move the charging stations because they are in bed with the "green" movement, so now regular old perverts will hang out at the stations and pretend they are electrocuting their nuts.
In conclusion, your idea will lead to perverts showing their balls to school girls, you insensitive clod.
It would make more sense for them to practice at the "real" White House, and have Obama move to the remote "fake" White House. Is there any reason the POTUS needs to be physically located in downtown DC?
The difference between "depressed narcissistic arsehole" and "perfectly normal narcissistic arsehole" isn't as far as you'd think.
I think if one is a depressed anything at all they should not be allowed to control the fate of hundreds of people. If a doctor finds any hint of depression then the airline and maybe FAA should be notified. Fuck doctor patient confidentiality when peoples' lives are directly at stake.
I think the greatest threat is not that passwords are too simple, but passwords are re-used.
Yes, that is a huge issue, led to, in part, by complex rules.
I once queried one of my client's security tables to find the instances where multiple users had the same password (stored as a hash). Even though I expected some repetition, I was shocked at how many people had the same passwords.
And one more gripe: When I am limited to between 8 and 12 characters. WTF!? My passwords are dead easy to remember, but impossible to guess. And over 12 characters. Needless to say, I never remember that 8-12 char password.
It was dead either way. Either ISPs were going to go all cowboy or the gov was. I would rather have the gov do it after seeing how long and hard the ISPs fucked us. At least the you can get the gov to tie its own hands once in a while.
On the other hand, when the government goes "all coqboy" they can literally tie our hands as they wield the full weight of the law.
Companies and online entities need to learn that when you force people to use a capital letter, a number, and a symbol, that most likely the first letter will be the capital letter, the number will be 1, and the symbol will be !. Or maybe @. If they foist a wacky password or require one based on complex rules, it will either be written down, or be the most simple implementation of the rules.
Enforce minimum length. Allow spaces. Make a comparatively small alphabet have sufficient entropy to withstand brute force.
It's a nifty idea, but the major problem is that it would have to go through Russia.
I'm sure buried somewhere in an engineering spec is the requirement that it support a weight that coincidentally is the same as that of a Russian tank division.
We consider ourselves very "fuzzy" computers, but ultimately we make a decision (or decide not to make one, which is the same to the person getting hit by the trolley). Programming "fat" or "very fat," similarly, could be "looks like this picture of Honey Boo Boo's mom." But even that fuzzy logic, at some point, is a pre-programmed threshold that leads to a binary decision.
We could set up speed cameras to ticket everyone who's speeding. We don't. We could just mandate in-car GPS tracking and not even allow speeding in the first place.
We could also sell the Constitution to Kimberly-Clarke Corporation and have it turned into toilet paper. On second thought, I'd rather we defer your Orwellian Nightmare until Google self-driving cars have replaced personal autos.
I don't want a fucking idiot driving down my street too fast whether he has no money or is a millionaire. And I certainly don't want millionaires DELIBERATELY breaking the law because the consequences are so fucking pathetic to them that it will never matter.
I have known people who lost their license for repeated offenses, in one case permanently (is a specific state, as this is not a federal matter). The ability to pay a fine doesn't mean they can go on in perpetuity offending.
So what about a fine that devastates a poor person while at the same time being not a measurable punishment to a rich person makes it truly equal under the law? If a fine applied the same level of hardship to both rich and poor, that tells me it's treating all people equally.
No one is compelled to speed, and the fines aren't shrouded in mystery if one takes the time to find out what they are (other than the obvious way: getting pulled over).
I think the point is not for the police departments to get Teh Phat Lootz, but to equalize the pain of violating the rules. The guy in the article makes €6.5 million a year, almost €18000 a day--do you think he gives a single shit about a €50 fine? €1000?
We sort of cover this in the US with points; you can't just drive recklessly and pay for it out of petty cash forever because you'll lose your license. But the day fine concept seems like a decent way to instill the same kind of aversion in everyone, fairly. Points are ephemeral but your money is obvious.
My concerns are the accepted equation for determining one's daily spending money. Is that really such an easily defined amount? And of course the question: Is it truly fair to dole out punishment based on income or net worth? Just because the rich guy can afford it does not mean we should just accept that it is fair.
Like prescription options for the monocle? If this is just clear glass, it's useless. If it's just a magnifying glass, I'll head to the dollar store.
Novelty items -- like the well-worn glasses/nose/mustache -- generally don't offer an option that includes a prescription or other medically relevant requirements.
Or, if you prefer: Whoosh. [that was the sound of the joke going over your head]
It shouldn't. But the further we allow the line between "right" and "privilege" to be blurred and/or moved, the closer we get to that point. If Grandma were to enter into a contract with Google, maybe there is a story; however, simply relying on the current Google algorithm should not afford anyone protection under the law from it being changed.
I have seen Predestination, and I enjoyed it. I don't think the Star Trek reboot is meant to get into such heady topics, at least not in that detail. Predestination is specifically about the exact things you mention. Primer is directly about time travel. Star Trek uses the idea of destiny and time travel to further a story line, but isn't specifically about those things, because it wouldn't survive as a franchise if it was.
Agreed the second movie sucked balls. The homage was pure hollywood crap. Shows how JJ Abrams is utterly over-rated. After creating their Star Trek universe they had an opportunity to create new story lines. Instead they punted and decided to destroy a classic movie.
My thought on the reboot is not that they punted and rehashed old story lines; rather, it is meant to demonstrate that even with an alternate future from the original movies -- a smart way to retell a story with the same characters and not be beholden to an old story arc -- they couldn't escape their shared fate, or their shared destiny.
Regardless, I'm just going to enjoy the reboot. That is, unless the next one involves whales and time travel.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't they just put up a normal sized fence, but cover it in cock lube so that it's really slippery and anyone who tries to climb it will just fall off?
To prevent people from jumping over, they should put tasers along the top, with computer-guided targeting systems that will shoot the tasers into the genitalia of anyone jumping the fence.
If somebody does make it over, they can just beat the person in the groin with sticks.
Sure, then the White House grounds would be inundated with masochists getting their jollies by scaling the fence; soon, as the prisons fill with them the ACLU gets involved, declaring the security practice "discriminatory," and our courts are clogged with lawsuits declaring the right to have one's testicles electrocuted is guaranteed in the Constitution. The Department of Health and Human Services will find some US code that can be interpreted loosely to agree with that assertion and circumvent Congress, forcing states to provide Testicle Electrocution centers. Due to cost concerns the states will be allowed to make electric car charging stations dual purpose ("charge your electric car...or your nuts"), but soon angry parents will protest because charging stations near schools will have to allow guys to pull out their nuts in public. The teachers' unions won't allow the government to move the charging stations because they are in bed with the "green" movement, so now regular old perverts will hang out at the stations and pretend they are electrocuting their nuts.
In conclusion, your idea will lead to perverts showing their balls to school girls, you insensitive clod.
It would make more sense for them to practice at the "real" White House, and have Obama move to the remote "fake" White House. Is there any reason the POTUS needs to be physically located in downtown DC?
Proximity to lobbyists and think tanks?
The difference between "depressed narcissistic arsehole" and "perfectly normal narcissistic arsehole" isn't as far as you'd think.
I think if one is a depressed anything at all they should not be allowed to control the fate of hundreds of people. If a doctor finds any hint of depression then the airline and maybe FAA should be notified. Fuck doctor patient confidentiality when peoples' lives are directly at stake.
Yeah, I realize that. I just wanted to add that last anecdote.
I think the greatest threat is not that passwords are too simple, but passwords are re-used.
Yes, that is a huge issue, led to, in part, by complex rules.
I once queried one of my client's security tables to find the instances where multiple users had the same password (stored as a hash). Even though I expected some repetition, I was shocked at how many people had the same passwords.
And one more gripe: When I am limited to between 8 and 12 characters. WTF!? My passwords are dead easy to remember, but impossible to guess. And over 12 characters. Needless to say, I never remember that 8-12 char password.
It was dead either way. Either ISPs were going to go all cowboy or the gov was. I would rather have the gov do it after seeing how long and hard the ISPs fucked us. At least the you can get the gov to tie its own hands once in a while.
On the other hand, when the government goes "all coqboy" they can literally tie our hands as they wield the full weight of the law.
The Perfect Anything depends upon the person using it, and the needs of that person.
So you are saying the Perfect Gaming Mouse should have a vagina?
Companies and online entities need to learn that when you force people to use a capital letter, a number, and a symbol, that most likely the first letter will be the capital letter, the number will be 1, and the symbol will be !. Or maybe @. If they foist a wacky password or require one based on complex rules, it will either be written down, or be the most simple implementation of the rules.
Enforce minimum length. Allow spaces. Make a comparatively small alphabet have sufficient entropy to withstand brute force.
It's a nifty idea, but the major problem is that it would have to go through Russia.
I'm sure buried somewhere in an engineering spec is the requirement that it support a weight that coincidentally is the same as that of a Russian tank division.
I coulda told you that with my Atari 2600 joystick...
I coulda told you that with my abacus...
We consider ourselves very "fuzzy" computers, but ultimately we make a decision (or decide not to make one, which is the same to the person getting hit by the trolley). Programming "fat" or "very fat," similarly, could be "looks like this picture of Honey Boo Boo's mom." But even that fuzzy logic, at some point, is a pre-programmed threshold that leads to a binary decision.
But at least it's just the introductory sentence for a reasonable point, whereas your smug asshole comment is all we got.
Except that "reasonable point" hinges upon the notion that Facebook isn't a choice.
But it's not really a choice. Too many people use Facebook that it's such an inconvenience to not use it.
That may, in fact, be the dumbest thing written on the internet. At least so far today.
We could set up speed cameras to ticket everyone who's speeding. We don't. We could just mandate in-car GPS tracking and not even allow speeding in the first place.
We could also sell the Constitution to Kimberly-Clarke Corporation and have it turned into toilet paper. On second thought, I'd rather we defer your Orwellian Nightmare until Google self-driving cars have replaced personal autos.
I don't want a fucking idiot driving down my street too fast whether he has no money or is a millionaire. And I certainly don't want millionaires DELIBERATELY breaking the law because the consequences are so fucking pathetic to them that it will never matter.
I have known people who lost their license for repeated offenses, in one case permanently (is a specific state, as this is not a federal matter). The ability to pay a fine doesn't mean they can go on in perpetuity offending.
So what about a fine that devastates a poor person while at the same time being not a measurable punishment to a rich person makes it truly equal under the law? If a fine applied the same level of hardship to both rich and poor, that tells me it's treating all people equally.
No one is compelled to speed, and the fines aren't shrouded in mystery if one takes the time to find out what they are (other than the obvious way: getting pulled over).
I think the point is not for the police departments to get Teh Phat Lootz, but to equalize the pain of violating the rules. The guy in the article makes €6.5 million a year, almost €18000 a day--do you think he gives a single shit about a €50 fine? €1000?
We sort of cover this in the US with points; you can't just drive recklessly and pay for it out of petty cash forever because you'll lose your license. But the day fine concept seems like a decent way to instill the same kind of aversion in everyone, fairly. Points are ephemeral but your money is obvious.
My concerns are the accepted equation for determining one's daily spending money. Is that really such an easily defined amount? And of course the question: Is it truly fair to dole out punishment based on income or net worth? Just because the rich guy can afford it does not mean we should just accept that it is fair.
Like prescription options for the monocle? If this is just clear glass, it's useless. If it's just a magnifying glass, I'll head to the dollar store.
Novelty items -- like the well-worn glasses/nose/mustache -- generally don't offer an option that includes a prescription or other medically relevant requirements.
Or, if you prefer: Whoosh. [that was the sound of the joke going over your head]
Google Notebook. I was so pissed when they dropped support for it.
And why should it, pray tell?
It shouldn't. But the further we allow the line between "right" and "privilege" to be blurred and/or moved, the closer we get to that point. If Grandma were to enter into a contract with Google, maybe there is a story; however, simply relying on the current Google algorithm should not afford anyone protection under the law from it being changed.
Summary: "The worst part is, there's no focal point for the blame."
There is a focal point for the blame: Us. We're the ones that keep the story moving, evolving, and being repeated.
Does Grandma's blog have to be regulated too?
More like, does Grandma's blog have the right to equal protection/representation under the Google algorithm? I say, no.
I don't mind, so long as the government doesn't have a problem with me giving them a sample at a time and place of my choosing.
I have seen Predestination, and I enjoyed it. I don't think the Star Trek reboot is meant to get into such heady topics, at least not in that detail. Predestination is specifically about the exact things you mention. Primer is directly about time travel. Star Trek uses the idea of destiny and time travel to further a story line, but isn't specifically about those things, because it wouldn't survive as a franchise if it was.
Agreed the second movie sucked balls. The homage was pure hollywood crap. Shows how JJ Abrams is utterly over-rated. After creating their Star Trek universe they had an opportunity to create new story lines. Instead they punted and decided to destroy a classic movie.
My thought on the reboot is not that they punted and rehashed old story lines; rather, it is meant to demonstrate that even with an alternate future from the original movies -- a smart way to retell a story with the same characters and not be beholden to an old story arc -- they couldn't escape their shared fate, or their shared destiny.
Regardless, I'm just going to enjoy the reboot. That is, unless the next one involves whales and time travel.