Sometimes, just sometimes, it really is valid to explain why someone is utterly, utterly wrong, then to tell them to shut the fuck up and stop spreading panic-inducing nonsense.
In this case, it's simple - the LHC will produce collisions between particles in the same way that they've been happening in the upper atmosphere for billions of years; the only difference is that the naturally-occurring ones are orders of magnitude more energetic. Nothing has happened because of them; therefore, nothing will happen because of the LHC.
Basically, there's a reason management tolerate it. They've learned that if they crack down on this sort of behaviour, and start clock watching themselves (monitoring lunch breaks, toilet breaks, net usage, phone usage, etc...) the company suffers. Either because humans will strive to find ways around rules they perceive as unnecessarily restrictive, or the really talented guys get depressed and move somewhere else.
There's the third option - everyone gets in bang on time, takes exactly their allotted lunch break, any other breaks as required by health and safety or similar laws and policies, and leaves bang on time.
I can't think of a single project I've worked on where adherence to the letter of my contracted hours wouldn't have killed the project stone dead. For whatever reason (under-estimation, third-party problems, unreasonable client demands allowed through by management, loss of a critical team member, etc) they have all required some degree of extra work to bring them in on time.
A good few years ago now I was working on an e-commerce website. The checkout/registration process included an address look-up feature; you entered your post code and hit a button, it popped up a window with a list of matching addresses. Click on an address, and the details were written into the form in the parent window, and the pop-up window was closed.
The private administration site did the same thing with product look-ups, etc.
Sure, you could do the same thing with iframes, divs, etc, and opening new windows is arguably bad practice, but that's certainly one possibility. (Another that springs to mind would be selecting from an address book in a webmail client)
You get the NHS running advert campaigns from time to time - at the moment there are a couple running for strokes, and there have been ones for heart attacks, etc in the past.
But still, in 35 years of living here, I don't remember seeing a single advert for a prescription medicine. It simply doesn't happen.
I bought an i7 as part of a general upgrade a few months ago; it wasn't until I had it installed and happened to check Task Manager that I realised it was a quad core chip.
One of my friends used to run a Linux server at hone, a couple of years ago.
One day on MSN we were chatting, and he told me about how his server had been rooted. Turns out he'd not kep up to date on his patches, and a vulnerable service had been compromised.
But you're right, Windows is the only OS vulnerable to remote attacks.
MafiaWars is the worst because of the combat system. If you don't have at least 500 friends who play and are added to your "mafia" then you're shafted from the outset.
There are a number of *Wars games, of which MafiaWars is only one (albeit probably the most well-known). The same applies to others, such as Vampire Wars.
I started out just blocking Flash ads and obnoxious (= animated) image ads. I've since graduated to blocking all the ads I can, and using Greasemonkey to remove parts of sites I find objectionable (an iframe here, a div there...).
There will always be a group of us who have discovered the ability to control and customise our web browsing and will not give it up.
Besides, I don't know anyone who actually *likes* ads; at best they tolerate and ignore them.
Cool - that doesn't answer the question of paying a tradesman (no giro) or sending little Johnny some money for Christmas (shouldn't send cash by post, what if it gets lost?).
I can't remember the last time I wrote a cheque, and if I get one from my parents for Christmas that'll make 3 I've received this year - but that doesn't mean there aren't millions of people still using them. In fact it was reported in the Metro today that 3.8 million were banked each day in 2008.
This isn't the banks finally withdrawing a service no-one is using...
Men are not supposed to look at their daughters, nieces, or other much younger girls in his family or under his care as sexual objects.
People (male or female) are not supposed to look at children of either sex as sexual objects, whether they're under their care or not.
The fact that they're under the person's care makes the crime even more reprehensible due to the betrayal of trust, but it doesn't make it okay for (say) a 35 year-old to sleep with a 15 year-old just because there's no pre-existing relationship between the two.
Hilariously, everyone I know who smokes weed thinks there's a clear case to be made that weed is "better" because it doesn't have "chemicals".
You get that with almost everything that's ingested in some way though. I don't know about in the States, but here in the UK "made with 100% natural ingredients" is a fairly common selling point. People seem to forget that hemlock is also 100% natural, as are many other toxic substances...
I don't understand this fear of online payment in the US.
I know they spelt it wrong, but you do realise that this is a story about UK banks wanting to phase out cheques, right?
Besides, online payment isn't always an option - do you expect a pensioner who has no PC to be able to use an online service to pay a bill, or a tradesman, etc?
given any sort code and account number transfer any sum of money I choose, (that I have available), for free
I don't know about your bank, but Abbey places a limit on the amount that can be transferred, at least using their telephone banking service. The exact amount is secret, but somewhere around £3k. I've no idea if their online service imposes the same limit, I don't transfer that amount very often...
No, no, no. MS has a monopoly position in the desktop OS market, and therefore is legally bound by different rules. That is why they are not allowed to use that position of considerable power to muscle competitors out of other markets, such as those for web browsers.
Apple, while still a large company in their own right, have a tiny percentage of the desktop OS market, and so are not bound by such stringent rules.
The points are not legally valid, even if they seem like common sense (which is only because you're not appreciating the bigger picture).
That's like saying that Lamborghini controls the entire Lamborghini car market, and therefore has a monopoly - ignoring the fact that they have a tiny percentage of the overall car market.
The way this issue has been reported on in the past here, they most certainly did not do that - they supplied the modified OS X pre-installed on the machine.
Seems to me if MS has to comply with this, Apple should be held to the same standard.
Apple is not in a monopoly position, MS is. Different rules apply when you are, specifically about abusing your monopoly power in one area (e.g. operating systems) to muscle your way into another (e.g. web browsers).
Slashdot Mirror
Working as a developer back in the 1900s
I knew the low UIDers here were generally old, but I didn't realise just how old...
To which I will invoke Clarke's first law
To which I will invoke Voltaire:
Sometimes, just sometimes, it really is valid to explain why someone is utterly, utterly wrong, then to tell them to shut the fuck up and stop spreading panic-inducing nonsense.
In this case, it's simple - the LHC will produce collisions between particles in the same way that they've been happening in the upper atmosphere for billions of years; the only difference is that the naturally-occurring ones are orders of magnitude more energetic. Nothing has happened because of them; therefore, nothing will happen because of the LHC.
QED, and please, for the love of progress, STFU.
Basically, there's a reason management tolerate it. They've learned that if they crack down on this sort of behaviour, and start clock watching themselves (monitoring lunch breaks, toilet breaks, net usage, phone usage, etc...) the company suffers. Either because humans will strive to find ways around rules they perceive as unnecessarily restrictive, or the really talented guys get depressed and move somewhere else.
There's the third option - everyone gets in bang on time, takes exactly their allotted lunch break, any other breaks as required by health and safety or similar laws and policies, and leaves bang on time.
I can't think of a single project I've worked on where adherence to the letter of my contracted hours wouldn't have killed the project stone dead. For whatever reason (under-estimation, third-party problems, unreasonable client demands allowed through by management, loss of a critical team member, etc) they have all required some degree of extra work to bring them in on time.
Yes, but 2010 is election year here in the UK.
And employers will replace them with 20-something go-getters with better attitudes and more up-to-date skills, and at half the salary.
And with a quarter or less the experience, and correspondingly reduced productivity and quality of output.
(See, I can make sweeping generalisations too!)
That's like saying that the fact that we have horses and cars, etc, make hiking or cycling anywhere retarded.
Sometimes the point isn't the destination, it's the journey.
A good few years ago now I was working on an e-commerce website. The checkout/registration process included an address look-up feature; you entered your post code and hit a button, it popped up a window with a list of matching addresses. Click on an address, and the details were written into the form in the parent window, and the pop-up window was closed.
The private administration site did the same thing with product look-ups, etc.
Sure, you could do the same thing with iframes, divs, etc, and opening new windows is arguably bad practice, but that's certainly one possibility. (Another that springs to mind would be selecting from an address book in a webmail client)
Ah, but I think he wants to dual-licence it again, with a free, GPLed "community version", and a pay-for commercial version.
He can't do that now that he no longer holds the copyright.
You get the NHS running advert campaigns from time to time - at the moment there are a couple running for strokes, and there have been ones for heart attacks, etc in the past.
But still, in 35 years of living here, I don't remember seeing a single advert for a prescription medicine. It simply doesn't happen.
I bought an i7 as part of a general upgrade a few months ago; it wasn't until I had it installed and happened to check Task Manager that I realised it was a quad core chip.
One of my friends used to run a Linux server at hone, a couple of years ago.
One day on MSN we were chatting, and he told me about how his server had been rooted. Turns out he'd not kep up to date on his patches, and a vulnerable service had been compromised.
But you're right, Windows is the only OS vulnerable to remote attacks.
MafiaWars is the worst because of the combat system. If you don't have at least 500 friends who play and are added to your "mafia" then you're shafted from the outset.
There are a number of *Wars games, of which MafiaWars is only one (albeit probably the most well-known). The same applies to others, such as Vampire Wars.
I started out just blocking Flash ads and obnoxious (= animated) image ads. I've since graduated to blocking all the ads I can, and using Greasemonkey to remove parts of sites I find objectionable (an iframe here, a div there...).
There will always be a group of us who have discovered the ability to control and customise our web browsing and will not give it up.
Besides, I don't know anyone who actually *likes* ads; at best they tolerate and ignore them.
Cool - that doesn't answer the question of paying a tradesman (no giro) or sending little Johnny some money for Christmas (shouldn't send cash by post, what if it gets lost?).
I can't remember the last time I wrote a cheque, and if I get one from my parents for Christmas that'll make 3 I've received this year - but that doesn't mean there aren't millions of people still using them. In fact it was reported in the Metro today that 3.8 million were banked each day in 2008.
This isn't the banks finally withdrawing a service no-one is using...
Men are not supposed to look at their daughters, nieces, or other much younger girls in his family or under his care as sexual objects.
People (male or female) are not supposed to look at children of either sex as sexual objects, whether they're under their care or not.
The fact that they're under the person's care makes the crime even more reprehensible due to the betrayal of trust, but it doesn't make it okay for (say) a 35 year-old to sleep with a 15 year-old just because there's no pre-existing relationship between the two.
Hilariously, everyone I know who smokes weed thinks there's a clear case to be made that weed is "better" because it doesn't have "chemicals".
You get that with almost everything that's ingested in some way though. I don't know about in the States, but here in the UK "made with 100% natural ingredients" is a fairly common selling point. People seem to forget that hemlock is also 100% natural, as are many other toxic substances...
I don't understand this fear of online payment in the US.
I know they spelt it wrong, but you do realise that this is a story about UK banks wanting to phase out cheques, right?
Besides, online payment isn't always an option - do you expect a pensioner who has no PC to be able to use an online service to pay a bill, or a tradesman, etc?
given any sort code and account number transfer any sum of money I choose, (that I have available), for free
I don't know about your bank, but Abbey places a limit on the amount that can be transferred, at least using their telephone banking service. The exact amount is secret, but somewhere around £3k. I've no idea if their online service imposes the same limit, I don't transfer that amount very often...
No, no, no. MS has a monopoly position in the desktop OS market, and therefore is legally bound by different rules. That is why they are not allowed to use that position of considerable power to muscle competitors out of other markets, such as those for web browsers.
Apple, while still a large company in their own right, have a tiny percentage of the desktop OS market, and so are not bound by such stringent rules.
The points are not legally valid, even if they seem like common sense (which is only because you're not appreciating the bigger picture).
Apple controls the entire Apple computer market
That's like saying that Lamborghini controls the entire Lamborghini car market, and therefore has a monopoly - ignoring the fact that they have a tiny percentage of the overall car market.
Dear Fate, did I really just make a car analogy?
The way this issue has been reported on in the past here, they most certainly did not do that - they supplied the modified OS X pre-installed on the machine.
Seems to me if MS has to comply with this, Apple should be held to the same standard.
Apple is not in a monopoly position, MS is. Different rules apply when you are, specifically about abusing your monopoly power in one area (e.g. operating systems) to muscle your way into another (e.g. web browsers).
WE all know that MS used BSD code for various things,
Which is specifically allowed by the licence, of course.
Well, the thing is Slashdot isn't a Hive Mind... It's made up of different people with different opinions...
And yet, long-time readers like myself have learnt to recognise the same basic comments being made *and modded to +5* on articles time and time again.
There are patterns, and "filesharing != stealing" is an extremely strong one.