Original submission: "Your company totally sucks ass!1 I installed your software and it totally broke my computer! I had to buy a new Dell because Joe Marie couldn't fix my computer for me after I installed your software." submitted by Joe Bob, 30 AUG 2005
Edited, translated, modified, publicly displayed version: "Your company saved my computer! I was having a ton of problems with my computer, but then I installed your software, and I was so excited about it I went out and got a new computer so I could better utilize your software! Thank you so much, MacroMedia, you truly are a blessing." Testimonial by Joe Bob, 30 AUG 2005
Ahhh, but this IS the scientific method. You see what happens is, if the masses find out about scientific research that they disagree with, they skip the peer review step. It goes straight to the court of public opinion. At that point in time, all of the rules change. This allows the public to protect itself from evil (and heathenistic!!!) scientists. Once scientists agree on something it's really, really hard to get people to believe otherwise.
This is just another method of stopping the crap EARLY before it gets out of hand.
Mad props to everyone who is putting those damned scientists in their place.
First of all you'll need a server equipped with tiny C4 charges embedded in each of the hard drives. This is a handy way of deleting data on your hard drives very quickly. I hear HP can furnish these. We already have this at my work. We're working on getting louder explosives, though.
Second, you will need to hire a troupe of security guards to watch over the computer. Equip them with an M16's, and have them work in shifts, escorting users to and from the computers. If you can't afford a humans, several dozen trained monkeys will do the job. Just make sure and keep at least three extra monkeys on hand so you can replace the dead ones. You'll need at least two monkey handlers if you go the monkey route - one to watch over the monkeys and one to fill in when the first one gets shot. We already have this at my work, too! The only difference is we call our troupe the Army, and they're Privates, not monkies. We thought that we could get a monkey to work as a monkey handler, and we called it a Lieutenant, but that didn't work as well as we thought. Within a day of them taking over, the privates were no longer allowed to work security. They were too busy taking care of the lieutenants, running, jumping, swimming, working out, and grunting at eachother. Damned monkies!
For a bit of extra security, you can purchase an used electric chair from one of the states that have switched to lethal injection and use it as the chair for the workstation. One armed guard can stand holding the red button, ready to fry to operator in case (s)he mishandles any data, or looks at the guards funny, while another guard stands ready to kill the other in case they refuse to press the red button. We tried that, but it doesn't work well. What you do instead is LET someone make a small security "mistake". Then, you take away the coffee. Not just from them, but from the entire office! This is where the genius comes in. It will be ugly for a while, but everyone will learn quite a lesson.
Or if you want to save money you could just install the super secure Gentoo Linux operating system and set it to update itself via emerge automatically every hour. I'm not confident that having a classified system connected to the internet is the brightest thing, even if you think Gentoo is secure enough to handle it. Now, if you want to put your entire life's savings into a bank account for me, then provide me with the account number, pins, etc. on a text file on your machine... Well, I'm sure somebody would find a hole:). And I don't think we need any classified getting leaked these days.
All that being said, I'm serious about the coffee thing.
This coming from a 1337 cyberspook!?! You're just looking for more information against us, aren't you? AREN'T YOU!?
No, no, I think 75% of the "SHHHH DON'T SAY THAT" replies were people not understanding what can and can't be discussed publicly, but I've noticed a lot of replies saying things like "Well, I'm in this agency or this branch of service, I work on this ship or this base, and this is the security procedure we have in place. Oh, and this is the type of network, PCs, physical security, etc. that we use." Now that's starting to get dangerous, since you can easily compile a large list from all of the comments...
Other than that, I'd say your advice is even more spot-on than Jinx's. And that goes for any sort of government requirements. In manufacturing for govt projects we spent more time certifying our product, inspecting it, etc., than we actually did make it. Then, when you're dealing with stuff like this, yeah, policies and procedures, training, WRITTEN PROOF of all of the above, etc. is going to be a major pain in the ass.
Better seek out some serious help, and I'd say probably best off finding someone who works in this field to help.
Great, one more douchebag who feels the need to post a ton of self-glorification on his website (at a domain which is a weak attempt at a facade of humility), including a full resume (complete with home address, phone numbers, and employment history), list of all the lame organizations he's a member of... the list goes on and on.
Now, getting to your slashdot post, you're wrong in every paragraph! Steven Hawking is hardly the one who developed those theories. He's just the best modern person at explaining them to the masses. I hate to inform you, but we already have a lot of dead virgins and a lot of future grandfathers on this planet. I personally know (or knew) quite a few of them.
The "nukular" comment has already been shot down in other posts, but you're just searching for a reason to lash out about Bush. You're so upset over it that you can't even discuss a scientific topic (which is about as far as you can get from politics) without bringing it up in an unrelated way. Not to mention that he's not the first person to sound like an idiot saying it this way.
laypersons out there who just go, "Yup, that's an 'oops', they said it was a law and now it ain't. I guess evolution might not really be true, dad-gummit, I don't trust me none o' dem smarty pants anyway. Ahhhh. Now your real beliefs are starting to get out. Even though according to your website you're a Unitarian Universalist, North Shore Unitarian, and a Methodist, you appear to have a problem with religious idiots who don't believe in evolution. Perhaps you should start with your own church instead of letting your elitism shine? Not every person who disagrees with you is an idiot who walks around like a stereotypical hick, spitting chewing tobacco out of his mouth, yelling "dag-gummit" and complaining about "smarty pants".
Basically your post deserved a score of "-1, Troll" at best. You're wrong on every count, not very insightful, and are obviously just way too angry at people you don't believe are as smart as you.
You, lame sir, are a douche. You have the face of one, you're clearly rather bitter about the last election, and have an obvious superiority complex.
I considered posting anonymously to save some karma, but I can always be like you and just go around making anti-bush comments for some additional points if I want.
Wow, nice job ripping your customers off! This is yet another reason why I have never trusted a "web dev" to tell me where to host my sites. $29.95 setup fee and $15.00/month for 25MB of space and 5GB transfer/month?! That's not even competitive with my old crappy dialup ISP's plan! And the last time I used them was.... 1998.
Let me give you an example of some other hosting companies' offerings. For $9.95/month dreamhost offers 2400MB of space, 120GB transfer/month, unlimited mysql, and a boatload of features your isoc site doesn't.
Powweb only offers one package. I've used them for the last 5 years, and the price hasn't changed, simply the package. Currently it is 5,000MB of space, 10GB/DAY of transfer (about 300GB/month), 650 mail boxes (unlimited aliases), and a ton of features that blow a lot of providers out of the water. All I really want is shell access, but it's no big deal because this is for a corporate site, not for me to have my own slash code sitting online somewhere.
Why refer your customers to a web hosting company if you don't even know of any review sites? That seems pretty ridiculous to me. Why don't you just tell them that you don't have any clue about it.
First off, this Pro-War/Pro-Peace/Anti-War thing is bullshit. So fuck you all on THAT count. That's SO unfair. It's like the "Well, are you PRO-LIFE or do you like to MURDER BABIES?" I mean if you word it THAT way, nobody is going to say they're pro-war. So find some better terminology. How about "Pro-proactive defense or against liberal treehugging?" It's the same question, really, only this time it doesn't paint your side in a significantly more positive light than the other. Words aside, let's get down to what you actually were trying to say.
So, when you want to talk about the people who were for the war (and getting pissy about Canadians), you can't really use the term "Americans" because MOST Americans agreed with you Canadians about the whole thing. You're right, because Bush lost the popular vote. Now, maybe what you meant to say is "most of my friends agreed with you Canadians about the whole thing", or perhaps "Most americans whose opinions I repsect..." but what you're realling saying is "I'm posting without any facts to back me up".
Now, although I have the feeling you have no clue what you're talking about, I'll try to bring this back into a somewhat educational debate. George Bush received 62,040,610 votes and 286 electoral votes. Kerry received 59,028,111 votes and 251 electoral votes. In other words, Bush had 216,925 people vote for him for every electoral vote he received. Kerry had 235,171 people vote for him for every electoral vote received. I'm dropping the decimal on these because the difference is large enough. So in that regard, yes, Bush had an advantage in electoral votes over Kerry. Bush received more electoral votes PER CAPITA than Kerry did. Bush still won the popular vote as well as the electoral vote.
Now quit being a douche and bending facts just to make you feel better about yourself, or make you feel better about the american populace. It's almost as annoying as the "Bush stole 2000!" campaign you dems were putting on.
You guys drive me insane. Both parties lie, distort figures, and exploit the stupidity of the average citizen. Me? I can't stand either party. I have every intention of obliterating both parties when I become King.
(aside from the old man in the article getting the shaft, that is, which is kind of alarming and makes me appreciate New York a bit more).
Yeah, because nobody EVER gets the shaft in New York. Everyone is treated with respect in New York, and it has nothing to do with how much money you make or how powerful you are.
You seem rather intelligent, and I generally agree with you. This case I just feel is a rather different story. Temperatures above 180 degrees... may as well be molten lava. If it touches you, you're screwed.
I'm also rather biased because I don't have a cup holder in my vehicle:(. I've never done the coffee thing, but I've most certainly spilled other drinks on myself. If I drank more coffee simple probabilities would say that I should've had a coffee burn right now. If I drank McDs coffee daily, I would've had a McDs coffee burn by now.
A mistake on her part, sure. The jury even said it was about 20% her fault. It wouldn't have happened if she didn't spill the coffee. But it wouldn't have been nearly as bad if she had gotten coffee from ANY other restaurant in the area, or from the standard home coffee-brewing machines.
I know they're overused on slashdot, but let me make a little analogy. This is like making a car that is known to be significantly more dangerous. So much so that a 20kph accident can result in serious injury or even death to the occupants. You then stick a warning label on the car saying "This car is dangerous", and sell it. Somebody comes along, says "yeah, all cars are dangerous. More legal mumbo-jumbo", and proceeds to get in a 20kph accident. She is then disfigured for life because the car was designed to perform this way. Her fault entirely? The accident, yes. The results, no.
This is coming from a non-lawyer who really hates lawyers, and thinks the american legal system needs a lot of reform, but I do believe that in safety situations any manufacturer has a responsibility to the general population to attempt to make things somewhat safe whenever possible. This is way things such as occupant restraint devices have become requirements in vehicles. If a person chooses not to wear it, fine, but don't set people up for this kind of failure.
I've had 3rd degree burns before, and they are more than just a little injury. Maybe I'd understand if I could taste the difference between scorching hot coffee and really really hot coffee.
One little aside: If you deliberately and knowingly put yourself at risk of injury, you only have yourself to blame. Try telling that to someone who does risk analysis for a living. I assure you you put yourself at risk for injury simply by typing this article.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, though I at least see your viewpoint on it and it seems intelligent. I just get annoyed by people using it as an example of a frivilous lawsuit, because it really isn't. There are plenty of examples of real ones, this is just more famous and sounds even worse when you summarize it as "some woman spilled hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds!"
The jurors thought the same thing, and one even remarked "I can't believe I'm here to settle a coffee spill.". They changed their minds very quickly once the evidence came out. Most people do.
Although I agree with your entire idea, you are very much wrong about the McDonalds "hot coffee" lawsuit.
I'll quote one of the articles about this. I'll try to sum it up so the lazy don't have to read the article, but I highly encourage doing some research.
Some observers wonder why McDonald's, after years of settling coffee-burn cases, chose to take this one to trial. After all, the plaintiff was a sympathetic figure - an articulate, 81-year-old former department store clerk who said under oath that she had never filed suit before. In fact, she said, she never would have filed this one if McDonald's hadn't dismissed her requests for compensation for pain and medical bills with an offer of $800. This wasn't your typical frivilous suit. McDonalds refused to compensate her for 7 days in the hospital, third degree burns, and skin grafts. They refused to settle for her medical bills. So she decided to take a case to court. For the first time ever.
When the panel reached the jury room, it swiftly arrived at the conclusion that McDonald's was liable. "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company," says Ms. Farnham. "They were not taking care of their consumers."
Then the six men and six women decided on compensatory damages of $200,000, which they reduced to $160,000 after determining that 20% of the fault belonged with Mrs. Liebeck for spilling the coffee.
The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages. Mr. Morgan had suggested penalizing McDonald's the equivalent of one to two days of companywide coffee sales, which he estimated at $1.35 million a day. During the four-hour deliberation, a few jurors unsuccessfully argued for as much as $9.6 million in punitive damages. But in the end, the jury settled on $2.7 million.
POSTSCRIPT - Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. This reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal system. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective feature.
McDonalds had filed over 700 settlements relating to coffee burns in the years prior to this 1994 suit. They served their coffee over 20 degrees hotter than other restaurants. The difference between 180 degrees F and 160 degrees F is rather large. We're talking about whether you'll get a third degree burn in 2 seconds or whether it'll take 20 seconds. Consider how quickly you can react, and how quickly the coffee can cool off, you're fairly likely to stave off severe third degree burns with the slightly cooler coffee. McDonalds said they did this on the advice of their coffee experts, but it seems more likely that they merely wanted to keep the same crappy coffee good longer.
I can't find all my links, but if memory serves right they had already been warned by governmental agencies, burn centers, and lawsuits from previous incidents. McDonald's executive Mr. Appleton even testified that they knew the coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but had never consulted a burn specialist nor did they have any plans to decrease the temperature of the coffee in the future.
Basically, McDonalds was serving their coffee much hotter than the safe temperatures to serve coffee at. Third degree burns like this are extremely painful, require hospitalization, skin grafts, and lead to permanent disfigurement and sometimes disability. Add to that the percentage of these burns being to the groin and buttocks, and I'm sure you'll see why
I don't know what you're thinking. These guys want you to teach him to become a code monkey. You're better off teaching him chinese so he can easily submit to our new chinese overlords.
Seriously, though, most americans don't encourage their kids to learn anything other than english until they're what? 14? 16? At that point it's a lot harder for a kid to learn their first language. Get them started now, teach them some of the basics, maybe get him a nanny or babysitter that speaks another language, and get her to talk to him in that. Let him try to repeat some of the sounds and learn some basics.
Now, getting back on topic, I learned DOS from my dad when I was a little kid. I learned to type at the same time as I was learning to write, and I still thank him for that. He gave me tutorial programs on 5 1/4" diskette, and encouraged me how to use commands to FIND things I was looking for (like dir/p/s). Then he got me into things like QBASIC and editing the settings for the menuing program he used. That gave me all the foundations for my future, so whenever I wanted to learn a new language all I had to learn was the grammar and vocabulary. This is where it ties into foreign languages, because it's really the same thing. You learn how to learn new languages from learning them. Learning your first [second] language is the hardest because you've never really done it before. It just gets easier after that as long as you don't start confusing the two systems. Get him into REALLY basic stuff like changing settings for programs, give him an idea of the foundation of the GUI he's working on. Introduce him to some real basic command line stuff. Teach him basic logic and troubleshooting skills, and try to do it that he finds interesting.
IMO, the main mistake people make with their kids is thinking they're stupid because they don't have a lot of knowledge. Kids can be incredibly smart if you stop telling them things are magic and just explain them. When you're loading drivers on, explain it in a simple way. When a window comes up asking to update your antivirus, explain what that is. If your sound card goes out, take some time to explain that. Just get some of the basic concepts in his head and try to get him into somewhat normal software. Maybe teach him how to write a note to his mother in openoffice. Create a christmas card in a cardmaker program. Do things that'll make him think and be a bit creative. Otherwise you're just giving him a home arcade system.
Just my two cents, repeated about 500 times in various ways.
Of course over 350 bombs going off in Bangladesh doesn't even get a picture or a paragraph on the main page. It's relegated to the "World" section within hours of it happpening. Most people don't even know yet. Bangladesh is the third largest muslim country, and most of the leaflets said a lot of interesting things about americans, muslim soil, and some sort of death.
Then again, it's no computer virus, and it certainly doesn't directly affect americans the way one bomb going off in Israel or Iraq would...
A decline in the rate of downloads DOES account for a decline in use, considering people are getting new computers everyday with the default browser of IE. IE will have new users daily for as long as microsoft pimps it. My guess is that what this really means are a FEW people are going back to IE, it's summer and a lot of younger (more likely to use mozilla/firefox) people are out doing other things, and grandmas are still getting computers with IE on them.
Give it a few months when school is back in session, 1.5 comes out, etc. This is a small bump in the road, and likely will repeat itself a few times. I wouldn't be too surprised if it turns out this happens EVERY summer.
Where I live, here in Queensland, if you want to generate electricity at your home, all you need to do is buy some little box and get an electrician to connect your generator - solar, wind, hydro maybe - through the box into the grid through your meter.
Ahh, it's the same way in California, but there are a couple of problems. There is a limit imposed by whatever deal was brokered with the electrical companies. In other words, if I'm generating a slight ammount over what I'm using, they'll send me a check in the mail. But if I'm generating double or triple what I'm using, they will only send me a certain ammount (it's a ratio to the ammount of power I'm using, I believe.) There are all sorts of limits on it, and you're not allowed to install a system that generates 1000% of your current electrical needs. Basically. It'd take a lawyer to fully explain it, but the basic idea is that, if you're in a GREAT windmill area, put in a kickass windmill that's entirely legal, you'll end up generating a lot more power than you can actually use, and more than the electric company will pay you. They may even stop paying you because you built too good of a system.
The easy work-around would be to sell power directly to your neighbor and screw the power company out of the deal. Unfortunately there are plenty of regulations in place about who can and can not sell power:). But it's something I'd like to do someday. Or just include electricity in the rent for a few adjacent houses I build, and recoup the investment that way.
I think once it's profitable for developers to start building houses with windmills and solarpanels, particularly apartment buildings and rental properties, it'll be much more widespread. It just has to hit 10% or 20% of homes to make a huge difference.
But I think for me, for maximum in ease of control, stability, MPG (or KPL), and long term endurance, I'd be best with a horse.:) As much as I like what you're saying, I'm going to have to shoot you down on this point. Have you ever owned a horse?! Horses certainly consume more grass and water (per mile) than any car does in terms of MPG or KPL. And if you're looking at pollution, methane is one hell of a greenhouse gas. Horses tend to have some serious emissions problems, and unlike a car you can't turn them off when there are pretty ladies around that might not like your horse's emissions.
I ain't going to be riding that thing into a post if I do something stupid like ride drunk Sadly you can still be arrested for Driving Under the Influence in most jurisdictions. The same applies for bicycles. Trust me, I've tried everything possible to avoid getting home drunk without calling a taxi. It's all illegal:(.
Other than my individual problem, and my comments about the flaws in your horse idea, I agree with you completely.
Yeah, it should, but I don't make any promises about the batteries a lot of people like to connect to them:). Figured that was a safe number. I hope ours lasts longer.
You agree to comply with all treaties, laws, rules and regulations applicable to your use of the Site. You agree that while using the Site You will not:
... *harm minors in any way;
... *"stalk" or otherwise harass another person; *restrict or inhibit any other User from using and enjoying the Site...
Indemnity.
You agree to defend, indemnify and hold Blue Security, its directors, officers, employees, agents and affiliates harmless from any and all claims, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, in any way arising from or related to your use of the Site, your violation of the Terms..." (emphasis mine)
In other words, I'm not only not allowed to smack minors, have sex with minors, or in any other way harm them while simultaneously using the site. We're not allowed to "stalk" spammers. Oh, and we're not allowed to DDoS it by posting a link to it on slashdot, since that will restrict others' capabilities to access the site.
To top it all off, I agree to defend them should my use of the site result in any sort of legal actions? Am I reading this wrong? By signing up am I actually agreeing to DEFEND them, in court, or just agreeing to PAY for their defense? Or maybe testify on their behalf? I'm no lawyer, but these contracts scare the crap out of me.
where really_low_fraction is the number of idiots who fall for your scam.
Bayesian filtering doesn't address either costs or profits. It does not make sending spam more expensive, and it does not change the some_really_low_fraction, because the idiots who respond to spam wouldn't be using bayesian filtering anyway.
No, Bayesian filtering doesn't reduce the price, nor does it reduce the number of email addresses, but it DOES affect the ratio. Somebody setup that computer for them. If it comes with programs like mozilla because their nerdy kids built a computer for them, then that reduces that fraction. If they use webmail such as gmail (which I assume uses bayesian filtering?), then this fraction is further reduced by taking the email out of their "Inbox" and putting into the "Big Bad Spam Box". Filtering DOES do a hell of a lot to bring that ratio down. The problem is that, as filtering has improved, so has the bandwidth going into the average zombie's home.
I say if ISPs can't force users to secure their machines, then they can at least throttle them down to, say, 100kbps. It'll be slow enough that a user will notice and want their solution fixed, but at least it'll reduce the ammount of email their box can be used to send.
Other than that I agree with making spam cost more to send, harder to send, illegal to send, and non-profitable. Then again the "non-profits" can still send spam legally. Sigh.
What do you think long extension cords are for? Wait until your neighbor goes on vacation, run it into an obscure corner in their garage, and then make sure to hide it all really well. Sure the initial cost is high (burglary tools, extension cords, conduit) but I think you'll find that all of these are reusable or can be sold on ebay for a good price. It's also a great ROI over time.
Alternatively you can setup a nice windmill for cheap, or a good solar system, both of which can last about 30 years and pay for themselves in the first 5 or less. Especially if you're using it to power your car.
Actually, considering it costs more to buy a nice prius than it does to put in one hell of a solar system or windmill, I'd say you're doing more for the environment AND your pocketbook by putting in alternative energy at home. Maybe you can even sell some of it to your neighbor, too. Though that's probably just as illegal as my first suggestion, even though it'd be a Good Thing for all parties involved (minus the coal-burning power plant down the road).
Actually I was able to get a spammer to unsubscribe me. A spammer had purchased a list of emails from another spammer who told him that it was an opt-in list. This spammer was then setting up an operation to resell the list! I found my email address on a sample list on his website, that was bragging to the potential customers about how large the list was and that they could just give away a few hundred as a sample. So I emailed him, made sure to explain possible legal ramifications of his actions as well as that I had not opted in to his list, and he replied letting me know I was removed. He later shut the site down. He also forwarded my email to the spammer who sold him the list asking him to remove my name. Although that may not have worked, and I might still be on that list, he did at least remove me from the list which was visible on his website.
It was flamebait. It wasn't meant to be news or anything else, it was simply meant to start a huge discussion/whining session about why windows is better than linux, why linux is better than windows, why sysadmins are abused by their bosses, etc.
I've been saying that local time should be done away with for a long time. There is, however, the concept of relative daylight. People say 8 a.m. when they mean "morning", noon when they mean "middle of the day", 6 p.m. "when they mean "late afternoon", etc. The idea is to give some idea of how much daylight there is or is left.
We can still do this! I have a brilliant idea on this. Now instead of saying "it's 3 o'clock here" we can keep our existing time references (sunrise, sunset, noon, midnight, etc.). Only we can just say "Oh, yeah, it's 3 hours after noon here".
Oh, wait, nevermind. Back to the drawing board I guess.
Why is it that the air force solved this problem years ago but the rest of the world is still having such an issue of it? You can't abolish either! You need a universal time so that in complex situations (such as multiple aircraft from multiple timezones can meet up in the same location at the same time) everything will go smoothly without confusion. Then you need a local time to specify what time of day it really is somewhere. You need to explain to people in an easy way that "it's late at night so people will be asleep when we drop our bombs on this munitions factory". To do this it would just be said that "it's 0300L (local time... lima is easier to say in conversation, though), so everyone will be in bed." It's a lot easier. Just specify what timezone you're talking about or whether you're talking about universal/zulu/GMT/stardate/whatever.
A few easy examples:
"The plane will land at 1300L (lima/local)" "The plane will land at 2100Z (zulu/UTC/GMT)"
"It's GMT-8 here."
Of course daylight savings time screws with this. When I want to call friends in the states I not only have to calculate the timezone differences, but I have to take into account whether their state has daylight savings or not, I have to remember what days of the year daylight savings ends or begins, and then I have to remember to calculate that into whether I can call them or not.
For example, here in japan, we're in GMT+9. The west coast of america is in pacific time, or GMT-8. The time difference would be 17 hours if you just added 9 and 8 to determine that japan is 17 hours ahead. Of course that may not take GMT[+0] into account, nor will it take into account california moving in and out of its timezone during daylight savings.
I think the bottom line is that our system works great if we can get people to start specifying timezones or at least that they're referring to local or universal time. The problem comes when people start changing the time of day in one place but not in another, so everything gets all jacked up in relation to everything else. Why would the sun come up at 7:22AM here and 6:22AM in california on the same day? Shouldn't time zones help us avoid that confusion?
Slashdot Mirror
Original submission:
"Your company totally sucks ass!1 I installed your software and it totally broke my computer! I had to buy a new Dell because Joe Marie couldn't fix my computer for me after I installed your software."
submitted by Joe Bob, 30 AUG 2005
Edited, translated, modified, publicly displayed version:
"Your company saved my computer! I was having a ton of problems with my computer, but then I installed your software, and I was so excited about it I went out and got a new computer so I could better utilize your software! Thank you so much, MacroMedia, you truly are a blessing."
Testimonial by Joe Bob, 30 AUG 2005
Ahhh, but this IS the scientific method. You see what happens is, if the masses find out about scientific research that they disagree with, they skip the peer review step. It goes straight to the court of public opinion. At that point in time, all of the rules change. This allows the public to protect itself from evil (and heathenistic!!!) scientists. Once scientists agree on something it's really, really hard to get people to believe otherwise.
This is just another method of stopping the crap EARLY before it gets out of hand.
Mad props to everyone who is putting those damned scientists in their place.
Sounds pretty interesting, I'll have to check that out.
Though it was meant to be a joke [phishing] for classified or indicators,..
First of all you'll need a server equipped with tiny C4 charges embedded in each of the hard drives. This is a handy way of deleting data on your hard drives very quickly. I hear HP can furnish these.
:). And I don't think we need any classified getting leaked these days.
We already have this at my work. We're working on getting louder explosives, though.
Second, you will need to hire a troupe of security guards to watch over the computer. Equip them with an M16's, and have them work in shifts, escorting users to and from the computers. If you can't afford a humans, several dozen trained monkeys will do the job. Just make sure and keep at least three extra monkeys on hand so you can replace the dead ones. You'll need at least two monkey handlers if you go the monkey route - one to watch over the monkeys and one to fill in when the first one gets shot.
We already have this at my work, too! The only difference is we call our troupe the Army, and they're Privates, not monkies. We thought that we could get a monkey to work as a monkey handler, and we called it a Lieutenant, but that didn't work as well as we thought. Within a day of them taking over, the privates were no longer allowed to work security. They were too busy taking care of the lieutenants, running, jumping, swimming, working out, and grunting at eachother. Damned monkies!
For a bit of extra security, you can purchase an used electric chair from one of the states that have switched to lethal injection and use it as the chair for the workstation. One armed guard can stand holding the red button, ready to fry to operator in case (s)he mishandles any data, or looks at the guards funny, while another guard stands ready to kill the other in case they refuse to press the red button.
We tried that, but it doesn't work well. What you do instead is LET someone make a small security "mistake". Then, you take away the coffee. Not just from them, but from the entire office! This is where the genius comes in. It will be ugly for a while, but everyone will learn quite a lesson.
Or if you want to save money you could just install the super secure Gentoo Linux operating system and set it to update itself via emerge automatically every hour.
I'm not confident that having a classified system connected to the internet is the brightest thing, even if you think Gentoo is secure enough to handle it. Now, if you want to put your entire life's savings into a bank account for me, then provide me with the account number, pins, etc. on a text file on your machine... Well, I'm sure somebody would find a hole
All that being said, I'm serious about the coffee thing.
This coming from a 1337 cyberspook!?! You're just looking for more information against us, aren't you? AREN'T YOU!?
No, no, I think 75% of the "SHHHH DON'T SAY THAT" replies were people not understanding what can and can't be discussed publicly, but I've noticed a lot of replies saying things like "Well, I'm in this agency or this branch of service, I work on this ship or this base, and this is the security procedure we have in place. Oh, and this is the type of network, PCs, physical security, etc. that we use." Now that's starting to get dangerous, since you can easily compile a large list from all of the comments...
Other than that, I'd say your advice is even more spot-on than Jinx's. And that goes for any sort of government requirements. In manufacturing for govt projects we spent more time certifying our product, inspecting it, etc., than we actually did make it. Then, when you're dealing with stuff like this, yeah, policies and procedures, training, WRITTEN PROOF of all of the above, etc. is going to be a major pain in the ass.
Better seek out some serious help, and I'd say probably best off finding someone who works in this field to help.
What kind of work do they do aboard the Kitty Hawk that requires a classified network? Sounds pretty cool.
Great, one more douchebag who feels the need to post a ton of self-glorification on his website (at a domain which is a weak attempt at a facade of humility), including a full resume (complete with home address, phone numbers, and employment history), list of all the lame organizations he's a member of... the list goes on and on.
Now, getting to your slashdot post, you're wrong in every paragraph! Steven Hawking is hardly the one who developed those theories. He's just the best modern person at explaining them to the masses. I hate to inform you, but we already have a lot of dead virgins and a lot of future grandfathers on this planet. I personally know (or knew) quite a few of them.
The "nukular" comment has already been shot down in other posts, but you're just searching for a reason to lash out about Bush. You're so upset over it that you can't even discuss a scientific topic (which is about as far as you can get from politics) without bringing it up in an unrelated way. Not to mention that he's not the first person to sound like an idiot saying it this way.
laypersons out there who just go, "Yup, that's an 'oops', they said it was a law and now it ain't. I guess evolution might not really be true, dad-gummit, I don't trust me none o' dem smarty pants anyway.
Ahhhh. Now your real beliefs are starting to get out. Even though according to your website you're a Unitarian Universalist, North Shore Unitarian, and a Methodist, you appear to have a problem with religious idiots who don't believe in evolution. Perhaps you should start with your own church instead of letting your elitism shine? Not every person who disagrees with you is an idiot who walks around like a stereotypical hick, spitting chewing tobacco out of his mouth, yelling "dag-gummit" and complaining about "smarty pants".
Basically your post deserved a score of "-1, Troll" at best. You're wrong on every count, not very insightful, and are obviously just way too angry at people you don't believe are as smart as you.
You, lame sir, are a douche. You have the face of one, you're clearly rather bitter about the last election, and have an obvious superiority complex.
I considered posting anonymously to save some karma, but I can always be like you and just go around making anti-bush comments for some additional points if I want.
Wow, nice job ripping your customers off! This is yet another reason why I have never trusted a "web dev" to tell me where to host my sites. $29.95 setup fee and $15.00/month for 25MB of space and 5GB transfer/month?! That's not even competitive with my old crappy dialup ISP's plan! And the last time I used them was.... 1998.
Let me give you an example of some other hosting companies' offerings. For $9.95/month dreamhost offers 2400MB of space, 120GB transfer/month, unlimited mysql, and a boatload of features your isoc site doesn't.
Powweb only offers one package. I've used them for the last 5 years, and the price hasn't changed, simply the package. Currently it is 5,000MB of space, 10GB/DAY of transfer (about 300GB/month), 650 mail boxes (unlimited aliases), and a ton of features that blow a lot of providers out of the water. All I really want is shell access, but it's no big deal because this is for a corporate site, not for me to have my own slash code sitting online somewhere.
Why refer your customers to a web hosting company if you don't even know of any review sites? That seems pretty ridiculous to me. Why don't you just tell them that you don't have any clue about it.
First off, this Pro-War/Pro-Peace/Anti-War thing is bullshit. So fuck you all on THAT count. That's SO unfair. It's like the "Well, are you PRO-LIFE or do you like to MURDER BABIES?" I mean if you word it THAT way, nobody is going to say they're pro-war. So find some better terminology. How about "Pro-proactive defense or against liberal treehugging?" It's the same question, really, only this time it doesn't paint your side in a significantly more positive light than the other. Words aside, let's get down to what you actually were trying to say.
..." but what you're realling saying is "I'm posting without any facts to back me up".
So, when you want to talk about the people who were for the war (and getting pissy about Canadians), you can't really use the term "Americans" because MOST Americans agreed with you Canadians about the whole thing.
You're right, because Bush lost the popular vote. Now, maybe what you meant to say is "most of my friends agreed with you Canadians about the whole thing", or perhaps "Most americans whose opinions I repsect
Now, although I have the feeling you have no clue what you're talking about, I'll try to bring this back into a somewhat educational debate. George Bush received 62,040,610 votes and 286 electoral votes. Kerry received 59,028,111 votes and 251 electoral votes. In other words, Bush had 216,925 people vote for him for every electoral vote he received. Kerry had 235,171 people vote for him for every electoral vote received. I'm dropping the decimal on these because the difference is large enough. So in that regard, yes, Bush had an advantage in electoral votes over Kerry. Bush received more electoral votes PER CAPITA than Kerry did. Bush still won the popular vote as well as the electoral vote.
Now quit being a douche and bending facts just to make you feel better about yourself, or make you feel better about the american populace. It's almost as annoying as the "Bush stole 2000!" campaign you dems were putting on.
You guys drive me insane. Both parties lie, distort figures, and exploit the stupidity of the average citizen. Me? I can't stand either party. I have every intention of obliterating both parties when I become King.
(aside from the old man in the article getting the shaft, that is, which is kind of alarming and makes me appreciate New York a bit more).
Yeah, because nobody EVER gets the shaft in New York. Everyone is treated with respect in New York, and it has nothing to do with how much money you make or how powerful you are.
Your argument seems well-informed and logical, but let me show you your fallacy.
What you're failing to grasp is the "blame canada" concept. You see, as Americans, we are perfect. You, however, are canadian.
Do you understand now?
You seem rather intelligent, and I generally agree with you. This case I just feel is a rather different story. Temperatures above 180 degrees... may as well be molten lava. If it touches you, you're screwed.
:(. I've never done the coffee thing, but I've most certainly spilled other drinks on myself. If I drank more coffee simple probabilities would say that I should've had a coffee burn right now. If I drank McDs coffee daily, I would've had a McDs coffee burn by now.
I'm also rather biased because I don't have a cup holder in my vehicle
A mistake on her part, sure. The jury even said it was about 20% her fault. It wouldn't have happened if she didn't spill the coffee. But it wouldn't have been nearly as bad if she had gotten coffee from ANY other restaurant in the area, or from the standard home coffee-brewing machines.
I know they're overused on slashdot, but let me make a little analogy. This is like making a car that is known to be significantly more dangerous. So much so that a 20kph accident can result in serious injury or even death to the occupants. You then stick a warning label on the car saying "This car is dangerous", and sell it. Somebody comes along, says "yeah, all cars are dangerous. More legal mumbo-jumbo", and proceeds to get in a 20kph accident. She is then disfigured for life because the car was designed to perform this way. Her fault entirely? The accident, yes. The results, no.
This is coming from a non-lawyer who really hates lawyers, and thinks the american legal system needs a lot of reform, but I do believe that in safety situations any manufacturer has a responsibility to the general population to attempt to make things somewhat safe whenever possible. This is way things such as occupant restraint devices have become requirements in vehicles. If a person chooses not to wear it, fine, but don't set people up for this kind of failure.
I've had 3rd degree burns before, and they are more than just a little injury. Maybe I'd understand if I could taste the difference between scorching hot coffee and really really hot coffee.
One little aside:
If you deliberately and knowingly put yourself at risk of injury, you only have yourself to blame.
Try telling that to someone who does risk analysis for a living. I assure you you put yourself at risk for injury simply by typing this article.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, though I at least see your viewpoint on it and it seems intelligent. I just get annoyed by people using it as an example of a frivilous lawsuit, because it really isn't. There are plenty of examples of real ones, this is just more famous and sounds even worse when you summarize it as "some woman spilled hot coffee on herself then sued McDonalds!"
The jurors thought the same thing, and one even remarked "I can't believe I'm here to settle a coffee spill.". They changed their minds very quickly once the evidence came out. Most people do.
Although I agree with your entire idea, you are very much wrong about the McDonalds "hot coffee" lawsuit.
I'll quote one of the articles about this. I'll try to sum it up so the lazy don't have to read the article, but I highly encourage doing some research.
Some observers wonder why McDonald's, after years of settling coffee-burn cases, chose to take this one to trial. After all, the plaintiff was a sympathetic figure - an articulate, 81-year-old former department store clerk who said under oath that she had never filed suit before. In fact, she said, she never would have filed this one if McDonald's hadn't dismissed her requests for compensation for pain and medical bills with an offer of $800.
This wasn't your typical frivilous suit. McDonalds refused to compensate her for 7 days in the hospital, third degree burns, and skin grafts. They refused to settle for her medical bills. So she decided to take a case to court. For the first time ever.
When the panel reached the jury room, it swiftly arrived at the conclusion that McDonald's was liable. "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company," says Ms. Farnham. "They were not taking care of their consumers."
Then the six men and six women decided on compensatory damages of $200,000, which they reduced to $160,000 after determining that 20% of the fault belonged with Mrs. Liebeck for spilling the coffee.
The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages. Mr. Morgan had suggested penalizing McDonald's the equivalent of one to two days of companywide coffee sales, which he estimated at $1.35 million a day. During the four-hour deliberation, a few jurors unsuccessfully argued for as much as $9.6 million in punitive damages. But in the end, the jury settled on $2.7 million.
POSTSCRIPT - Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. This reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal system. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective feature.
McDonalds had filed over 700 settlements relating to coffee burns in the years prior to this 1994 suit. They served their coffee over 20 degrees hotter than other restaurants. The difference between 180 degrees F and 160 degrees F is rather large. We're talking about whether you'll get a third degree burn in 2 seconds or whether it'll take 20 seconds. Consider how quickly you can react, and how quickly the coffee can cool off, you're fairly likely to stave off severe third degree burns with the slightly cooler coffee. McDonalds said they did this on the advice of their coffee experts, but it seems more likely that they merely wanted to keep the same crappy coffee good longer.
I can't find all my links, but if memory serves right they had already been warned by governmental agencies, burn centers, and lawsuits from previous incidents. McDonald's executive Mr. Appleton even testified that they knew the coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but had never consulted a burn specialist nor did they have any plans to decrease the temperature of the coffee in the future.
Basically, McDonalds was serving their coffee much hotter than the safe temperatures to serve coffee at. Third degree burns like this are extremely painful, require hospitalization, skin grafts, and lead to permanent disfigurement and sometimes disability. Add to that the percentage of these burns being to the groin and buttocks, and I'm sure you'll see why
I don't know what you're thinking. These guys want you to teach him to become a code monkey. You're better off teaching him chinese so he can easily submit to our new chinese overlords.
Seriously, though, most americans don't encourage their kids to learn anything other than english until they're what? 14? 16? At that point it's a lot harder for a kid to learn their first language. Get them started now, teach them some of the basics, maybe get him a nanny or babysitter that speaks another language, and get her to talk to him in that. Let him try to repeat some of the sounds and learn some basics.
Now, getting back on topic, I learned DOS from my dad when I was a little kid. I learned to type at the same time as I was learning to write, and I still thank him for that. He gave me tutorial programs on 5 1/4" diskette, and encouraged me how to use commands to FIND things I was looking for (like dir/p/s). Then he got me into things like QBASIC and editing the settings for the menuing program he used. That gave me all the foundations for my future, so whenever I wanted to learn a new language all I had to learn was the grammar and vocabulary. This is where it ties into foreign languages, because it's really the same thing. You learn how to learn new languages from learning them. Learning your first [second] language is the hardest because you've never really done it before. It just gets easier after that as long as you don't start confusing the two systems. Get him into REALLY basic stuff like changing settings for programs, give him an idea of the foundation of the GUI he's working on. Introduce him to some real basic command line stuff. Teach him basic logic and troubleshooting skills, and try to do it that he finds interesting.
IMO, the main mistake people make with their kids is thinking they're stupid because they don't have a lot of knowledge. Kids can be incredibly smart if you stop telling them things are magic and just explain them. When you're loading drivers on, explain it in a simple way. When a window comes up asking to update your antivirus, explain what that is. If your sound card goes out, take some time to explain that. Just get some of the basic concepts in his head and try to get him into somewhat normal software. Maybe teach him how to write a note to his mother in openoffice. Create a christmas card in a cardmaker program. Do things that'll make him think and be a bit creative. Otherwise you're just giving him a home arcade system.
Just my two cents, repeated about 500 times in various ways.
Of course over 350 bombs going off in Bangladesh doesn't even get a picture or a paragraph on the main page. It's relegated to the "World" section within hours of it happpening. Most people don't even know yet. Bangladesh is the third largest muslim country, and most of the leaflets said a lot of interesting things about americans, muslim soil, and some sort of death.
Then again, it's no computer virus, and it certainly doesn't directly affect americans the way one bomb going off in Israel or Iraq would...
A decline in the rate of downloads DOES account for a decline in use, considering people are getting new computers everyday with the default browser of IE. IE will have new users daily for as long as microsoft pimps it. My guess is that what this really means are a FEW people are going back to IE, it's summer and a lot of younger (more likely to use mozilla/firefox) people are out doing other things, and grandmas are still getting computers with IE on them.
Give it a few months when school is back in session, 1.5 comes out, etc. This is a small bump in the road, and likely will repeat itself a few times. I wouldn't be too surprised if it turns out this happens EVERY summer.
Where I live, here in Queensland, if you want to generate electricity at your home, all you need to do is buy some little box and get an electrician to connect your generator - solar, wind, hydro maybe - through the box into the grid through your meter.
:). But it's something I'd like to do someday. Or just include electricity in the rent for a few adjacent houses I build, and recoup the investment that way.
:)
:(.
Ahh, it's the same way in California, but there are a couple of problems. There is a limit imposed by whatever deal was brokered with the electrical companies. In other words, if I'm generating a slight ammount over what I'm using, they'll send me a check in the mail. But if I'm generating double or triple what I'm using, they will only send me a certain ammount (it's a ratio to the ammount of power I'm using, I believe.) There are all sorts of limits on it, and you're not allowed to install a system that generates 1000% of your current electrical needs. Basically. It'd take a lawyer to fully explain it, but the basic idea is that, if you're in a GREAT windmill area, put in a kickass windmill that's entirely legal, you'll end up generating a lot more power than you can actually use, and more than the electric company will pay you. They may even stop paying you because you built too good of a system.
The easy work-around would be to sell power directly to your neighbor and screw the power company out of the deal. Unfortunately there are plenty of regulations in place about who can and can not sell power
I think once it's profitable for developers to start building houses with windmills and solarpanels, particularly apartment buildings and rental properties, it'll be much more widespread. It just has to hit 10% or 20% of homes to make a huge difference.
But I think for me, for maximum in ease of control, stability, MPG (or KPL), and long term endurance, I'd be best with a horse.
As much as I like what you're saying, I'm going to have to shoot you down on this point. Have you ever owned a horse?! Horses certainly consume more grass and water (per mile) than any car does in terms of MPG or KPL. And if you're looking at pollution, methane is one hell of a greenhouse gas. Horses tend to have some serious emissions problems, and unlike a car you can't turn them off when there are pretty ladies around that might not like your horse's emissions.
I ain't going to be riding that thing into a post if I do something stupid like ride drunk
Sadly you can still be arrested for Driving Under the Influence in most jurisdictions. The same applies for bicycles. Trust me, I've tried everything possible to avoid getting home drunk without calling a taxi. It's all illegal
Other than my individual problem, and my comments about the flaws in your horse idea, I agree with you completely.
Yeah, it should, but I don't make any promises about the batteries a lot of people like to connect to them :). Figured that was a safe number. I hope ours lasts longer.
You agree to comply with all treaties, laws, rules and regulations applicable to your use of the Site. You agree that while using the Site You will not:
*harm minors in any way;
*"stalk" or otherwise harass another person;
*restrict or inhibit any other User from using and enjoying the Site
Indemnity.
You agree to defend, indemnify and hold Blue Security, its directors, officers, employees, agents and affiliates harmless from any and all claims, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, in any way arising from or related to your use of the Site, your violation of the Terms..."
(emphasis mine)
In other words, I'm not only not allowed to smack minors, have sex with minors, or in any other way harm them while simultaneously using the site. We're not allowed to "stalk" spammers. Oh, and we're not allowed to DDoS it by posting a link to it on slashdot, since that will restrict others' capabilities to access the site.
To top it all off, I agree to defend them should my use of the site result in any sort of legal actions? Am I reading this wrong? By signing up am I actually agreeing to DEFEND them, in court, or just agreeing to PAY for their defense? Or maybe testify on their behalf? I'm no lawyer, but these contracts scare the crap out of me.
No, Bayesian filtering doesn't reduce the price, nor does it reduce the number of email addresses, but it DOES affect the ratio. Somebody setup that computer for them. If it comes with programs like mozilla because their nerdy kids built a computer for them, then that reduces that fraction. If they use webmail such as gmail (which I assume uses bayesian filtering?), then this fraction is further reduced by taking the email out of their "Inbox" and putting into the "Big Bad Spam Box". Filtering DOES do a hell of a lot to bring that ratio down. The problem is that, as filtering has improved, so has the bandwidth going into the average zombie's home.
I say if ISPs can't force users to secure their machines, then they can at least throttle them down to, say, 100kbps. It'll be slow enough that a user will notice and want their solution fixed, but at least it'll reduce the ammount of email their box can be used to send.
Other than that I agree with making spam cost more to send, harder to send, illegal to send, and non-profitable. Then again the "non-profits" can still send spam legally. Sigh.
What do you think long extension cords are for? Wait until your neighbor goes on vacation, run it into an obscure corner in their garage, and then make sure to hide it all really well. Sure the initial cost is high (burglary tools, extension cords, conduit) but I think you'll find that all of these are reusable or can be sold on ebay for a good price. It's also a great ROI over time.
Alternatively you can setup a nice windmill for cheap, or a good solar system, both of which can last about 30 years and pay for themselves in the first 5 or less. Especially if you're using it to power your car.
Actually, considering it costs more to buy a nice prius than it does to put in one hell of a solar system or windmill, I'd say you're doing more for the environment AND your pocketbook by putting in alternative energy at home. Maybe you can even sell some of it to your neighbor, too. Though that's probably just as illegal as my first suggestion, even though it'd be a Good Thing for all parties involved (minus the coal-burning power plant down the road).
I wouldn't even include Germany in the list of countries that use J as in Jeff. Their "j" sounds a lot more like "y" as in "young".
Actually I was able to get a spammer to unsubscribe me. A spammer had purchased a list of emails from another spammer who told him that it was an opt-in list. This spammer was then setting up an operation to resell the list! I found my email address on a sample list on his website, that was bragging to the potential customers about how large the list was and that they could just give away a few hundred as a sample. So I emailed him, made sure to explain possible legal ramifications of his actions as well as that I had not opted in to his list, and he replied letting me know I was removed. He later shut the site down. He also forwarded my email to the spammer who sold him the list asking him to remove my name. Although that may not have worked, and I might still be on that list, he did at least remove me from the list which was visible on his website.
You missed the point of the article.
It was flamebait. It wasn't meant to be news or anything else, it was simply meant to start a huge discussion/whining session about why windows is better than linux, why linux is better than windows, why sysadmins are abused by their bosses, etc.
Oh, I get it, you actually READ the article...
We can still do this! I have a brilliant idea on this. Now instead of saying "it's 3 o'clock here" we can keep our existing time references (sunrise, sunset, noon, midnight, etc.). Only we can just say "Oh, yeah, it's 3 hours after noon here".
Oh, wait, nevermind. Back to the drawing board I guess.
Why is it that the air force solved this problem years ago but the rest of the world is still having such an issue of it? You can't abolish either! You need a universal time so that in complex situations (such as multiple aircraft from multiple timezones can meet up in the same location at the same time) everything will go smoothly without confusion. Then you need a local time to specify what time of day it really is somewhere. You need to explain to people in an easy way that "it's late at night so people will be asleep when we drop our bombs on this munitions factory". To do this it would just be said that "it's 0300L (local time... lima is easier to say in conversation, though), so everyone will be in bed." It's a lot easier. Just specify what timezone you're talking about or whether you're talking about universal/zulu/GMT/stardate/whatever.
A few easy examples:
"The plane will land at 1300L (lima/local)"
"The plane will land at 2100Z (zulu/UTC/GMT)"
"It's GMT-8 here."
Of course daylight savings time screws with this. When I want to call friends in the states I not only have to calculate the timezone differences, but I have to take into account whether their state has daylight savings or not, I have to remember what days of the year daylight savings ends or begins, and then I have to remember to calculate that into whether I can call them or not.
For example, here in japan, we're in GMT+9. The west coast of america is in pacific time, or GMT-8. The time difference would be 17 hours if you just added 9 and 8 to determine that japan is 17 hours ahead. Of course that may not take GMT[+0] into account, nor will it take into account california moving in and out of its timezone during daylight savings.
I think the bottom line is that our system works great if we can get people to start specifying timezones or at least that they're referring to local or universal time. The problem comes when people start changing the time of day in one place but not in another, so everything gets all jacked up in relation to everything else. Why would the sun come up at 7:22AM here and 6:22AM in california on the same day? Shouldn't time zones help us avoid that confusion?