Just send some niggers. Their DNA was long ago denatured so they'll be fine. If not, who cares? Niggers breed even faster than they kill each other, which is astounding in and of itself. So there are plenty more where those came from. Though there are no governments to pay for the replacement niglets with welfare, I'll grant you that, so Mars may well turn out to be a hostile environment for niggers. But once again, who cares? You can spin it as a great Equal Opportunity that such a pioneering mission would be given to an all-nigger crew and the libtards will celebrate it, which is convenient. Funny how only white nations need diversity, even though white people are a small minority worldwide.
where do i go to waste my money on this dopey scheme
Winner of the 2016 Broken Logic Award! and runner up for Moron of the Century.
You'd have to leave the trailer - and your chain isn't long enough (it is for your protection too).
Save your nickel, even if it were disinfected no one wants it. That other stuff is monopoly money - and it can't be disinfected.
It isn't a "dopey scheme" i.e. it'll likely work, produce tangible side-benefits, and the passenger list will be quickly filled by people real money. It's understood that you are compelled to label anything that doesn't involve Spiderman, or zombie women who not run away from you, stoopid.
You can go back to cursing Discovery Channel, mailing your packets of man-love to Donnie Dumbf, cheering Fox News, and praying for opposing thumbs now.
Unless the zero day flaw was put there intentionally, as back doors are put there intentionally, a zero day flaw is not a back door, it's just some incompetent who should be employed asking me "Do you want fries with that?", rather than employed writing security sensitive software. In other words: your average bad programmer.
Agreed about a 0-day flaw not necessarily being a "back-door".
You're incorrect about flawed software necessarily being the output of a bad programmer. Even the best programmers make mistakes - it's not just the nature of software, it's the nature of security - "absolutely secure systems do not exist" (Shamir's First Law). Except may death - and even then it's not certain.
Programming languages, development procedures, code auditing, and system architecture keep developing towards inherently better security. But it won't change some fundamental restrictions epitomised by Shamir's Second Law.
"To halve your vulnerability, you have to double your expenditure" Increasing security is a case of diminishing returns. The mythically perfect integrity shell probably won't solve the problem either (Shamir's Third Law "Cryptography is typically bypassed, not penetrated").
That doesn't mean it's "game over" - it does mean that some things should never be trusted to computers because of their value. It also means that not everything can be trusted to the same computer - which is just too inconvenient (apparently).
"People" will say - but [insert OS or package here] has never been exploited. Maybe... but it's a big maybe, and very much dependant on a given point in time. It's very hard to prove it - as a mathematical proven fact. At best it's just an until-now-not-disproven fact. There's a difference.
tl;dr it's a false and dangerous assumption to propose that all flawed software is the result of bad programmers. As a technology software development is somewhere around the same stage as the first cars in relative terms (Dig me up when the car is mathematically proven secure. Good luck with that - you may find the worms have beaten you to it).
When it comes to the relative security of different OS incidence of deployment is not necessarily a good indicator. I'd propose that level of access to the OS, level of awareness and education of the operator, and relative value of exploiting the system are the main factors. i.e. Windows is not the most deployed platform - it is as a "desktop", and the average level of awareness and education of the operator is low relative to other "desktops" - and it's accessibility is low (anyone can get hold of it, a lot of people can explore it). The hypothesis seems valid as it has a relatively high number of known exploits in it's history (3 years after release the fixes take up more space than the original install) - most of them of low risk . Apply the same criteria to "Linux", allow for it's diversity, and the fact that until recently the average operator had a relatively higher level of awareness and education - then factor in the relative value of it as a target (higher) and the hypothesis also seems valid. i.e. higher skills and resources were pitted against it which meant, less exploits found (in the core system), the majority of known exploits quickly found were low risk - the higher risk ones were harder (took longer to be reported) to find. It's just a hypothesis - and not particularly well stated, I've simplified things but I have tried to take into account factors like predictability of the core system (Windows core system is more predictable than Linux), and reporting/detecting exploits of flaws. Financial trading systems are less likely to report exploits than browsers used for banking, but I suspect greater skill and resources would be focused in a smaller amount of projects aimed at finding flaws to exploit in share tradi
You missed the point. Open source acolytes pray at the feet of "free software" and don't recognize there is no "free labor" to review those scared lines of code. You see both closed source and open source people are putting their faith in something. Are the FSF lovers going to review all those lines? If not then you are hypocrites
I miss the point? And you aren't painting with a broad brush (Open source acolytes pray at the feet of "free software" ) ?!. There's term for that - confirmation bias. No surprise you don't get irony, sarcasm or satire - or "weighted decision matrix".
"You see both closed source and open source people are putting their faith in something.". I do? O'reilly? You seem to put a lot of faith in something... like the belief your "psychic powers" aren't "psychotic delusions". Thanks for your insights. They say nothing of me, and speak volumes of you. I'll go with facts instead of buying into your crystal gazing powers.
That word, hypocrite, it doesn't mean what you "thunk" it means. You've made a compelling case that you are one, with a series of assumptions you can't possibly prove about me without psychic powers (so much for fact based decisions). And then you rant about "faith". The Timber industry wants in on your eyes.
tl;dr on a scale 1 to 10 for critical thinking you score a -5. HONK HONK - you've won a Special Snowflake tour on the Mobro 4000.
Going long on whoever the hell makes aluminum foil...
Pro Tip: tin. You want tin foil. Too late, you've gone and blown your college fund on aluminum. We told you not to drink the fluoridated water. (and people pay to put fluoride in water?)
Yes. The FSF and reviewing millions of line of source code will save your mortal souls. How about that Hearbleed vulnerability?
Insightful! I don't need no steenkin' weighted decision matrix - I'm going back to Windows ('cause it's got less code, and more eyes - and the ads are cool).
No it isn't... it's one of the oldest and simplest protocols around you freetard. And the fact that BIND still has exploitable bugs on a protocol that is decades old shows how terrible freetard are at programming.
*cough* That coward was being ironic. Whether it was intentional or not is beside the point. It was nice satire too.
You'd think the version number might be a clue. Oh wait... this is/. The entrance requirement is an internet connection and a keyboard.
Instituting one of those simple math question robot checks would double the signal:noise ratio - and reduce the advertising revenue by 70% (I'm allowing for the adblock users).
As another poster has already pointed out - that's incorrect.
But interesting anyway. Maybe Open SUSE is just a little slow because of a trickle-down from SUSE? Regardless of the reason you might consider subscribing to the opensuse-security-announce mailing list.
. At least you don't have to wait until Patch Tuesday.
Everyone knows automobiles were endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights to have everyone get out of the fucking way.
Yeah right on bro! If god wanted bicycles he'd have passed road laws that said cyclist have the same rights on the road as cars, and cars have to give way to any one crossing the road (even if they're doing so illegally). Bigger cars are the answer.
You know the liberals used to make us drive behind dickheads with flags... till we run them down. No holding back progress.
Patched updates rolled out long before/. reported it (shock, horror). If Debian is any guide most distros have already done the same and anyone running unattended-updates for security patches has been updated for several days (25th).
Agreed - because it'd be damn hard to go through the world's libraries cutting those articles out of the newpaper archives. Of course that still leaves the copies lining budgie cages, and wrapping chips - but maybe we could force people to read the subsequent retractions. After international law is passed forcing retractions to be published.
Totally different subject - but how come these laws don't seem to be forced on other search engines? Because this legislation does cover all search engines (though strangely it forgets Fffacebook - they have their own search engine so I suppose they've been served as well, right?)
My guess has nothing to do with the facts of building 7. I was simply speculating as to why they would bring building 7 down in a controlled demolition when it never got hit by a plane (which is the official sorry by the way... It's only the "why" that's under debate). Exactly three planes were hijaked, only two made it to the target, and yet, all three buildings went down in a similar fashion. I definitely don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist, in fact I'm quite a skeptic usually. The problem is that the official story isn't logically consistent with reality, which is bothersome to me. I always feel unease with things don't add up. If buying into the official story helps you sleep at night, then more power to ya!
Speculate away. While you're at it calculate the number of charges required, how long that would take, and how difficult that would be - unless all those security guards and explosive sniffing dogs that normally patrolled were part of the plot too.
Don't forget to count all the engineers and architects in the USA when you estimate the significance of the number (who never visted the sites) who claim it couldn't have collapsed because of heat weaking the high tensile steel in the support beams.
Car manufacturers can't build shit without having to do recalls - but a conspiracy that large, and complicated goes off without a hitch. Then looks at those troofer "video proofs" again. Take the White House for example - compare the "evidence of conspiracy" with the press photos - notice how the troofers only show you selective images?
It never pays to not test what you believe. It only takes one minute to check - how hard is that?
Didn't the aboriginal population of Tasmania get wiped out?
Only in the same sense that mainland aboriginals (and probably the first wave of settlers) got wiped out. The gene pool was mixed. Truganini was not the last Tasmanian aborigine. Just last "full blood", according to the methodology of the time (and terra nullius), and current politics. e.g. it's only been recently that the Dutch were credited as the first to map Tasmania, but there is evidence that Arabs had mapped it far earlier, and the Chinese, who definitely had the technology to visit. Somewhere I had/have a reference to archaeologists finding support for a French claim that shipwreck survivors had survived on the West coast before the British created the first settlement (stone garden walls, allegedly), but the government refused to stop land clearing for housing development - so "pure blood" is hard to prove without DNA studies (which is why I asked if anyone knew of any.
And given that the Tasmanian government were perfectly happy to destroy what was possibly the world's oldest graveyard in order to build a road bridge, evidence is pretty lacking...
Sortof. The Tasmanian government is pretty determined to avoid recognising anything that might stop relentless development, or lead to a Land Rights claim.
You're saying that connecting to a WiFi setup that has a default password, that is not on by default, which is not actually marketed as a "sniper" rifle (and all of the military connotations that go with it), to change a setting that will do nothing but adjust a calibration that may cause a hunter to miss slightly, is "hacking"? Oh, forgive me, oh mighty so-and-so...!
No - that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying I read the referenced article. Clearly you didn't or you wouldn't be talking such wank. Try reading what they actually did - hint they didn't make use of existing capabilities - they found a flaw and exploited it to achieve a desired outcome by an unconventional method. The "person" I was responding to (you?) probably believes putting a fork in a power socket is a hack.
And no, you're not forgiven for being an arseclown. You can go back to moderating down anything that contradicts your misguided belief that you're clever - good luck with that.
I don't see why accidentally ending up in America because transport messed up should be funny. First day's flight was delayed by about 19 hours by snow. Next airport I missed my connection (unsurprisingly) and the office booked me to continue home through America. Had to book one of those ESTER things online in the half-hour between getting the flight details and having to get through the passport control (did the airport have wired network sockets? did they fuck - had to work out how to set up wifi on the laptop!), then got the third degree from the woman on the passports because I was travelling with my work gear and she thought I was an illegal immigrant or something. Totally stupid. Almost caused me another day sweating into the same clothes.
Very un-funny experience.
It's funny in the same way as someone telling you they went to restaurant last night and noticed the fork was dirty. i.e. it's not the experience that's funny as much as the scenarios hearing of the experience brings to mind.
Q.Have you ever been to the USA?
A.Yeah - once. Accidentally. (which is pretty funny in itself if delivered just right, and if the tone goes over the head of the person asking the question).
Q.How did you find it?
A. (so many possible variations) [perplexed, indignant] I didn't find it, it was an accident! What the fuck is wrong with you?
A. [sarcastic - when you're stuck in a terminal all airports are the same, hell on earth] Oh - it was great! (images of people trying to sleep on seats designed to prevent just that, jammed next to overweight missionaries from Bumfuck Kansas who won't shut up, children fighting in the aisles, unable to find a power point that matches any of the adaptors for your laptop, living on overpriced cardboard sandwiches, while loud Hari Khrisnas dance around you, shivering in O'Hare, wearing the only clothing that didn't get rerouted to Hong Kong - a Manchester United jumper and ridiculous hat with Viking horns you paid over the odds for out of desperation in the souvenir shop) I especially liked Disney Land (images of a mob of angry stranded passengers surrounding the inquiries desk where the clerks compete to see who can start a riot first) I got my picture taken with Goofy (image of the aftermath of a punch up with the chief desk-clerk where a picture of the angry stranded passenger is captured mid-punch, makes the headlines of the New York Times under the headlines "UK football hooligan deported after airport riot").
Not funny to you. But I laughed (which is what counts, right?).
before "assuming" fuck no - they're probably from the USA.
Normally a safe assumption on here. Not true in this case though. Been to America twice - once for a fortnight holiday, and once accidentally because of travel problems. Might go back, if someone pays my fees.
Accidentally! For some reason that strikes me as hilarious. I spent part of my youth there - and have to travel there for about a month every year. It's a great place, lots of great people - the latter are sadly under-represented on/.
Here's a classic - can you follow his train of thought?
. Someone (several people) marked my posts earlier in the thread as troll, while anonymous got busy, then most of those troll points got removed and he and others popped up - I can understand that, just not what the fuck he's on about. Maybe "he" is just beta software - seriously, is that a bot?
It's like Mattel has come out with "Mr PotatoHead Mark II" - "and this time he's got a com-pute-a". I'm trying to picture the writer but all I can see is a huge spud with one shiny plastic eyebrow, upside down mis-matching ears and a weird hat pinned on his head, propped up against the keyboard.
I couldn't sleep, damn thing gave me nightmares. Of all the things to make me wake in a sweat it's Mr PotatoHead Mark II "You are not everyone and do not speak for everyone, nor have you polled a representative sample". If this keeps up I'm going to need laudanum.
You are not everyone and do not speak for everyone, nor have you polled a representative sample, so quit saying things that don't make sense unless you do the poll.
Let me get this straight - you want an answer from someone who: can speak for everyone and has polled a "representative sample" (WTF that is)?
Oh and I don' t make sense?
You couldn't shit in a bucket if it was nailed to your bum. It'd take an intervention of unemployed weight-lifting Luddite social-workers from FFffacebook and a fleet of tow-trucks to help you raise an intelligent question, even if you were dubbed over by Milli Vanilli.
Do the world a favour and fuck off. Understandably you'd need assistance. The Ayn Rand foundation wants to kick in for the guidance system. Guide rails, a cattle prod, a conveyor belt, and a big rocket up your arse because nowhere will offer you sanctuary. But you're a drain on the world economy and times are tight. If getting rid of you cost twice as much it'll be a bargain. If that was costed at three trillion a Crowd Source would raise the money from random homeless winos in less than a hour. And they'd all be singing "we are the world" in perfect pitch while they flash-dance Broadway and enthusiastic crowds shower them in $100 dollar bills. Republicans will be tongue-kissing Democrats while Democrats humped their legs and neither will blush tomorrow - even Rupert Murdoch will tweet that it is a good thing (but he'll renege on his promised donation, again). The Gates Foundation and Oprah have all promised to match the winos dollar for dollar in powdered milk past it's use by date - but it's the thought that counts. Donald Trump will still call you a Mexican rapist - but then he's your daddy, so what's new?
It's not fair - you're special. And you are. Liberals the world over support a special exemption for retro-active abortion - just for you. But enough of the special parade you've always dreamed of (and no that's not confetti - it's fly paper). The party don't start till after you depart.
Ms. Monaco must've been scraping the barrel out the back of a weight loss clinic for ice addicted anorexics when she hired you for the shilling campaign. What was the hiring criteria - "must grab the heated spoon ten days straight?" Get out of here before APK comes and whips your arse in a spelling bee.
Hey - it was a compliment! A good quality insult is a joy to find.
I actually squinted at it for a while - before "assuming" fuck no - they're probably from the USA. Turns out the pseudonym actually meant Geologist... my bad. (though I feel it's something of a bonus)
I'd also like to take this opportunity to sincerely (no wax, I promise) apologise to all those people I offended when I referred to my computers as "boxen". Your "I don't take myself too seriously" and "GENNIUS" badges are in the mail"
Hey - it was a compliment! A good quality insult is a joy to find.
Someone from the USA that understands satire (apart from Randall)? Now that is a joy to find. Maybe I'll remove that satire blocker now. [blinks] I recently posted to a testosterone filled thread about some dick shooting down a drone 'cause it were looking at his daughter (maybe). I was replying to someone who reasonably pointed out the actual law concerning trespassers and some shrivel dick gun nut who didn't get my comment about "maybe the right to bear arms is a good thing (unless you're an armless bear)" lectured me about how hard law and guns are. [facepalm] Someone flies a drone - someone shoots a drone in area where it's illegal to fire into the air, and then the drone is magically an airborne paedophile after the precious daughter - people want shot drone back, person threatens them with gun. I can see why satire and sarcasm goes down well.
What next someone who's lips didn't get tired midway through an excerpt from Readers Digest and thinks Oscar Wilde said "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit,".
Apologies, if they are necessary. I don't pay much attention to poster's names, I noted yours a couple of days ago.
/. don't judge all the USA by the posters on it - or by the tourists they send us. Economy tourism - the modern American version of the 17th century British convict ships? (except with much wider seats).
The person you're shooting at needs to be on your property - it's what the "castle" part refers to.
I know guns are hard, along with understanding laws. Please try to keep up.
You're an arseclown. Guns aren't hard. Neither is law. Nor is reading, or satire - but you seem to have trouble with those. Probably an organic reason. Try and keep up, you're holding everyone else back.
I'm a fan of apk. Yes he trolls, but he only trolls where it's contextually appropriate. I respect that.
Sad. And sadly deluded. Like I said, one post is more than enough - does that not sound like respect for the deranged? He's got what - more than a dozen fat trolls posted in response to this story?
You must be new around here - or have a distorted idea of "contextually appropriate". He trolls anywhere, and he stalks anywhere.
What do you call a mugging? Performance theatre?
I suppose by your logic Love Canal was some sort of wetlands revegetation project.
Slashdot Mirror
Just send some niggers. Their DNA was long ago denatured so they'll be fine. If not, who cares? Niggers breed even faster than they kill each other, which is astounding in and of itself. So there are plenty more where those came from. Though there are no governments to pay for the replacement niglets with welfare, I'll grant you that, so Mars may well turn out to be a hostile environment for niggers. But once again, who cares? You can spin it as a great Equal Opportunity that such a pioneering mission would be given to an all-nigger crew and the libtards will celebrate it, which is convenient. Funny how only white nations need diversity, even though white people are a small minority worldwide.
APK that is you.
Still don't get out much?
Good.
where do i go to waste my money on this dopey scheme
Winner of the 2016 Broken Logic Award! and runner up for Moron of the Century.
You can go back to cursing Discovery Channel, mailing your packets of man-love to Donnie Dumbf, cheering Fox News, and praying for opposing thumbs now.
Zero-days are not "back doors".
Unless the zero day flaw was put there intentionally, as back doors are put there intentionally, a zero day flaw is not a back door, it's just some incompetent who should be employed asking me "Do you want fries with that?", rather than employed writing security sensitive software. In other words: your average bad programmer.
Agreed about a 0-day flaw not necessarily being a "back-door".
You're incorrect about flawed software necessarily being the output of a bad programmer. Even the best programmers make mistakes - it's not just the nature of software, it's the nature of security - "absolutely secure systems do not exist" (Shamir's First Law). Except may death - and even then it's not certain.
Programming languages, development procedures, code auditing, and system architecture keep developing towards inherently better security. But it won't change some fundamental restrictions epitomised by Shamir's Second Law.
"To halve your vulnerability, you have to double your expenditure"
Increasing security is a case of diminishing returns. The mythically perfect integrity shell probably won't solve the problem either (Shamir's Third Law "Cryptography is typically bypassed, not penetrated").
That doesn't mean it's "game over" - it does mean that some things should never be trusted to computers because of their value. It also means that not everything can be trusted to the same computer - which is just too inconvenient (apparently).
"People" will say - but [insert OS or package here] has never been exploited. Maybe... but it's a big maybe, and very much dependant on a given point in time. It's very hard to prove it - as a mathematical proven fact. At best it's just an until-now-not-disproven fact. There's a difference.
tl;dr it's a false and dangerous assumption to propose that all flawed software is the result of bad programmers. As a technology software development is somewhere around the same stage as the first cars in relative terms (Dig me up when the car is mathematically proven secure. Good luck with that - you may find the worms have beaten you to it).
When it comes to the relative security of different OS incidence of deployment is not necessarily a good indicator. I'd propose that level of access to the OS, level of awareness and education of the operator, and relative value of exploiting the system are the main factors. i.e. Windows is not the most deployed platform - it is as a "desktop", and the average level of awareness and education of the operator is low relative to other "desktops" - and it's accessibility is low (anyone can get hold of it, a lot of people can explore it). The hypothesis seems valid as it has a relatively high number of known exploits in it's history (3 years after release the fixes take up more space than the original install) - most of them of low risk . Apply the same criteria to "Linux", allow for it's diversity, and the fact that until recently the average operator had a relatively higher level of awareness and education - then factor in the relative value of it as a target (higher) and the hypothesis also seems valid. i.e. higher skills and resources were pitted against it which meant, less exploits found (in the core system), the majority of known exploits quickly found were low risk - the higher risk ones were harder (took longer to be reported) to find.
It's just a hypothesis - and not particularly well stated, I've simplified things but I have tried to take into account factors like predictability of the core system (Windows core system is more predictable than Linux), and reporting/detecting exploits of flaws. Financial trading systems are less likely to report exploits than browsers used for banking, but I suspect greater skill and resources would be focused in a smaller amount of projects aimed at finding flaws to exploit in share tradi
Dear coward
You missed the point. Open source acolytes pray at the feet of "free software" and don't recognize there is no "free labor" to review those scared lines of code. You see both closed source and open source people are putting their faith in something. Are the FSF lovers going to review all those lines? If not then you are hypocrites
I miss the point? And you aren't painting with a broad brush (Open source acolytes pray at the feet of "free software" ) ?!. There's term for that - confirmation bias. No surprise you don't get irony, sarcasm or satire - or "weighted decision matrix".
"You see both closed source and open source people are putting their faith in something.". I do? O'reilly? You seem to put a lot of faith in something... like the belief your "psychic powers" aren't "psychotic delusions". Thanks for your insights. They say nothing of me, and speak volumes of you. I'll go with facts instead of buying into your crystal gazing powers.
That word, hypocrite, it doesn't mean what you "thunk" it means. You've made a compelling case that you are one, with a series of assumptions you can't possibly prove about me without psychic powers (so much for fact based decisions). And then you rant about "faith". The Timber industry wants in on your eyes.
tl;dr on a scale 1 to 10 for critical thinking you score a -5. HONK HONK - you've won a Special Snowflake tour on the Mobro 4000.
Don't be giving the government yet another reason to cut funding to public libraries.
Going long on whoever the hell makes aluminum foil...
Pro Tip: tin. You want tin foil. Too late, you've gone and blown your college fund on aluminum. We told you not to drink the fluoridated water. (and people pay to put fluoride in water?)
Yes. The FSF and reviewing millions of line of source code will save your mortal souls. How about that Hearbleed vulnerability?
Insightful! I don't need no steenkin' weighted decision matrix - I'm going back to Windows ('cause it's got less code, and more eyes - and the ads are cool).
The US Gov knew and published this on the 28th. Way to be 3 days late, an no doubt why /. is more than a dollar short.
https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/current-activity
The "government" is proactive!. Cool.
Soon we'll all have flying cars for sure (or, flying SUVs with in-dash McD snack printers and heavy-duty conveyor belts in place of door-steps).
No it isn't... it's one of the oldest and simplest protocols around you freetard. And the fact that BIND still has exploitable bugs on a protocol that is decades old shows how terrible freetard are at programming.
*cough* That coward was being ironic. Whether it was intentional or not is beside the point. It was nice satire too.
You'd think the version number might be a clue. Oh wait... this is /. The entrance requirement is an internet connection and a keyboard.
Instituting one of those simple math question robot checks would double the signal:noise ratio - and reduce the advertising revenue by 70% (I'm allowing for the adblock users).
Now imagine if Windows had done the same thing. Slashdot would be in an uproar.
First I need to imagine it's that Tuesday of the month. [shuts eyes] Nope, doesn't work (maybe it's the same with wishful "thunking"?).
... Not opensuse
As another poster has already pointed out - that's incorrect.
But interesting anyway. Maybe Open SUSE is just a little slow because of a trickle-down from SUSE? Regardless of the reason you might consider subscribing to the opensuse-security-announce mailing list.
. At least you don't have to wait until Patch Tuesday.
Everyone knows automobiles were endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights to have everyone get out of the fucking way.
Yeah right on bro! If god wanted bicycles he'd have passed road laws that said cyclist have the same rights on the road as cars, and cars have to give way to any one crossing the road (even if they're doing so illegally). Bigger cars are the answer.
You know the liberals used to make us drive behind dickheads with flags... till we run them down. No holding back progress.
Maybe if they DID do it with guns, there'd be LESS "Road Rage" people.
There'd be FEWER road rage people. *badum-tish*
As long as you're the first victim it sounds like a good idea.
Patched updates rolled out long before /. reported it (shock, horror).
If Debian is any guide most distros have already done the same and anyone running unattended-updates for security patches has been updated for several days (25th).
never be falsely be accused of rape.
Agreed - because it'd be damn hard to go through the world's libraries cutting those articles out of the newpaper archives. Of course that still leaves the copies lining budgie cages, and wrapping chips - but maybe we could force people to read the subsequent retractions. After international law is passed forcing retractions to be published.
Totally different subject - but how come these laws don't seem to be forced on other search engines? Because this legislation does cover all search engines (though strangely it forgets Fffacebook - they have their own search engine so I suppose they've been served as well, right?)
My guess has nothing to do with the facts of building 7. I was simply speculating as to why they would bring building 7 down in a controlled demolition when it never got hit by a plane (which is the official sorry by the way... It's only the "why" that's under debate). Exactly three planes were hijaked, only two made it to the target, and yet, all three buildings went down in a similar fashion. I definitely don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist, in fact I'm quite a skeptic usually. The problem is that the official story isn't logically consistent with reality, which is bothersome to me. I always feel unease with things don't add up. If buying into the official story helps you sleep at night, then more power to ya!
Speculate away. While you're at it calculate the number of charges required, how long that would take, and how difficult that would be - unless all those security guards and explosive sniffing dogs that normally patrolled were part of the plot too.
Don't forget to count all the engineers and architects in the USA when you estimate the significance of the number (who never visted the sites) who claim it couldn't have collapsed because of heat weaking the high tensile steel in the support beams.
Car manufacturers can't build shit without having to do recalls - but a conspiracy that large, and complicated goes off without a hitch. Then looks at those troofer "video proofs" again. Take the White House for example - compare the "evidence of conspiracy" with the press photos - notice how the troofers only show you selective images?
It never pays to not test what you believe. It only takes one minute to check - how hard is that?
Didn't the aboriginal population of Tasmania get wiped out?
Only in the same sense that mainland aboriginals (and probably the first wave of settlers) got wiped out. The gene pool was mixed. Truganini was not the last Tasmanian aborigine. Just last "full blood", according to the methodology of the time (and terra nullius ), and current politics. e.g. it's only been recently that the Dutch were credited as the first to map Tasmania, but there is evidence that Arabs had mapped it far earlier, and the Chinese, who definitely had the technology to visit. Somewhere I had/have a reference to archaeologists finding support for a French claim that shipwreck survivors had survived on the West coast before the British created the first settlement (stone garden walls, allegedly), but the government refused to stop land clearing for housing development - so "pure blood" is hard to prove without DNA studies (which is why I asked if anyone knew of any.
And given that the Tasmanian government were perfectly happy to destroy what was possibly the world's oldest graveyard in order to build a road bridge, evidence is pretty lacking...
Sort of. The Tasmanian government is pretty determined to avoid recognising anything that might stop relentless development, or lead to a Land Rights claim.
You're saying that connecting to a WiFi setup that has a default password, that is not on by default, which is not actually marketed as a "sniper" rifle (and all of the military connotations that go with it), to change a setting that will do nothing but adjust a calibration that may cause a hunter to miss slightly, is "hacking"? Oh, forgive me, oh mighty so-and-so...!
No - that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying I read the referenced article. Clearly you didn't or you wouldn't be talking such wank. Try reading what they actually did - hint they didn't make use of existing capabilities - they found a flaw and exploited it to achieve a desired outcome by an unconventional method. The "person" I was responding to (you?) probably believes putting a fork in a power socket is a hack.
And no, you're not forgiven for being an arseclown. You can go back to moderating down anything that contradicts your misguided belief that you're clever - good luck with that.
I don't see why accidentally ending up in America because transport messed up should be funny. First day's flight was delayed by about 19 hours by snow. Next airport I missed my connection (unsurprisingly) and the office booked me to continue home through America. Had to book one of those ESTER things online in the half-hour between getting the flight details and having to get through the passport control (did the airport have wired network sockets? did they fuck - had to work out how to set up wifi on the laptop!), then got the third degree from the woman on the passports because I was travelling with my work gear and she thought I was an illegal immigrant or something. Totally stupid. Almost caused me another day sweating into the same clothes.
Very un-funny experience.
It's funny in the same way as someone telling you they went to restaurant last night and noticed the fork was dirty. i.e. it's not the experience that's funny as much as the scenarios hearing of the experience brings to mind.
I didn't find it, it was an accident! What the fuck is wrong with you?
Oh - it was great! (images of people trying to sleep on seats designed to prevent just that, jammed next to overweight missionaries from Bumfuck Kansas who won't shut up, children fighting in the aisles, unable to find a power point that matches any of the adaptors for your laptop, living on overpriced cardboard sandwiches, while loud Hari Khrisnas dance around you, shivering in O'Hare, wearing the only clothing that didn't get rerouted to Hong Kong - a Manchester United jumper and ridiculous hat with Viking horns you paid over the odds for out of desperation in the souvenir shop)
I especially liked Disney Land (images of a mob of angry stranded passengers surrounding the inquiries desk where the clerks compete to see who can start a riot first)
I got my picture taken with Goofy (image of the aftermath of a punch up with the chief desk-clerk where a picture of the angry stranded passenger is captured mid-punch, makes the headlines of the New York Times under the headlines "UK football hooligan deported after airport riot").
Not funny to you. But I laughed (which is what counts, right?).
Normally a safe assumption on here. Not true in this case though. Been to America twice - once for a fortnight holiday, and once accidentally because of travel problems. Might go back, if someone pays my fees.
Accidentally! For some reason that strikes me as hilarious. I spent part of my youth there - and have to travel there for about a month every year. It's a great place, lots of great people - the latter are sadly under-represented on /.
Here's a classic - can you follow his train of thought?
. Someone (several people) marked my posts earlier in the thread as troll, while anonymous got busy, then most of those troll points got removed and he and others popped up - I can understand that, just not what the fuck he's on about. Maybe "he" is just beta software - seriously, is that a bot?
It's like Mattel has come out with "Mr PotatoHead Mark II" - "and this time he's got a com-pute-a". I'm trying to picture the writer but all I can see is a huge spud with one shiny plastic eyebrow, upside down mis-matching ears and a weird hat pinned on his head, propped up against the keyboard.
I couldn't sleep, damn thing gave me nightmares. Of all the things to make me wake in a sweat it's Mr PotatoHead Mark II "You are not everyone and do not speak for everyone, nor have you polled a representative sample". If this keeps up I'm going to need laudanum.
Anyway - happy travels.
You are not everyone and do not speak for everyone, nor have you polled a representative sample, so quit saying things that don't make sense unless you do the poll.
Let me get this straight - you want an answer from someone who: can speak for everyone and has polled a "representative sample" (WTF that is)?
Oh and I don' t make sense?
You couldn't shit in a bucket if it was nailed to your bum. It'd take an intervention of unemployed weight-lifting Luddite social-workers from FFffacebook and a fleet of tow-trucks to help you raise an intelligent question, even if you were dubbed over by Milli Vanilli.
Do the world a favour and fuck off. Understandably you'd need assistance. The Ayn Rand foundation wants to kick in for the guidance system. Guide rails, a cattle prod, a conveyor belt, and a big rocket up your arse because nowhere will offer you sanctuary. But you're a drain on the world economy and times are tight. If getting rid of you cost twice as much it'll be a bargain. If that was costed at three trillion a Crowd Source would raise the money from random homeless winos in less than a hour. And they'd all be singing "we are the world" in perfect pitch while they flash-dance Broadway and enthusiastic crowds shower them in $100 dollar bills. Republicans will be tongue-kissing Democrats while Democrats humped their legs and neither will blush tomorrow - even Rupert Murdoch will tweet that it is a good thing (but he'll renege on his promised donation, again). The Gates Foundation and Oprah have all promised to match the winos dollar for dollar in powdered milk past it's use by date - but it's the thought that counts. Donald Trump will still call you a Mexican rapist - but then he's your daddy, so what's new?
It's not fair - you're special. And you are. Liberals the world over support a special exemption for retro-active abortion - just for you. But enough of the special parade you've always dreamed of (and no that's not confetti - it's fly paper). The party don't start till after you depart.
Ms. Monaco must've been scraping the barrel out the back of a weight loss clinic for ice addicted anorexics when she hired you for the shilling campaign. What was the hiring criteria - "must grab the heated spoon ten days straight?" Get out of here before APK comes and whips your arse in a spelling bee.
Don't take that the wrong way.
Hey - it was a compliment! A good quality insult is a joy to find.
I actually squinted at it for a while - before "assuming" fuck no - they're probably from the USA. Turns out the pseudonym actually meant Geologist... my bad. (though I feel it's something of a bonus)
I'd also like to take this opportunity to sincerely (no wax, I promise) apologise to all those people I offended when I referred to my computers as "boxen". Your "I don't take myself too seriously" and "GENNIUS" badges are in the mail"
[In a box full of building rubble with no stamps]
Hey - it was a compliment! A good quality insult is a joy to find.
Someone from the USA that understands satire (apart from Randall)? Now that is a joy to find. Maybe I'll remove that satire blocker now. [blinks]
I recently posted to a testosterone filled thread about some dick shooting down a drone 'cause it were looking at his daughter (maybe). I was replying to someone who reasonably pointed out the actual law concerning trespassers and some shrivel dick gun nut who didn't get my comment about "maybe the right to bear arms is a good thing (unless you're an armless bear)" lectured me about how hard law and guns are. [facepalm] Someone flies a drone - someone shoots a drone in area where it's illegal to fire into the air, and then the drone is magically an airborne paedophile after the precious daughter - people want shot drone back, person threatens them with gun. I can see why satire and sarcasm goes down well.
What next someone who's lips didn't get tired midway through an excerpt from Readers Digest and thinks Oscar Wilde said "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit,".
Apologies, if they are necessary. I don't pay much attention to poster's names, I noted yours a couple of days ago.
/. don't judge all the USA by the posters on it - or by the tourists they send us. Economy tourism - the modern American version of the 17th century British convict ships? (except with much wider seats).
The person you're shooting at needs to be on your property - it's what the "castle" part refers to. I know guns are hard, along with understanding laws. Please try to keep up.
You're an arseclown. Guns aren't hard. Neither is law. Nor is reading, or satire - but you seem to have trouble with those. Probably an organic reason. Try and keep up, you're holding everyone else back.
I'm a fan of apk. Yes he trolls, but he only trolls where it's contextually appropriate. I respect that.
Sad. And sadly deluded. Like I said, one post is more than enough - does that not sound like respect for the deranged? He's got what - more than a dozen fat trolls posted in response to this story?
You must be new around here - or have a distorted idea of "contextually appropriate". He trolls anywhere, and he stalks anywhere.
What do you call a mugging? Performance theatre?
I suppose by your logic Love Canal was some sort of wetlands revegetation project.