Then there was the sign I put above a door to the conference room a number of us were working in for an extend period of time while on a project that wasn't going well.
The future? Heck, my truck doesn't use keys today! I just walk up, put my hand in the handle and press the button on the door, it unlocks. The seat knows who I am and moves to my position, then I just press the button on the panel and the truck turns on, then I go drive.
When I stop and get out, the truck autolocks about 30 seconds after the last person leaves, it will even warn me if I leave the little key fob thing in the truck by flashing the lights and honking the horn.
I can also turn it on and off using my phone and I can remote start and stop it using my phone, about the only thing the phone won't do is drive it via remote control.
The downside, as my brother-in-law found out the hard way, is that if the battery in your keyless fob starts to die when you're driving down the road, it also shuts the engine down.
At least, it does on a Mazda MX-9 (or whatever their big-ass SUV is). YMMV. I'll stick to physical contact authentication methods, thanks.
You mean the computer with cameras facing everywhere that is always paying 100% attention, will hit more potholes than a half-awake driver looking wherever the fuck he feels like at any given moment?
No, I'm pretty sure he means that the computer is going to put the "stay between the lane lines" rule before the "dodge the pothole" rule in the list.
But please, don't let a little thing like reason keep you from being an unbearable dickhead about it, that will surely convince the fence-sitters to side with you.
Yes, climate regulations will have to be forced, against large and extremely well funded resistance. It won't work, quite frankly. Not because of people like you who don't want to pay 10% more on their heating and cooling bill, but because of people like the Koch brothers who will happily spend tens of millions of dollars to protect their interests.
Exactly - that's why we get things like laws requiring individual citizens to install low-flow shower heads (which, in the big scheme of things, is a trivial change), but the EPA can't force large manufacturing firms to curb their water usage or limit how much they're allowed to pollute.
Then, of course, there's the whole China issue to take into account. The EPA is a bureaucratic powerhouse compared to whatever toothless, token version exists over there.
For the most part that was restricted or disabled since the XP days (after one of the updates. Cannot remember which). You reminded me of the old school spam I used to get...
I had thought that myself, but apparently a user with admin rights can still use msg to send pop-up notifications across the network. Thus, I've had a good ol' time fucking with some of my co-workers ever since rediscovering that command earlier today:)
All your issues can be addressed with 2 things - an email to employees that explains everything they need to know about the security update, and a security policy that prevents the installation of unauthorized software.
Then, for the handful of dumbasses that will ignore the email, try to install an unapproved browser, then call your helpdesk, they have the ammo they need to politely inform the user that if they like getting a paycheck, they should read their messages and abide by the computer usage policy*.
* Save veeps and members of the board, since they not only believe that company policy doesn't apply to them, but also have the ability to fire you. But that's, like, maybe 20 people, so not a big deal.
I can't imagine why I would ever go near a Yahoo site. Yahoo Answers? Seriously? Didn't Stack Exchange demolish that nonsense?
Hey, now - Yahoo Answers is still a great place to get terrible advice from trolls. Like when I was looking for a humane way to put down my gecko, and the top rated response was to put him in the freezer.
You probably want to use "duckduckgo" instead of google as your default search provider.
I would love to promote duckduckgo, but in reality the results that site brings up are seldom relevant, and normally suck.
I've recently switched to using Startpage for searches, as it protects my "anonymity" and pulls relevant search results, since it uses Google search on the back end.
Land of the Free. Lol. Just out of curiosity, where would you draw the line regarding what the FEDERAL government can and cannot ban? Is the goal for no one to stand out, everyone go to work 9 to 5, watch TV, pay our taxes, and die after reaching retirement age, or is there some room left for people to do weird stuff?
You're free to do lots of "weird stuff," provided you're not damaging other people or threatening their well-being.
This guy failed to meet those two criteria, and thus is being punished appropriately. It's one of those "right to swing your fist" kinda things.
Not a strawman. My apologies if you were offended by my characterization. However, if it isn't fear (of the unknown, of some notional threat, or of your own mortality) that drives you to the conclusion that the threat of deadly force against others is the way for you to feel secure in your person,
Ironic that you earlier criticized me for making an assumption about the reliability of "smart" guns, then proceed to make a number of your own assumptions about my motivations and rationale. Pot, say hello to kettle.
That aside, what "drives [me] to the conclusion that the threat of deadly force against others is the way for [me] to feel secure in your person," is the fact that there really are other people out there, who would intentionally harm you, me, our loved ones, or anyone else, if they feel they can gain some sort of advantage from it, whether it be by theft of our property, a feeling of self-justified murder (like someone shooting someone else for cutting them off in traffic; it happens), or for no good reason whatsoever (a la Adam Lanza/James Holmes), and I refuse to be victimized without a fight.
Are such occurrences relatively rare? Yes, but they do happen, usually when you least expect them, and as the saying goes, "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it."
then what drives you to (at least in your mind) threaten anyone who may stand in your path with gruesome, painful death
Again with the assumptions. For your information, the death caused by a gunshot from a trained person (which I am - unlike some folks, I actually practice with my weapons fairly regularly, and pride myself on being a pretty damn good shot) is far, far less gruesome and painful than other possible methods; would you prefer that, instead of a.45 caliber handgun, which can kill a person instantly, I carried my 12" hunting knife, or maybe my retractable steel baton? Just so you know, I've seen someone run through with such a blade, and "gruesome and painful" doesn't begin to describe the situation.
Ranting aside, to answer your leading question, I have no drive to "threaten anyone who may stand in my path," presuming that person isn't threatening me. Where do you get the idea that 2nd Amendment advocates are violent aggressors, anyway? Because FYI, that's a total myth.
That may strike you as hyperbole,
Because it is. Just like if I asked you why you didn't value your life, and wanted to be a victim would be hyperbole.
But I won't ask that, because I prefer my arguments to be based on logic rather than emotion.
but that is, in fact, how your choice appears to me.
Yes, it's quite obvious you have a preconceived notion about the motivations of millions of gun owners you've never met.
The act of carrying a deadly weapon for "protection," to me, implies a willingness to inflict death, or at least grievous bodily harm on another human being. Such extreme measures suggests a strong driver -- in my mind, most likely fear.
Let me ask you this - why are you so adamant about not carrying a deadly weapon, if not for fear?
Please understand, I'm not trying to demean you or your choices. It's just that I honestly don't get it. And I'd like to understand your point of view. If you would explain, I would much appreciate it.
I'd like to think you'd like to understand my POV, but if you really mean to, you're going to have to let go of your prejudices and pre-conceived notions about gun owners and their motivations, then go talk to some from an objective standpoint - something you've failed to do thus far in this conversation.
FWIW, I really really worked hard on this troll, used a thesaurus and everything, and I am very proud of it!
I can tell; the semi-random bolding in the next-to-last paragraph was an especially nice touch, although I will say you forgot to mis-spell anything, and there weren't nearly enough swear words.
Still, as far as trolls go, I'd give that one an 8.5 out of 10.
How did it feel to be played by Brendan Fraser in the documentary "Encino Man"? How long were you asleep for? Cause that shit has been happening for YEARS.
Man, am I glad I wasn't drinking something when I read that...
Let's apply STEM (well, Engineering only, I guess) techiques[sic] to make these Humanities guys irrelevant. If a problem is so poorly defined or understood that it's considered an art, isn't it time that we examined these problems scientifically, such that they become sciences, not art? Ultimately, absolutely everything is a science.
They should try that with economics. What could possibly go wrong?
You mean, other than the fact that economists might actually start acting like humans?
Your self-delusion and unoriginal bullshit notwithstanding, the minutes of the Constitutional Congresses say otherwise.
They meant "regulated" in exactly the same way we mean "regulated."
Constitution.org, or rather the Oxford English Dictionary, disagrees with you.
Now, if you can provide a source citation that supports your argument, I'll consider it.
Oh, and do try to keep the childish name-calling to yourself. Such nonsense has no place in discussion, and only serves to denigrate your own position.
In that case, yes, I did miss your point. Mea culpa.
I agree that what's taught could use some serious rethinking and paring down; for instance, why is it considered more important to memorize the date that Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address, than it is to understand the his reasoning for giving it? At least, that was my experience in school.
Slashdot Mirror
Then there was the sign I put above a door to the conference room a number of us were working in for an extend period of time while on a project that wasn't going well.
"Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here?"
The future? Heck, my truck doesn't use keys today! I just walk up, put my hand in the handle and press the button on the door, it unlocks. The seat knows who I am and moves to my position, then I just press the button on the panel and the truck turns on, then I go drive.
When I stop and get out, the truck autolocks about 30 seconds after the last person leaves, it will even warn me if I leave the little key fob thing in the truck by flashing the lights and honking the horn.
I can also turn it on and off using my phone and I can remote start and stop it using my phone, about the only thing the phone won't do is drive it via remote control.
The downside, as my brother-in-law found out the hard way, is that if the battery in your keyless fob starts to die when you're driving down the road, it also shuts the engine down.
At least, it does on a Mazda MX-9 (or whatever their big-ass SUV is). YMMV. I'll stick to physical contact authentication methods, thanks.
You mean the computer with cameras facing everywhere that is always paying 100% attention, will hit more potholes than a half-awake driver looking wherever the fuck he feels like at any given moment?
No, I'm pretty sure he means that the computer is going to put the "stay between the lane lines" rule before the "dodge the pothole" rule in the list.
But please, don't let a little thing like reason keep you from being an unbearable dickhead about it, that will surely convince the fence-sitters to side with you.
Ass.
Ah, but you can see a long way.
Not if your head is in the clouds.
Yes, climate regulations will have to be forced, against large and extremely well funded resistance. It won't work, quite frankly. Not because of people like you who don't want to pay 10% more on their heating and cooling bill, but because of people like the Koch brothers who will happily spend tens of millions of dollars to protect their interests.
Exactly - that's why we get things like laws requiring individual citizens to install low-flow shower heads (which, in the big scheme of things, is a trivial change), but the EPA can't force large manufacturing firms to curb their water usage or limit how much they're allowed to pollute.
Then, of course, there's the whole China issue to take into account. The EPA is a bureaucratic powerhouse compared to whatever toothless, token version exists over there.
I'm enjoying the fact it went over the rednecks heads.
I'd imagine it's probably pretty lonely up on that pedestal...
For the most part that was restricted or disabled since the XP days (after one of the updates. Cannot remember which). You reminded me of the old school spam I used to get...
I had thought that myself, but apparently a user with admin rights can still use msg to send pop-up notifications across the network. Thus, I've had a good ol' time fucking with some of my co-workers ever since rediscovering that command earlier today :)
Hey, any time bud.
And FWIW, I personally feel that good parody should be undetectable, as it forces the audience to actually put some thought into what's been said.
I need to start sending security alerts and warnings to employees at my somewhat sizable company.
Presuming this is a Windows network, just do a net send / msg to all users.
My problem: I'm not sure how to send these alerts without freaking everyone out
Aw, but that's half the fun of net send!!!
Spoilsport.
All your issues can be addressed with 2 things - an email to employees that explains everything they need to know about the security update, and a security policy that prevents the installation of unauthorized software.
Then, for the handful of dumbasses that will ignore the email, try to install an unapproved browser, then call your helpdesk, they have the ammo they need to politely inform the user that if they like getting a paycheck, they should read their messages and abide by the computer usage policy*.
* Save veeps and members of the board, since they not only believe that company policy doesn't apply to them, but also have the ability to fire you. But that's, like, maybe 20 people, so not a big deal.
I can't imagine why I would ever go near a Yahoo site. Yahoo Answers? Seriously? Didn't Stack Exchange demolish that nonsense?
Hey, now - Yahoo Answers is still a great place to get terrible advice from trolls. Like when I was looking for a humane way to put down my gecko, and the top rated response was to put him in the freezer.
You probably want to use "duckduckgo" instead of google as your default search provider.
I would love to promote duckduckgo, but in reality the results that site brings up are seldom relevant, and normally suck.
I've recently switched to using Startpage for searches, as it protects my "anonymity" and pulls relevant search results, since it uses Google search on the back end.
Land of the Free. Lol.
Just out of curiosity, where would you draw the line regarding what the FEDERAL government can and cannot ban? Is the goal for no one to stand out, everyone go to work 9 to 5, watch TV, pay our taxes, and die after reaching retirement age, or is there some room left for people to do weird stuff?
You're free to do lots of "weird stuff," provided you're not damaging other people or threatening their well-being.
This guy failed to meet those two criteria, and thus is being punished appropriately. It's one of those "right to swing your fist" kinda things.
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
Do you ever tire of being an asshat with nothing better to do than troll Slashdot?
http://www.constitution.org/co...
Oh, yea, and you're wrong. As usual.
Go find someone else to troll, douche.
Not a strawman. My apologies if you were offended by my characterization. However, if it isn't fear (of the unknown, of some notional threat, or of your own mortality) that drives you to the conclusion that the threat of deadly force against others is the way for you to feel secure in your person,
Ironic that you earlier criticized me for making an assumption about the reliability of "smart" guns, then proceed to make a number of your own assumptions about my motivations and rationale. Pot, say hello to kettle.
That aside, what "drives [me] to the conclusion that the threat of deadly force against others is the way for [me] to feel secure in your person," is the fact that there really are other people out there, who would intentionally harm you, me, our loved ones, or anyone else, if they feel they can gain some sort of advantage from it, whether it be by theft of our property, a feeling of self-justified murder (like someone shooting someone else for cutting them off in traffic; it happens), or for no good reason whatsoever (a la Adam Lanza/James Holmes), and I refuse to be victimized without a fight.
Are such occurrences relatively rare? Yes, but they do happen, usually when you least expect them, and as the saying goes, "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it."
then what drives you to (at least in your mind) threaten anyone who may stand in your path with gruesome, painful death
Again with the assumptions. For your information, the death caused by a gunshot from a trained person (which I am - unlike some folks, I actually practice with my weapons fairly regularly, and pride myself on being a pretty damn good shot) is far, far less gruesome and painful than other possible methods; would you prefer that, instead of a .45 caliber handgun, which can kill a person instantly, I carried my 12" hunting knife, or maybe my retractable steel baton? Just so you know, I've seen someone run through with such a blade, and "gruesome and painful" doesn't begin to describe the situation.
Ranting aside, to answer your leading question, I have no drive to "threaten anyone who may stand in my path," presuming that person isn't threatening me. Where do you get the idea that 2nd Amendment advocates are violent aggressors, anyway? Because FYI, that's a total myth.
That may strike you as hyperbole,
Because it is. Just like if I asked you why you didn't value your life, and wanted to be a victim would be hyperbole.
But I won't ask that, because I prefer my arguments to be based on logic rather than emotion.
but that is, in fact, how your choice appears to me.
Yes, it's quite obvious you have a preconceived notion about the motivations of millions of gun owners you've never met.
The act of carrying a deadly weapon for "protection," to me, implies a willingness to inflict death, or at least grievous bodily harm on another human being. Such extreme measures suggests a strong driver -- in my mind, most likely fear.
Let me ask you this - why are you so adamant about not carrying a deadly weapon, if not for fear?
Please understand, I'm not trying to demean you or your choices. It's just that I honestly don't get it. And I'd like to understand your point of view. If you would explain, I would much appreciate it.
I'd like to think you'd like to understand my POV, but if you really mean to, you're going to have to let go of your prejudices and pre-conceived notions about gun owners and their motivations, then go talk to some from an objective standpoint - something you've failed to do thus far in this conversation.
It was an old, run down section of the galaxy.
So, what are you trying to say? That black holes only live in the galactic ghetto?
Racist.
Every time I quote Shakespeare, I have an irresistible urge to punctuate the quotation with a pause, followed by a Gomer Pye-esque "Shazam!"
FWIW, I really really worked hard on this troll, used a thesaurus and everything, and I am very proud of it!
I can tell; the semi-random bolding in the next-to-last paragraph was an especially nice touch, although I will say you forgot to mis-spell anything, and there weren't nearly enough swear words.
Still, as far as trolls go, I'd give that one an 8.5 out of 10.
How did it feel to be played by Brendan Fraser in the documentary "Encino Man"? How long were you asleep for? Cause that shit has been happening for YEARS.
Man, am I glad I wasn't drinking something when I read that...
Nothing has "intrinsic value".
Other than fresh water, oxygen, shelter, and sustenance, anyway.
They should try that with economics. What could possibly go wrong?
You mean, other than the fact that economists might actually start acting like humans?
Not to mention the thousands of years of human achievement, artistic and otherwise, that's actually pretty awesome once you learn to appreciate it.
Your self-delusion and unoriginal bullshit notwithstanding, the minutes of the Constitutional Congresses say otherwise.
They meant "regulated" in exactly the same way we mean "regulated."
Constitution.org, or rather the Oxford English Dictionary, disagrees with you.
Now, if you can provide a source citation that supports your argument, I'll consider it.
Oh, and do try to keep the childish name-calling to yourself. Such nonsense has no place in discussion, and only serves to denigrate your own position.
As much as having a car whose brakes only work when the ECU detects that there isn't a cell phone in use would be "win/win."
A gun is something you should rarely-if-ever need, but when you need it, you need it to work without fail. Like the brakes on your car.
And so I should always leave my car keys prominently displayed in my unlocked car as well?
Non sequitur - has nothing to do with the results of a potential and unexpected system failure.
In that case, yes, I did miss your point. Mea culpa.
I agree that what's taught could use some serious rethinking and paring down; for instance, why is it considered more important to memorize the date that Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address, than it is to understand the his reasoning for giving it? At least, that was my experience in school.