Yeah, I would have thought that this major F500 company would have something a little more secure (assuming they cared enough to place the restriction on.zip files in the first place) but changing the extension was enough.
I guess the logic is something like this: most of our viruses come from people who are not skilled enough to change the file extension therefore banning files based on extensions will solve 90% of our problems.
I'm not saying I agree with it I was just happy at the time that there was a fairly easy work-around.
I thought so too, but just about every museum and tourist attraction in the country has a "squish a penny into a tourist trinket" machine so they must not enforce it too strictly.
On comment about density. I live in an old brick row house in the city. It was built in 1900 and I think the walls separating me from my neighbors are three layers of brick thick. Basically, I never hear my neighbors.
It's a lot easier to live "densely" in the city and enjoy all the benefits (walk to coffee shops, bars, restaraunts, work, museums, etc..) if you don't have to listen to American Idle blasting through two thin sheets of sheetrock. I feel more secure in my own space in the city than I did in the 1970's era apartement building I lived in out in the burbs.
Thank goodness things like this are slowly starting to change. However, change happens slowly. I have an anecdotes from Maryland that, for me, epitomize everything that is wrong with "sprawl".
To the west of 3 in Crofton there is a huge strip mall with everything that the consumer could want: grocery store, sushi restaraunt, computer store, coffee shop, etc., etc..
To the east of 3 there is a huge development with it seems like a thousand new townhomes.
Between these two is a fucking four lane highway with absolutely no way for the people in the development to get to the strip mall. What could be a pleasant 10 minute walk across a pedestrian sky bridge is now either a death-defying sprint across four lanes of traffic or a hop in the car, drive out of the development, wait at the longest red light in history, circle for 20 minutes trying to find parking at the mall, odyessy. What the fuck? Who approved projects like this?
Just to clarify a little bit about this whole froo-ha-ha... Basically we have a blog posting by a Republican staffer responding to a series of blog postings by a TV weather person. I don't think there is any evidence that "The Senate" (especially a Democtratic Sentate) is going to start censoring scientists.
This is roughly the equivalent to a Feeper posting that the Democrats want to take away handguns because a guy on the Daily Kos said so...
If you made multi-million dollars in a start up tech company would you: 1. Leave to pursue your interests. 2. Continue to work at the company until retiremennt. 3. Burn the money in a huge trash barrel and join a Buddist monestary. 4. Hire private detectives to stalk CowboyNeal?
...by ensuring that you can't pass this idea or genes on to your offspring, we reduce the amount of people who no longer want to breed. And even if they do manage to convince someone else, then we're still weeding out the "bad" genes. Give humanity a few thousand years, and the whole "stop breeding" thing will be completely weeded out. Natural selection, and all that.
Ideas don't get passed down, only genes. When you say that there is "something fundamentally wrong" you are referring to "wrong" from a natural selection viewpoint; not necessarily from a moral standpoint.
Unfortunately, I happen to agree with you. There's a very interesting cimegraphic take on what happens when a segment of the population takes themselves out of the gene pool here.
I'm not sure I would think of "leftists" (I assume that's who you are talking about when you say "you people") as the most promiscuous group. I think that family size is a function of economics, education, and religion. On average I think it is fair to say that educated, wealthy, and secular people have smaller families than uneducated, poor, and religious people. Can you back up your statement that family size is related to political outlook?
There is plenty of arable and forest-able land left that we can continue to grow our overcrowded cities and support them.
I'm not going to go though a point-by-point on the parent comment, but I would like to respond to this assertion. We don't have as much arable land as you might think. There are three things working against us:
1. A lot of what is considered arable land (and activly used as farmland) is irrigated though aquifers. These are non-replenishable in the scale of human life span. Once they are gone, they are gone.
2. The best arable land is also where we want to live. People don't want to live in deserts or on mountaintops. They want to live in nice temparate plains. Farms become villages become towns become cities. Once that apple orchard becomes a Chevy Dealership parking lot it is never going to be used to produce food again.
3. Finally, climate change (irregardless of whether it is man-made or not) is going to shift arable land around; and it is much easier to "desertify" areable land than it is to "reclaim" desert. Good soil comes from a build up of organic waste. A desert that suddenly starts getting rainfall is going to take many years and a lot of hard work and fertilization to become usable farm land.
You are making parallels between a right-wing talk show advocating torture, maiming, and the murder of journalists and American politicans with a fictional comedy show about a gay guy and his female roommate...? Good luck on that world view, buddy. But, yes, in answer to your question if a company with a highly conservative consumer base doesn't want to advertise on Will and Grace that's their perogative.
Anyway, the right wingers are already attacking shows like Will and Grace (here's an example; hee hee a religion cooking show called "Cruci-fixin's":-). If anything, this is a case of the moderates adopting the tactics of the far right.
I apologize for that; here on slashdot we mostly hear from the handgun fanboys who don't have houses or families who think that every perceived wrong can be dealt with by taking to the hills al. la. Red Dawn to defend the country from the environmentalists, Democrats, coporations, Republicans, religious fanatics, secular humanists, and ivory tower intellectuals. "NRA" was used as a short-hand for that mind-set My point was, in the context of the original point, was simply that you can't legitimately seek redress from a coporation pouring arsenic in your groundwater, for example, by storming the boardroom and shooting. You'll end up on the evening news as the crazy in the body bag and the corporation will continue to do what they were doing before.
Bravo! While I personally fear that someone is going to trip on the stairs in my house and sue me -- it happens, some people are jerks -- I'm not blind to the fact that corporate interests have a vested interest in demonizing personal injury attorneys. What are the potential avenues for justice when a large, powerful, and well-funded entity (corporation, government, or whatever) actually injures you in some way?
1. The NRA claims that just having a handgun in your house is going to protect you. But, try and "overthrow the tyranny of McDonalds" and you'll quickly see where you stand in the eyes of the law. 2. You can write to your congressperson -- who was elected with contributions from those corporations and works for the government -- and try and get a law passed. Good luck with that. 3. or, you can try to sue for redress in civil court.
They are three pretty sucky options but #3 is the way our system works.
What these warning labels display is not a legal system run amok but a severe case of corporate Cover My Ass syndrome that also happens to serve the corporate interest in making people believe that personal injury attorneys are the problem.
I guess the question is "who controls the cameras?" Is the footage made available to the public? Or, if the cops start beating the shit out of some Critical Mass bicyclists do the cameras suddenly all go on the fritz?
Given current search capabilities I'm not personally too worried about public cameras. The sheer volumn of footage means that they will be used primarily after the fact around a time and location of interest. However, I do believe in fairness. If criminal activity is detected then it should be made available no matter who is the culprit; including the police.
While technically the rule for keeping documents secret is if they would reveal sources, methods, or plans. In reality -- and I doubt I'm being too cynical here -- the real criteria is if they will embarass the anyone who has friends in government.
I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I'm having a difficult time wrapping my mind around the connection required to hook up that sewer connection in the immovable center column to the bathroom in the rotating apartment section.
That is increadible. I never even thought to ask if something like this exists. I've been so tiered of logging out of OS-X, logging into Bootcamp and trying to see how badly I misinterpreted IE's rendering. Thank you for the links.
Quick question. At what point do you take up arms in a revolution? I have the distinct impression that all the NRA types will still be sitting around drinking Schlitz and bragging about the sie of their rifles even after the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and all of the rest of the amendments to the constitution are null and void.
Do you have any authorities to site on this? I was under the impression that diamonds and, expecially, unmounted and unregistered diamonds are terrible investments.
Technically you only pay a 33% federal tax on your incremental salary over $150k ( 2005 numbers for a single filer ). Your first $30k was taxed at 15% or less just like any poor shmoo who serves you your Egg McMuffin in the morning.
I real crime is that long term capital gains ends up being 15%. So you can be pissed that you're paying double the rate that Paris Hilton is paying on her income from her various trust funds.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I would have thought that this major F500 company would have something a little more secure (assuming they cared enough to place the restriction on .zip files in the first place) but changing the extension was enough.
I guess the logic is something like this: most of our viruses come from people who are not skilled enough to change the file extension therefore banning files based on extensions will solve 90% of our problems.
I'm not saying I agree with it I was just happy at the time that there was a fairly easy work-around.
At the company I worked for we all just got in the habit of renaming our .zip files .piz. If I see a .piz file I would immediately reach for WinZip.
I thought so too, but just about every museum and tourist attraction in the country has a "squish a penny into a tourist trinket" machine so they must not enforce it too strictly.
On comment about density. I live in an old brick row house in the city. It was built in 1900 and I think the walls separating me from my neighbors are three layers of brick thick. Basically, I never hear my neighbors.
It's a lot easier to live "densely" in the city and enjoy all the benefits (walk to coffee shops, bars, restaraunts, work, museums, etc..) if you don't have to listen to American Idle blasting through two thin sheets of sheetrock. I feel more secure in my own space in the city than I did in the 1970's era apartement building I lived in out in the burbs.
Thank goodness things like this are slowly starting to change. However, change happens slowly. I have an anecdotes from Maryland that, for me, epitomize everything that is wrong with "sprawl".
To the west of 3 in Crofton there is a huge strip mall with everything that the consumer could want: grocery store, sushi restaraunt, computer store, coffee shop, etc., etc..
To the east of 3 there is a huge development with it seems like a thousand new townhomes.
Between these two is a fucking four lane highway with absolutely no way for the people in the development to get to the strip mall. What could be a pleasant 10 minute walk across a pedestrian sky bridge is now either a death-defying sprint across four lanes of traffic or a hop in the car, drive out of the development, wait at the longest red light in history, circle for 20 minutes trying to find parking at the mall, odyessy. What the fuck? Who approved projects like this?
Just to clarify a little bit about this whole froo-ha-ha... Basically we have a blog posting by a Republican staffer responding to a series of blog postings by a TV weather person. I don't think there is any evidence that "The Senate" (especially a Democtratic Sentate) is going to start censoring scientists.
This is roughly the equivalent to a Feeper posting that the Democrats want to take away handguns because a guy on the Daily Kos said so...
And sometimes a piece of ice gets stuck in your straw. This is like a denial of service attack.
If you made multi-million dollars in a start up tech company would you:
1. Leave to pursue your interests.
2. Continue to work at the company until retiremennt.
3. Burn the money in a huge trash barrel and join a Buddist monestary.
4. Hire private detectives to stalk CowboyNeal?
Ideas don't get passed down, only genes. When you say that there is "something fundamentally wrong" you are referring to "wrong" from a natural selection viewpoint; not necessarily from a moral standpoint.
Unfortunately, I happen to agree with you. There's a very interesting cimegraphic take on what happens when a segment of the population takes themselves out of the gene pool here.
I'm not sure I would think of "leftists" (I assume that's who you are talking about when you say "you people") as the most promiscuous group. I think that family size is a function of economics, education, and religion. On average I think it is fair to say that educated, wealthy, and secular people have smaller families than uneducated, poor, and religious people. Can you back up your statement that family size is related to political outlook?
I'm not going to go though a point-by-point on the parent comment, but I would like to respond to this assertion. We don't have as much arable land as you might think. There are three things working against us:
1. A lot of what is considered arable land (and activly used as farmland) is irrigated though aquifers. These are non-replenishable in the scale of human life span. Once they are gone, they are gone.
2. The best arable land is also where we want to live. People don't want to live in deserts or on mountaintops. They want to live in nice temparate plains. Farms become villages become towns become cities. Once that apple orchard becomes a Chevy Dealership parking lot it is never going to be used to produce food again.
3. Finally, climate change (irregardless of whether it is man-made or not) is going to shift arable land around; and it is much easier to "desertify" areable land than it is to "reclaim" desert. Good soil comes from a build up of organic waste. A desert that suddenly starts getting rainfall is going to take many years and a lot of hard work and fertilization to become usable farm land.
Even scarier... in 2 years all the galactic civilizations within 30 l.y. will be able to catch the original broadcast of The Dukes of Hazzard.
I just hope we have a resistance to the Martian microbes. Remember how that movie ended?
You are making parallels between a right-wing talk show advocating torture, maiming, and the murder of journalists and American politicans with a fictional comedy show about a gay guy and his female roommate...? Good luck on that world view, buddy. But, yes, in answer to your question if a company with a highly conservative consumer base doesn't want to advertise on Will and Grace that's their perogative.
:-). If anything, this is a case of the moderates adopting the tactics of the far right.
Anyway, the right wingers are already attacking shows like Will and Grace (here's an example; hee hee a religion cooking show called "Cruci-fixin's"
I apologize for that; here on slashdot we mostly hear from the handgun fanboys who don't have houses or families who think that every perceived wrong can be dealt with by taking to the hills al. la. Red Dawn to defend the country from the environmentalists, Democrats, coporations, Republicans, religious fanatics, secular humanists, and ivory tower intellectuals. "NRA" was used as a short-hand for that mind-set My point was, in the context of the original point, was simply that you can't legitimately seek redress from a coporation pouring arsenic in your groundwater, for example, by storming the boardroom and shooting. You'll end up on the evening news as the crazy in the body bag and the corporation will continue to do what they were doing before.
Bravo! While I personally fear that someone is going to trip on the stairs in my house and sue me -- it happens, some people are jerks -- I'm not blind to the fact that corporate interests have a vested interest in demonizing personal injury attorneys. What are the potential avenues for justice when a large, powerful, and well-funded entity (corporation, government, or whatever) actually injures you in some way?
1. The NRA claims that just having a handgun in your house is going to protect you. But, try and "overthrow the tyranny of McDonalds" and you'll quickly see where you stand in the eyes of the law.
2. You can write to your congressperson -- who was elected with contributions from those corporations and works for the government -- and try and get a law passed. Good luck with that.
3. or, you can try to sue for redress in civil court.
They are three pretty sucky options but #3 is the way our system works.
What these warning labels display is not a legal system run amok but a severe case of corporate Cover My Ass syndrome that also happens to serve the corporate interest in making people believe that personal injury attorneys are the problem.
I guess the question is "who controls the cameras?" Is the footage made available to the public? Or, if the cops start beating the shit out of some Critical Mass bicyclists do the cameras suddenly all go on the fritz?
Given current search capabilities I'm not personally too worried about public cameras. The sheer volumn of footage means that they will be used primarily after the fact around a time and location of interest. However, I do believe in fairness. If criminal activity is detected then it should be made available no matter who is the culprit; including the police.
While technically the rule for keeping documents secret is if they would reveal sources, methods, or plans. In reality -- and I doubt I'm being too cynical here -- the real criteria is if they will embarass the anyone who has friends in government.
I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I'm having a difficult time wrapping my mind around the connection required to hook up that sewer connection in the immovable center column to the bathroom in the rotating apartment section.
That is increadible. I never even thought to ask if something like this exists. I've been so tiered of logging out of OS-X, logging into Bootcamp and trying to see how badly I misinterpreted IE's rendering. Thank you for the links.
It would make sense that a religious fanatic right winger would think of the ACLU and Al Queda as morally equivalent.
The ACLU is the one of the few organizations actually fighting FOR the constitution. That's why you right-wingers hate it.
Quick question. At what point do you take up arms in a revolution? I have the distinct impression that all the NRA types will still be sitting around drinking Schlitz and bragging about the sie of their rifles even after the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and all of the rest of the amendments to the constitution are null and void.
Do you have any authorities to site on this? I was under the impression that diamonds and, expecially, unmounted and unregistered diamonds are terrible investments.
Technically you only pay a 33% federal tax on your incremental salary over $150k ( 2005 numbers for a single filer ). Your first $30k was taxed at 15% or less just like any poor shmoo who serves you your Egg McMuffin in the morning.
I real crime is that long term capital gains ends up being 15%. So you can be pissed that you're paying double the rate that Paris Hilton is paying on her income from her various trust funds.