Except your argument has been proven false - many eyes DID catch the bug!
You are posting to an article plainly stating the bug exists, while your post claims such an article doesn't and can't exist because this very bug you are commenting on hasn't and can't be found.
You state this falsehood while at the same time argue the only process that "works" is one where not only would this bug have been around for a decade but still to this day would only be known to the black hat hackers who will use it for ill, depriving the software users (us) of being allowed to even know there is a problem under threat of lawsuits.
I have to seriously question your motives for such a desire and why you don't want people to be secure...
and of course when you start dealing with SSD's or more expensive drives with smarter controllers your ability to actually do a write to every sector to achieve this goal is somewhat questionable
Every IDE drive made since the 90s has a multicore processor on it that is already more powerful than most hobbiest computers sold as actual computers just the decade before.
The translation between an address on disk to read or store a byte has not matched a static physical location since MFM drives, which most people these days have never seen or heard of.
Some brilliant hackers are only just recently reverse engineering these controllers, learning to run code directly on them.
This guy even has a Linux kernel running on a 2tb Western Digital HD controller chip, and reprogrammed it to silently watch for a certain string to be written by the PC and then return additional data.
His idea was to create a program that could be triggered remotely by getting said string to be written to disk, say by utilizing a webserver log file which puts even invalid requests into an error log.
That drive has a 150mhz 3 core ARM processor, which has a 32 bit memory map, direct access to the sata bus and direct access to the raw storage. By pausing the HD CPU, memory locations can be changed and the currently running program modified, then the CPU can be unpaused and the code continues to run.
Basically anything you can do from the sATA interface is pretty garenteed not to be able to touch or even be aware of specific locations on the platters where data is stored.
And while I am at it, the order of the domain should have been reversed. So instead of e.g. tech.slashdot.org.us, It would have been better to go for us.org.slashdot.tech as you then follow the tree. Even neater if there would have been no dots, but slashes instead: http://us/org/slashdot/tech//d... (Please note the second double slashes to show where the domain ends and the file system begins.
Actually in the 80s that is pretty much how it was.
UUCP mail was routed from one mail server to another to another before finally (hopefully!) landing in a users mail spool on a server they frequently checked more than others. This one done with whats called "bang paths" as they used ! as the separator, and the route was listed left to right ending with a double colon and the username.
Even at the time DNS replaced hosts.txt on the ARPAnet, there were still other connected networks like BITnet and CSnet using different protocols that used mixed forms of routing paths, and neither network required NSF approval to join like the ARPAnet did. BITnet was IBMs VMS network, and anyone that had a VAX with the RSCS software installed and could afford a leased line was able to get on the network and get data to/from the arpanet. There was a serious perceived threat from these other protocols, most of which lacked a unified or centrally managed naming lookup scheme (although that is exactly what RSCS was, although only for VAX)
At the time each protocol pretty much only looked out for their own, except for DNS which was advertized as "generic" and "non-proprietary" as only IP was required. DNS was also an open standard like IP and TCP. That was enough for DNS to "win" and become the one true naming system.
I'm not sure why they decided to use a right to left hierarchy beyond just trying to differentiate themselves from existing protocols... But it doesn't follow the URL/URI standard because that wasn't to be invented for another 10 years or so. As you say, hindsight is always 20/20
Excluding all ccTLDs, the original gTLDs are:.arpa.com.net.org.gov.edu.mil and.int The first expansion added:.aero.asia.biz.cat.coop.info.jobs.me.mobi.museum.name.pro.tel and.travel.
Then ICANN opened this new gTLD program. The listing of new gTLDs approved are here
I had the idea to use it for pre-blacklisting each and every one in my mail and web filters, but opted instead to go with a whitelisting approach hoping for easier maintenance (Thus the easy copy/pasting of the list at the top - sorry, I don't have link references anymore)
The applicant status page makes for better comedy however, as it lists the existing company name that requested the new top-level instead of the fake company name setup to handle domain registrations. (Currently the english TLDs start at page 4)
Most make sense from the twisted world view of trademark holders, but some are true WTF moments...
Amazon for example requested some obvious ones like.amazon ,.buy , and.cloud But they also have some strange requests like.bot,.fire ,.silk , and.pin
Amazon requested a whole 76 TLDs, Google requested 102, Microsoft only 11, and surprisingly Apple only requested.apple
ICANN bitched and moaned about not wanting to create.XXX for like 10 years, but they have already approved and delegated things like.dating ,.sexy , and.singles
Also interesting is they already approved and delegated.democrat but have yet to even just approved.gop
Filtering on similarities shows.app has 14 requests,.art.bay.home have 10, and even 5 requests for the.tld tld:P
A whole 6 pages worth of results have objections linked to them, which sounds promising except there are 56 pages total:/
Sadly there is way too much money involved for much success of a massive grass-roots preemptive blocking and agreement to not allow such TLDs to resolve. But I have no qualms about doing so and only white listing individual and specific domains if any of our customers or vendors go the retarded route of making their primary email or websites use one of these.
I'd give our non-english speaking friends a break, because despite the great technical problems involved at least they have a valid reason wanting a TLD in their native language. Beyond that however, the rest so far look like money grubbing land grabs, stupid branding, or obvious scamming/spammer havens.
I wasn't disagreeing with the facts that were cited, only pointing out that the amount of work that you are going to get out of a particular amount of charge for a given application is directly proportional to that amount of charge, regardless of what the current or voltage levels are, because for any single given electrical application, the power demands tend to be invariant. Under such circumstances, more charge available means powering that particular application for more time, which results in more work being done.
A 12 volt 1 amp-hour battery will store the exact same amount of energy as a 6 volt 2 amp-hour battery. Both store 12 watt-hours of energy.
However if your load requires 12 volt, minimum 10.5 volt, then being powered by the 12 volt 1 amp-hour battery will provide for an hour of useful work, while being powered by the 6 volt battery will likely result in NO work what so ever, despite both providing the same amount of energy.
It's hard to argue 1 hour of work is less than zero hours of work, or that one equals zero.
Meanwhile, money made from selling Windows software to computer makers slid by three percent due to continue soft demand by consumers for personal computers
Yes, I too have been both softly demanding and loudly demanding a personal computer OS from Microsoft, yet all they want to push is some tablet OS unsuited for business work on a personal computer.
At least they aren't acting surprised about their choice.
Dark Matter on the other hand, is something which is not predicted by any theory we currently have.
Before you are at all taken seriously, you have a ton of explaining to do then.
Since you claim General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the laws of Thermodynamics are all not current theories we have, you must start by explaining what each one of those theories explains and then some
You have to explain why the Sun exists, since it can't with the amount of gravity we actually see.
You have to explain the cosmic microwave background image, and why it shows in multiple ways what you claim doesn't exist. Why does the image indicate 25% barionic matter and 75% non-barionic if that isn't actually the case? Why does the image show missing spectral lines for missing matter which you claim isn't missing because it doesn't exist? Why are solar systems the shape we see them in if gravity works the way you claim? Why are galaxies the shape we see them in if gravity works the way you claim? Why are galactic clusters the shape we see them in if gravity works the way you claim? How do you explain the galactic filaments since there isn't enough gravity for the universe to look the way it looks?
Once you create a theory to answer all of those, you'll finally be caught up to "now" and can then proceed to wow us with the additional predictions your theory makes that turn out to be the case.
Until then, the evidence is strongly against all of your claims. You and the people who modded you up should be ashamed.
I don't think time spent studying the monster manuals or magic would be of much aid in the actual spiritual journey we face on earth even if you could make various other claims of benefit.
I don't think the time you personally spend posting to slashdot is of much aid in real life either.
You stop all of your hobbies at my request, and we will talk about me stopping mine at yours.
My own character (who appears whenever I need to advance the metaplot or something) is a Paladin of Khorne, and if you know the lore behind those two things you're probably wondering what the hell I'm smoking)
Khorne the chaos god? A paladin?!
I find what you've been smoking interesting, and would like to subscribe to your campaign!
When you call Bradley Manning a whistle blower, you lose all credibility.
Pft, coming from yourself - who just committed 10 federal crimes today alone - you sir have less than no credibility. The people with zero credibility have way way more credibility than you do, so naturally they win.
Stop being a criminal and perhaps others might care somewhat about your opinions of the law.
The key thing often forgotten by those who argue against anyone ever voting for a 3rd party is that they somehow think that all voters are "owned" by the 2 major parties. And if someone chooses to vote for a 3rd party, they are somehow "taking votes away" from a major party candidate.
I've never understood that line of reasoning.
Voting 3rd party is akin to "stealing" votes from the two major parties exactly the same as me purchasing a bag of potato chips is "stealing" that money from the entertainment industry.
If someone wishes to claim I was "stealing" my own vote which is mine to do with as I please, then let them step up to the plate first and allow me to dictate how they spend their vote. Otherwise it's nothing more than hypocritical to demand the same of me.
As you already mentioned, each person who votes increases the fractions denominator, and the fact neither of the major two parties counters show an increase in the numerator is by intent and design. This despite the system in place that declares a winner based off the largest fraction, no matter how small of a percentage it normalizes to in the end.
How does any of that help the fact HTTPS://slashdot.org/ returns a 302 redirection back to HTTP://slashdot.org/ ???
Setting up a special "secure" website with SSL certificate is pretty useless if you only redirect to a single non-encrypted URL.
Unless of course you are claiming HTTP(no S) is encrypted with magic or something, which seems to be what you are implying by pointing out the TLS server/client auth lines in that certificate that won't even apply.....
What's even more hilarious, people like the GP who claim to hate a type of article then proceed to post in each and every one of them are in reality raising two counters in a database somewhere when they #1 click on the article and #2 post a comment. This indicates to slashdot that the article was both interesting to read as well as interesting enough to have participation, and the interpreted result is the readers want MORE articles of that nature!
So when people say "complaining is the only way to get change", they are very correct in fact but incorrect about as far as you can be in outcome. Complaining in the comments will cause more such articles in the future, not less.
As you already stated, the only way to assure less such articles is to skip the ones uninteresting to you and to post what you do want to see in the firehose to be upvoted for the front page.
Anyone who doesn't use the firehose to down vote articles and then complains about articles on the front page are nearly as bad as people who refuse to vote then continuously bitch about who does get voted in to government ("nearly" because the outcome is magnitudes less important in daily life here on slashdot than who runs the worlds biggest countries)
Let me guess, you also run around the beach to scream and yell at small children for playing with plastic buckets in the water, because you fear that small child might actually empty all of earths oceans onto the land, right?
Well the article proves having 0% of a controlled substance is all that's required to be arrested. 100% of receipts sure sounds a lot like 0% controlled substance to me.
Why on earth do I think the business man would be arrested? Because it's happened once already, that's why.
good grief, what use is a teleporter just for cats?!!
Imagine: It's 3am on a Wednesday night. You are up on the Internet arguing with a troll. Suddenly you press a large jolly and candy like button on your cat teleporter, and without warning a thousand terrified cats materialize directly above the troll and rain down upon him like the clawing and hissing metric ton of fur it is.
It's bullshit because you don't need permission to use a trademarked name when using it to identify the actual legit product.
You only need permission to use the mark for Other purposes.
If people names were similar to trademarks, then I wouldn't need your permission to use your name when referring to you. I'd only need permission to slap your name on something else.
So marcello_dl brand cookies isn't allowed if you don't say so. Calling you marcello_dl however requires no permission.
As long as "Ubuntu" is used to identify the actual product "Ubuntu", all legal requirements are met and the owner of the mark "Ubuntu" has no say so over that usage.
After all if they didn't want people calling their linux distro "Ubuntu", then Canonical probably shouldn't have plastered that name all over it and filed for a trademark legally assuring it is called only by the name "Ubuntu".
Taking only part of my sentence and leaving off qualifiers changing its meaning then putting it in a quote block as if that's what I said wasn't supposed to be part of the discussion either, but hey it happened anyway. So did run-on sentence, so take that.
I said long ago that thinking about it or wanting it is not the problem. It's the doing it that is the problem, and laws that are to stop people from harming others are not any infringement on freedom, which I wish I could get you to understand.
Desiring to rape 10 year olds is not freedom. It is in fact slavery. Your desire of lack of freedom and slavery will be much better catered to in other countries.
That's like saying "Then shouldn't we factor in people who don't want to be blown up by terrorists?" to people who argue that the TSA needs to be abolished.
Well, if the odds of being blown up by a terrorist were above 0.1%, and the effectiveness of the TSA was above 0.1%, then actually yea I would say that question should be asked and those variables factored.
I mean, if the odds were pretty high that you would actually fall to harm from a terrorist, then it does make sense to ask if solutions to that problem are high in effectiveness and low in abusiveness.
If the odds of a terrorist attack were actually high like 50%, and the TSA caught 95% of the attacks while abusing no rights of individuals other than a slower line, then I might actually not be upset with them.
Of course reality isn't anywhere near that, unfortunately.
But it's still a fair question to ask. I do ask "If the odds of a terrorist attack are below a tenth of a percent, and the TSA catches zero terrorists, the cost-benefit answer is this is a poor solution that should not be used."
And I stand by the answer to that question:P
There is a difference between criminals abusing people and the government, which I think should be a just entity, abusing people. What I meant is that I do not believe that something should be banned merely because it could be abused or could prove harmful in certain circumstances, at least in general.
In general neither do I. The act should be what is criminal, not the thing(s) being used.
The act of killing someone should be the crime. A type of gun used to kill someone (or just "guns" in general) should not be banned, as the goal shouldn't be to stop people from having guns but to stop people from killing others.
But in a similar line, just because a law is abused similarly does not justify getting rid of laws. People just need held accountable for abusing laws. (Easier said than done I know)
I'm guessing (hoping) there is a miscommunication here, since you literally restated my original point as correct, and are implying I am stating what the GP I first replied to said when I was arguing against him.
The whole point is: if you want a nanny state, please go elsewhere. That's not the kind of country America was ever intended to be, and most of us don't want it.
So if you do agree with the original poster and think I am wrong, you agree with him that a 30-40 year old should have the right to have sex with a 10 or younger year old... and that is "America"
Really?
The rest of your post basically boils down to, using age to determine if a person is ready to handle sex is bad (you argued against me saying it's not bad twice now)
Using age, yes there are areas where it's hard to tell, but there are MORE areas where it is not.
Let's use some numbers. A 10 year old girl, or younger, is very clearly going to look "young" A 30 year old girl, or older, is very clearly going to look "adult"
In those cases, it is very simple to determine age and if it's a good idea to have sex with them. No, that doesn't address people between 15-20 who could look either way, but it addresses some. It certainly addresses more than zero, as the original poster wants, which I repeatedly objected to.
You are arguing a person MUST get a certificate from the government that deems them an adult, and this certificate can not be based on age. (That is the exact argument the original poster made, and I argued against to him and to you)
Again, I quote
The whole point is: if you want a nanny state, please go elsewhere. That's not the kind of country America was ever intended to be, and most of us don't want it.
and
Your objections to an "adult test" are exactly the same objections many people have to a "firearms proficiency test" in order to get a concealed weapons permit. Who decides what is competent or proficient? The State?
That isn't my objection. I argued against that very thing three times now against two people. I pointed out the state is clearly NOT qualified to determine sexual maturity, and that is exactly why they do not do so and set an arbitrary line of "Xth birthday" Only the original poster (and now you) are saying I am wrong, the state IS qualified and MUST issue certificates on a per-individual basis because that is the only method to be factually correct.
So to answer your question, who decides who/what is competent or proficient? You are, since I claimed the state can't possibly do this, which is why they use the current system of age that clearly doesn't reflect if a person is able to handle adult situations like sex or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Except your argument has been proven false - many eyes DID catch the bug!
You are posting to an article plainly stating the bug exists, while your post claims such an article doesn't and can't exist because this very bug you are commenting on hasn't and can't be found.
You state this falsehood while at the same time argue the only process that "works" is one where not only would this bug have been around for a decade but still to this day would only be known to the black hat hackers who will use it for ill, depriving the software users (us) of being allowed to even know there is a problem under threat of lawsuits.
I have to seriously question your motives for such a desire and why you don't want people to be secure...
(let's call him Rob)
No no no, scientifically his name must be Carl! Did no one teach you your A B C's? ;}
and of course when you start dealing with SSD's or more expensive drives with smarter controllers your ability to actually do a write to every sector to achieve this goal is somewhat questionable
Every IDE drive made since the 90s has a multicore processor on it that is already more powerful than most hobbiest computers sold as actual computers just the decade before.
The translation between an address on disk to read or store a byte has not matched a static physical location since MFM drives, which most people these days have never seen or heard of.
Some brilliant hackers are only just recently reverse engineering these controllers, learning to run code directly on them.
This guy even has a Linux kernel running on a 2tb Western Digital HD controller chip, and reprogrammed it to silently watch for a certain string to be written by the PC and then return additional data.
His idea was to create a program that could be triggered remotely by getting said string to be written to disk, say by utilizing a webserver log file which puts even invalid requests into an error log.
That drive has a 150mhz 3 core ARM processor, which has a 32 bit memory map, direct access to the sata bus and direct access to the raw storage.
By pausing the HD CPU, memory locations can be changed and the currently running program modified, then the CPU can be unpaused and the code continues to run.
Basically anything you can do from the sATA interface is pretty garenteed not to be able to touch or even be aware of specific locations on the platters where data is stored.
No he means Silicone. Calculators obtain that by displaying 58008
You can't spell out "mama" on a 7 segment display
(Kids these days!)
And while I am at it, the order of the domain should have been reversed. So instead of e.g. tech.slashdot.org.us, It would have been better to go for us.org.slashdot.tech as you then follow the tree. Even neater if there would have been no dots, but slashes instead:
http://us/org/slashdot/tech//d... (Please note the second double slashes to show where the domain ends and the file system begins.
Actually in the 80s that is pretty much how it was.
UUCP mail was routed from one mail server to another to another before finally (hopefully!) landing in a users mail spool on a server they frequently checked more than others. This one done with whats called "bang paths" as they used ! as the separator, and the route was listed left to right ending with a double colon and the username.
Even at the time DNS replaced hosts.txt on the ARPAnet, there were still other connected networks like BITnet and CSnet using different protocols that used mixed forms of routing paths, and neither network required NSF approval to join like the ARPAnet did.
BITnet was IBMs VMS network, and anyone that had a VAX with the RSCS software installed and could afford a leased line was able to get on the network and get data to/from the arpanet.
There was a serious perceived threat from these other protocols, most of which lacked a unified or centrally managed naming lookup scheme (although that is exactly what RSCS was, although only for VAX)
At the time each protocol pretty much only looked out for their own, except for DNS which was advertized as "generic" and "non-proprietary" as only IP was required. DNS was also an open standard like IP and TCP. That was enough for DNS to "win" and become the one true naming system.
I'm not sure why they decided to use a right to left hierarchy beyond just trying to differentiate themselves from existing protocols...
But it doesn't follow the URL/URI standard because that wasn't to be invented for another 10 years or so.
As you say, hindsight is always 20/20
Excluding all ccTLDs, the original gTLDs are: .arpa .com .net .org .gov .edu .mil and .int .aero .asia .biz .cat .coop .info .jobs .me .mobi .museum .name .pro .tel and .travel.
The first expansion added:
Then ICANN opened this new gTLD program. The listing of new gTLDs approved are here
I had the idea to use it for pre-blacklisting each and every one in my mail and web filters, but opted instead to go with a whitelisting approach hoping for easier maintenance (Thus the easy copy/pasting of the list at the top - sorry, I don't have link references anymore)
The applicant status page makes for better comedy however, as it lists the existing company name that requested the new top-level instead of the fake company name setup to handle domain registrations. (Currently the english TLDs start at page 4)
Most make sense from the twisted world view of trademark holders, but some are true WTF moments...
Amazon for example requested some obvious ones like .amazon , .buy , and .cloud .bot, .fire , .silk , and .pin
But they also have some strange requests like
Amazon requested a whole 76 TLDs, Google requested 102, Microsoft only 11, and surprisingly Apple only requested .apple
ICANN bitched and moaned about not wanting to create .XXX for like 10 years, but they have already approved and delegated things like .dating , .sexy , and .singles
Also interesting is they already approved and delegated .democrat but have yet to even just approved .gop
Filtering on similarities shows .app has 14 requests, .art .bay .home have 10, and even 5 requests for the .tld tld :P
A whole 6 pages worth of results have objections linked to them, which sounds promising except there are 56 pages total :/
Sadly there is way too much money involved for much success of a massive grass-roots preemptive blocking and agreement to not allow such TLDs to resolve.
But I have no qualms about doing so and only white listing individual and specific domains if any of our customers or vendors go the retarded route of making their primary email or websites use one of these.
I'd give our non-english speaking friends a break, because despite the great technical problems involved at least they have a valid reason wanting a TLD in their native language.
Beyond that however, the rest so far look like money grubbing land grabs, stupid branding, or obvious scamming/spammer havens.
I wasn't disagreeing with the facts that were cited, only pointing out that the amount of work that you are going to get out of a particular amount of charge for a given application is directly proportional to that amount of charge, regardless of what the current or voltage levels are, because for any single given electrical application, the power demands tend to be invariant. Under such circumstances, more charge available means powering that particular application for more time, which results in more work being done.
A 12 volt 1 amp-hour battery will store the exact same amount of energy as a 6 volt 2 amp-hour battery. Both store 12 watt-hours of energy.
However if your load requires 12 volt, minimum 10.5 volt, then being powered by the 12 volt 1 amp-hour battery will provide for an hour of useful work, while being powered by the 6 volt battery will likely result in NO work what so ever, despite both providing the same amount of energy.
It's hard to argue 1 hour of work is less than zero hours of work, or that one equals zero.
Meanwhile, money made from selling Windows software to computer makers slid by three percent due to continue soft demand by consumers for personal computers
Yes, I too have been both softly demanding and loudly demanding a personal computer OS from Microsoft, yet all they want to push is some tablet OS unsuited for business work on a personal computer.
At least they aren't acting surprised about their choice.
Dark Matter on the other hand, is something which is not predicted by any theory we currently have.
Before you are at all taken seriously, you have a ton of explaining to do then.
Since you claim General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the laws of Thermodynamics are all not current theories we have, you must start by explaining what each one of those theories explains and then some
You have to explain why the Sun exists, since it can't with the amount of gravity we actually see.
You have to explain the cosmic microwave background image, and why it shows in multiple ways what you claim doesn't exist.
Why does the image indicate 25% barionic matter and 75% non-barionic if that isn't actually the case?
Why does the image show missing spectral lines for missing matter which you claim isn't missing because it doesn't exist?
Why are solar systems the shape we see them in if gravity works the way you claim?
Why are galaxies the shape we see them in if gravity works the way you claim?
Why are galactic clusters the shape we see them in if gravity works the way you claim?
How do you explain the galactic filaments since there isn't enough gravity for the universe to look the way it looks?
Once you create a theory to answer all of those, you'll finally be caught up to "now" and can then proceed to wow us with the additional predictions your theory makes that turn out to be the case.
Until then, the evidence is strongly against all of your claims.
You and the people who modded you up should be ashamed.
I don't think time spent studying the monster manuals or magic would be of much aid in the actual spiritual journey we face on earth even if you could make various other claims of benefit.
I don't think the time you personally spend posting to slashdot is of much aid in real life either.
You stop all of your hobbies at my request, and we will talk about me stopping mine at yours.
My own character (who appears whenever I need to advance the metaplot or something) is a Paladin of Khorne, and if you know the lore behind those two things you're probably wondering what the hell I'm smoking)
Khorne the chaos god? A paladin?!
I find what you've been smoking interesting, and would like to subscribe to your campaign!
When you call Bradley Manning a whistle blower, you lose all credibility.
Pft, coming from yourself - who just committed 10 federal crimes today alone - you sir have less than no credibility.
The people with zero credibility have way way more credibility than you do, so naturally they win.
Stop being a criminal and perhaps others might care somewhat about your opinions of the law.
The key thing often forgotten by those who argue against anyone ever voting for a 3rd party is that they somehow think that all voters are "owned" by the 2 major parties. And if someone chooses to vote for a 3rd party, they are somehow "taking votes away" from a major party candidate.
I've never understood that line of reasoning.
Voting 3rd party is akin to "stealing" votes from the two major parties exactly the same as me purchasing a bag of potato chips is "stealing" that money from the entertainment industry.
If someone wishes to claim I was "stealing" my own vote which is mine to do with as I please, then let them step up to the plate first and allow me to dictate how they spend their vote. Otherwise it's nothing more than hypocritical to demand the same of me.
As you already mentioned, each person who votes increases the fractions denominator, and the fact neither of the major two parties counters show an increase in the numerator is by intent and design. This despite the system in place that declares a winner based off the largest fraction, no matter how small of a percentage it normalizes to in the end.
How does any of that help the fact HTTPS://slashdot.org/ returns a 302 redirection back to HTTP://slashdot.org/ ???
Setting up a special "secure" website with SSL certificate is pretty useless if you only redirect to a single non-encrypted URL.
Unless of course you are claiming HTTP(no S) is encrypted with magic or something, which seems to be what you are implying by pointing out the TLS server/client auth lines in that certificate that won't even apply.....
What's even more hilarious, people like the GP who claim to hate a type of article then proceed to post in each and every one of them are in reality raising two counters in a database somewhere when they #1 click on the article and #2 post a comment.
This indicates to slashdot that the article was both interesting to read as well as interesting enough to have participation, and the interpreted result is the readers want MORE articles of that nature!
So when people say "complaining is the only way to get change", they are very correct in fact but incorrect about as far as you can be in outcome. Complaining in the comments will cause more such articles in the future, not less.
As you already stated, the only way to assure less such articles is to skip the ones uninteresting to you and to post what you do want to see in the firehose to be upvoted for the front page.
Anyone who doesn't use the firehose to down vote articles and then complains about articles on the front page are nearly as bad as people who refuse to vote then continuously bitch about who does get voted in to government ("nearly" because the outcome is magnitudes less important in daily life here on slashdot than who runs the worlds biggest countries)
This many:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/a-huge-break-in-the-libor-banking-investigation-20120628
Let me guess, you also run around the beach to scream and yell at small children for playing with plastic buckets in the water, because you fear that small child might actually empty all of earths oceans onto the land, right?
ekgringo said: ...*snip*
We knew someone
i kan reed replies:
So, you made... *snip*
dissy injects:
At least your username is pretty accurate. well played
.
Well the article proves having 0% of a controlled substance is all that's required to be arrested.
100% of receipts sure sounds a lot like 0% controlled substance to me.
Why on earth do I think the business man would be arrested? Because it's happened once already, that's why.
good grief, what use is a teleporter just for cats?!!
Imagine: It's 3am on a Wednesday night. You are up on the Internet arguing with a troll.
Suddenly you press a large jolly and candy like button on your cat teleporter, and without warning a thousand terrified cats materialize directly above the troll and rain down upon him like the clawing and hissing metric ton of fur it is.
<Nathan Explosion> Release The Kitties!
It's bullshit because you don't need permission to use a trademarked name when using it to identify the actual legit product.
You only need permission to use the mark for Other purposes.
If people names were similar to trademarks, then I wouldn't need your permission to use your name when referring to you. I'd only need permission to slap your name on something else.
So marcello_dl brand cookies isn't allowed if you don't say so. Calling you marcello_dl however requires no permission.
As long as "Ubuntu" is used to identify the actual product "Ubuntu", all legal requirements are met and the owner of the mark "Ubuntu" has no say so over that usage.
After all if they didn't want people calling their linux distro "Ubuntu", then Canonical probably shouldn't have plastered that name all over it and filed for a trademark legally assuring it is called only by the name "Ubuntu".
Taking only part of my sentence and leaving off qualifiers changing its meaning then putting it in a quote block as if that's what I said wasn't supposed to be part of the discussion either, but hey it happened anyway. So did run-on sentence, so take that.
I said long ago that thinking about it or wanting it is not the problem.
It's the doing it that is the problem, and laws that are to stop people from harming others are not any infringement on freedom, which I wish I could get you to understand.
But I give up.
Desiring to rape 10 year olds is not freedom. It is in fact slavery.
Your desire of lack of freedom and slavery will be much better catered to in other countries.
That's like saying "Then shouldn't we factor in people who don't want to be blown up by terrorists?" to people who argue that the TSA needs to be abolished.
Well, if the odds of being blown up by a terrorist were above 0.1%, and the effectiveness of the TSA was above 0.1%, then actually yea I would say that question should be asked and those variables factored.
I mean, if the odds were pretty high that you would actually fall to harm from a terrorist, then it does make sense to ask if solutions to that problem are high in effectiveness and low in abusiveness.
If the odds of a terrorist attack were actually high like 50%, and the TSA caught 95% of the attacks while abusing no rights of individuals other than a slower line, then I might actually not be upset with them.
Of course reality isn't anywhere near that, unfortunately.
But it's still a fair question to ask. I do ask "If the odds of a terrorist attack are below a tenth of a percent, and the TSA catches zero terrorists, the cost-benefit answer is this is a poor solution that should not be used."
And I stand by the answer to that question :P
There is a difference between criminals abusing people and the government, which I think should be a just entity, abusing people. What I meant is that I do not believe that something should be banned merely because it could be abused or could prove harmful in certain circumstances, at least in general.
In general neither do I. The act should be what is criminal, not the thing(s) being used.
The act of killing someone should be the crime. A type of gun used to kill someone (or just "guns" in general) should not be banned, as the goal shouldn't be to stop people from having guns but to stop people from killing others.
But in a similar line, just because a law is abused similarly does not justify getting rid of laws.
People just need held accountable for abusing laws. (Easier said than done I know)
I'm guessing (hoping) there is a miscommunication here, since you literally restated my original point as correct, and are implying I am stating what the GP I first replied to said when I was arguing against him.
The whole point is: if you want a nanny state, please go elsewhere. That's not the kind of country America was ever intended to be, and most of us don't want it.
So if you do agree with the original poster and think I am wrong, you agree with him that a 30-40 year old should have the right to have sex with a 10 or younger year old... and that is "America"
Really?
The rest of your post basically boils down to, using age to determine if a person is ready to handle sex is bad (you argued against me saying it's not bad twice now)
Using age, yes there are areas where it's hard to tell, but there are MORE areas where it is not.
Let's use some numbers.
A 10 year old girl, or younger, is very clearly going to look "young"
A 30 year old girl, or older, is very clearly going to look "adult"
In those cases, it is very simple to determine age and if it's a good idea to have sex with them.
No, that doesn't address people between 15-20 who could look either way, but it addresses some.
It certainly addresses more than zero, as the original poster wants, which I repeatedly objected to.
You are arguing a person MUST get a certificate from the government that deems them an adult, and this certificate can not be based on age.
(That is the exact argument the original poster made, and I argued against to him and to you)
Again, I quote
The whole point is: if you want a nanny state, please go elsewhere. That's not the kind of country America was ever intended to be, and most of us don't want it.
and
Your objections to an "adult test" are exactly the same objections many people have to a "firearms proficiency test" in order to get a concealed weapons permit. Who decides what is competent or proficient? The State?
That isn't my objection. I argued against that very thing three times now against two people.
I pointed out the state is clearly NOT qualified to determine sexual maturity, and that is exactly why they do not do so and set an arbitrary line of "Xth birthday"
Only the original poster (and now you) are saying I am wrong, the state IS qualified and MUST issue certificates on a per-individual basis because that is the only method to be factually correct.
So to answer your question, who decides who/what is competent or proficient?
You are, since I claimed the state can't possibly do this, which is why they use the current system of age that clearly doesn't reflect if a person is able to handle adult situations like sex or not.