"Little risk", eh? I have one of the alcoholics' genes regarding the processing of alcohol in my system - I never get hangovers, and therefore get very little negative feedback from almost any amount of alcohol consumption.
And I deliberately put myself in the way of "danger" - almost all my holidays are, in simple terms, "beer tourism". I like travelling to new countries and trying new beers - I'm like a trainspotter in that regard (http://www.ratebeer.com/user/51287/ is me, 6000 different beers in 5 years). Almost unbelievably, but you'll have to trust me on this, often (I guess 75% of the time) when I'm with a group of fellow beer nerds, we'll get through *many dozens* of beers in a day - starting in the morning ending late - and almost everyone will leave mostly sober. (Yes, we drink smallish samples, enough to get an accurate impression, that's all.) If we know we're doing the same thing the next day, we'll self-regulate. Alcohol *stops* you drinking more different beers, and makes your notes less reliable - drunkenness is the enemy to my beer hobby much of the time.
I also spend most of my time getting as much pleasure from doing things that require concentration and dexterity that I wouldn't have if I was blitzed.
I've seen almost all sides of the stupidity and harm of alcohol abuse. (I had to 'babysit' two visiting 'friends' who were shitfaced and tried to destroy my flat only a month ago). It's definitely not the best of drugs. (The slowness of the negative feedback to the system is part of the problem - you don't slow down or stop until too late.)
And yes, the idea of a plant being illegal is about as stupid as the concept of a word being illegal. That is it's totally nonsensical. (My g/f's grandad was responsible for sowing hemp over large areas of the midwest as part of the WWII war effort - and those plants have now magically changed from being essential to illegal (despite having only tiny levels of THC).)
> How hard is it to evaluate a string for potential danger?
Utterly trivial.
If it came from an external source, it's a potential danger.
Never ever put anything that is potentially dangerous anywhere where it could do anything dangerous. E.g. do not build queries out of it. This may have many false positives, but it has no false negatives. And if you're going to fail, fail safe, don't fail unsafe.
"Wonder if all the good ones left or got fired somewhere."
I do remember reading of several firing sprees in the last few years. The best are often the first to leave even when the firing spree is only intended to clear out deadwood.
Booze, including illegally smuggled stuff from Russia, is cheap enough, and social security is high enough, that there's little need for home distilling here.
As a whisky fanatic, I love what some people can do with stills, but I've never been even remotely tempted to try my hand at anything like that. I have home-brewed, but I know where my limits are (I do a good 2-3% table-beer, everything else is sub-par). Distilling is too far out of my realm of comfort and/or probably competence. (But if it were decriminalised, then there would probably be cheap safe kits, and many of the issues I have would evaporate.)
Props for demonstrating why alcohol shouldn't be demonised, though.
The fact that some people can and do misuse a substance is not a good reason for making pastimes like being a whisky connoisseur or a home brewer, illegal.
I never get a hangover (one reason is that I never drink crap in quantity, I'll happily pay twice as much for something high quality, and happily just leave undrinkable shit). Everyone says I have good luck with my genes. I openly describe it has having "the alcoholics' gene".
For us northerners, there's no need for an antipodean example. If you're in the west, just look at indiginous North Americans, if you're on the meridian, just look at Greenlanders in Denmark, and if you're in the east, just look at - well, basically the whole vodka belt!
I now live in what was traditionally the vodka belt, when we used to come here on holiday, my g/f & I used to play a game - who could spot the first person unable to stand and puking out bile. The game was usually decided within 2 minutes of getting off the boat. Fortunately things have improved in the last decade or so, I guess I'd need to walk about 2-3km to specific districts of town in order to find them now.
Milk? I bet they get a taste for that before they ever encounter coffee.
You know that spoon in their drugs paraphenalia? We both know what it was used for before it was bent - stirring milk into coffee - the original drug coctail!
The act of union in 1800 predates the running with the ball in Rugby school (according to the wikipedia article on rugby football).
So "UK" predates "rugby football".
And the ancient Greeks were playing with round balls. In fact, if you look at all the old drawings of people playing pre-association varieties of football, the ball is shown as being round rather than ovoid. Your "'footballs' were not round in any version of the game" is clearly unsupportable.
Please try to make your "point[s] of history" more historically correct.
But every chart that I've seen from the vehemently pro-GW camp has shown their "hockey stick" not as a graph that looks like
/
but as a graph that looks like (where my twiddles are higher than my dashes)
~~~~~--------_______/
Hence the name "hockey stick".
There's never been any disagreement that as you go backwards in time from 1800, the trend seems to be that temperatures warm. There are no new bits in this paper in *that* regard.
I don't think absolute temperature is the important thing, I think the rate of change of temperature is far more important (averaged, not instantanious, obviously). If our rate of change is less than other rates of change that have been repeatedly seen in the past, then clearly we're not as big an influence as we think we are. The new chart does show several periods in the last 2000 years which have had quick and sustained upward turns, which indeed points to (but doesn't prove) humans not being as significant as we'd like to think we are. However it's only good science to corroborate those curves from other data sources. (It's only good science to draw meaningful error bars too, they seem to be sadly lacking in most things I see.)
I remember the Comms team gave us a dbus command which would do the same thing, to help us with testing. If 'smssend' is more than a dozen lines of script, then it's overkill.
I notice that there's always a problem paying for flights with RyanAir. I go through the process a second time, and the price has gone up. They're crooks in almost every other possible regard (e.g. they'll charge you 24e in credit card fees for 2 people 2 ways on 40e flights. (i.e. 15% is a 'hidden' fee)) so I'm presume this is deliberate too.
As the page rendered in my browser: """ At its height, DNSChanger infected four million computers in 100 countries, with around 300,000 still under its control - something many victims are unaware of and unable to fix.
Like us on Facebook """
I'm sorry they're unaware of and unable to fix themselves, and therefore still under DSNChanger's control, on Facebook.
Why did you bother running dd anyway? If you're going to run (presumably fdisk and) mkfs, then who cares how "evil" any other bytes are on the device, those bytes won't be in any files, they can't harm you.
Autorun.inf? Windows 95, IIRC. Or, to answer the question as asked, "pretty idiotic". They viewed it as "user friendly", of course.
You had to go out of your way if you wanted the same behaviour on MacOS or OSX, but they did mount the volumes automatically. Linux mostly avoided the idiotic behaviour too, but I seem to remember some versions of Ubuntu had it for a while. I suspect I didn't say a positive word about the distribution for many years after that incident - anyone stupid enough to make a decision like that simply cannot be trusted to make any decision.
(Just to be sure I had the quote correct, I googled it, and (at least where I live) my search returned a prior instance of me quoting that line as the top hit.)
If you're talking about the Reichskonkordat, I don't see how that makes the NSDAP a Catholic organisation. It was both parties *using each other* for more leverage, that's all. You often ally with groups different from you if both sides consider there to be mutual gain, that doesn't automatically make either party take on the attributes of the other.
Are you sure about the SS insignia? There's not a single "Gott" mentioned in the fairly extensive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniforms_and_insignia_of_the_Schutzstaffel
I love the anonymous comment on RR's "scathing attack": """ A 0.1 (10%) daily growth rate would result in a doubling in just over 7 days, not 10 as you 'think'. I'm not quite sure why I should trust your "scientific" analysis if you can't get your simple high school math right. (In this case simple exponential growth.) """
I wonder if it was written by FW-S? Bitch-fight!
But to be honest, I agree with the comment - such a level of innumeracy is unacceptible in any field which pretends to be a hard science. If she's smart, she can probably do a refresher course in relevant mathematics no time at all.
Slashdot Mirror
> Art can not exist in a purely capitalistic world.
I cannot agree. A purely capitalistic world cannot prevent anyone from creating things that other people value artistically.
Happy to meet in the middle, certainly.
"Little risk", eh? I have one of the alcoholics' genes regarding the processing of alcohol in my system - I never get hangovers, and therefore get very little negative feedback from almost any amount of alcohol consumption.
And I deliberately put myself in the way of "danger" - almost all my holidays are, in simple terms, "beer tourism". I like travelling to new countries and trying new beers - I'm like a trainspotter in that regard (http://www.ratebeer.com/user/51287/ is me, 6000 different beers in 5 years). Almost unbelievably, but you'll have to trust me on this, often (I guess 75% of the time) when I'm with a group of fellow beer nerds, we'll get through *many dozens* of beers in a day - starting in the morning ending late - and almost everyone will leave mostly sober. (Yes, we drink smallish samples, enough to get an accurate impression, that's all.) If we know we're doing the same thing the next day, we'll self-regulate. Alcohol *stops* you drinking more different beers, and makes your notes less reliable - drunkenness is the enemy to my beer hobby much of the time.
I also spend most of my time getting as much pleasure from doing things that require concentration and dexterity that I wouldn't have if I was blitzed.
I've seen almost all sides of the stupidity and harm of alcohol abuse. (I had to 'babysit' two visiting 'friends' who were shitfaced and tried to destroy my flat only a month ago). It's definitely not the best of drugs. (The slowness of the negative feedback to the system is part of the problem - you don't slow down or stop until too late.)
And yes, the idea of a plant being illegal is about as stupid as the concept of a word being illegal. That is it's totally nonsensical. (My g/f's grandad was responsible for sowing hemp over large areas of the midwest as part of the WWII war effort - and those plants have now magically changed from being essential to illegal (despite having only tiny levels of THC).)
> How hard is it to evaluate a string for potential danger?
Utterly trivial.
If it came from an external source, it's a potential danger.
Never ever put anything that is potentially dangerous anywhere where it could do anything dangerous. E.g. do not build queries out of it. This may have many false positives, but it has no false negatives. And if you're going to fail, fail safe, don't fail unsafe.
"Wonder if all the good ones left or got fired somewhere."
I do remember reading of several firing sprees in the last few years. The best are often the first to leave even when the firing spree is only intended to clear out deadwood.
Booze, including illegally smuggled stuff from Russia, is cheap enough, and social security is high enough, that there's little need for home distilling here.
As a whisky fanatic, I love what some people can do with stills, but I've never been even remotely tempted to try my hand at anything like that. I have home-brewed, but I know where my limits are (I do a good 2-3% table-beer, everything else is sub-par). Distilling is too far out of my realm of comfort and/or probably competence. (But if it were decriminalised, then there would probably be cheap safe kits, and many of the issues I have would evaporate.)
Props for demonstrating why alcohol shouldn't be demonised, though.
> Alcohol should be a schedule 1 drug
You prohibitionist ignoramus.
The fact that some people can and do misuse a substance is not a good reason for making pastimes like being a whisky connoisseur or a home brewer, illegal.
"had bad luck with genes"
I never get a hangover (one reason is that I never drink crap in quantity, I'll happily pay twice as much for something high quality, and happily just leave undrinkable shit). Everyone says I have good luck with my genes. I openly describe it has having "the alcoholics' gene".
For us northerners, there's no need for an antipodean example. If you're in the west, just look at indiginous North Americans, if you're on the meridian, just look at Greenlanders in Denmark, and if you're in the east, just look at - well, basically the whole vodka belt!
I now live in what was traditionally the vodka belt, when we used to come here on holiday, my g/f & I used to play a game - who could spot the first person unable to stand and puking out bile. The game was usually decided within 2 minutes of getting off the boat. Fortunately things have improved in the last decade or so, I guess I'd need to walk about 2-3km to specific districts of town in order to find them now.
Milk? I bet they get a taste for that before they ever encounter coffee.
You know that spoon in their drugs paraphenalia? We both know what it was used for before it was bent - stirring milk into coffee - the original drug coctail!
The act of union in 1800 predates the running with the ball in Rugby school (according to the wikipedia article on rugby football).
So "UK" predates "rugby football".
And the ancient Greeks were playing with round balls. In fact, if you look at all the old drawings of people playing pre-association varieties of football, the ball is shown as being round rather than ovoid. Your "'footballs' were not round in any version of the game" is clearly unsupportable.
Please try to make your "point[s] of history" more historically correct.
But every chart that I've seen from the vehemently pro-GW camp has shown their "hockey stick" not as a graph that looks like
/
but as a graph that looks like (where my twiddles are higher than my dashes)
~~~~~--------_______/
Hence the name "hockey stick".
There's never been any disagreement that as you go backwards in time from 1800, the trend seems to be that temperatures warm. There are no new bits in this paper in *that* regard.
I don't think absolute temperature is the important thing, I think the rate of change of temperature is far more important (averaged, not instantanious, obviously). If our rate of change is less than other rates of change that have been repeatedly seen in the past, then clearly we're not as big an influence as we think we are. The new chart does show several periods in the last 2000 years which have had quick and sustained upward turns, which indeed points to (but doesn't prove) humans not being as significant as we'd like to think we are. However it's only good science to corroborate those curves from other data sources. (It's only good science to draw meaningful error bars too, they seem to be sadly lacking in most things I see.)
I remember the Comms team gave us a dbus command which would do the same thing, to help us with testing. If 'smssend' is more than a dozen lines of script, then it's overkill.
> Higgs-Boson Party at my house!
Bring a vessel whose bottom matches the Higgs Potential surface!
The sectors written by fdisk?
I notice that there's always a problem paying for flights with RyanAir. I go through the process a second time, and the price has gone up. They're crooks in almost every other possible regard (e.g. they'll charge you 24e in credit card fees for 2 people 2 ways on 40e flights. (i.e. 15% is a 'hidden' fee)) so I'm presume this is deliberate too.
As the page rendered in my browser:
"""
At its height, DNSChanger infected four million computers in 100 countries, with around 300,000 still under its control - something many victims are unaware of and unable to fix.
Like us on Facebook
"""
I'm sorry they're unaware of and unable to fix themselves, and therefore still under DSNChanger's control, on Facebook.
Or vagina.
And they would be expected to trust and follow the instructions?
Should they also trust the popup that says "Your computer is infected, click >here< for a free virus scan!"?
How can they tell the difference. One appeared when they didn't expect it, and the other appeared when they didn't expected.
Oh - I know - the *real* one should finish "Honest, you can trust us. Signed, Teh FBI".
Indeed, a quick search for "not the 9 oclock news judge" found the sketch very quickly.
And then several hours disappeared...
Why did you bother running dd anyway? If you're going to run (presumably fdisk and) mkfs, then who cares how "evil" any other bytes are on the device, those bytes won't be in any files, they can't harm you.
What's this "mounting" you're talking about?
Do you "mount" your network card? Nope, but it still manages to pass packets in and out of your machine.
Do you "mount" your monitor? Nope, but it still manages to grab the data in your framebuffer and display it.
Why on earth do you think you'd need to "mount" a USB sniffer?
Autorun.inf? Windows 95, IIRC. Or, to answer the question as asked, "pretty idiotic". They viewed it as "user friendly", of course.
You had to go out of your way if you wanted the same behaviour on MacOS or OSX, but they did mount the volumes automatically. Linux mostly avoided the idiotic behaviour too, but I seem to remember some versions of Ubuntu had it for a while. I suspect I didn't say a positive word about the distribution for many years after that incident - anyone stupid enough to make a decision like that simply cannot be trusted to make any decision.
democratically-elected oligarchy?
"It's the one with the real hair."
(Just to be sure I had the quote correct, I googled it, and (at least where I live) my search returned a prior instance of me quoting that line as the top hit.)
If you're talking about the Reichskonkordat, I don't see how that makes the NSDAP a Catholic organisation. It was both parties *using each other* for more leverage, that's all. You often ally with groups different from you if both sides consider there to be mutual gain, that doesn't automatically make either party take on the attributes of the other.
Are you sure about the SS insignia? There's not a single "Gott" mentioned in the fairly extensive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniforms_and_insignia_of_the_Schutzstaffel
I love the anonymous comment on RR's "scathing attack":
"""
A 0.1 (10%) daily growth rate would result in a doubling in just over 7 days, not 10 as you 'think'. I'm not quite sure why I should trust your "scientific" analysis if you can't get your simple high school math right. (In this case simple exponential growth.)
"""
I wonder if it was written by FW-S? Bitch-fight!
But to be honest, I agree with the comment - such a level of innumeracy is unacceptible in any field which pretends to be a hard science. If she's smart, she can probably do a refresher course in relevant mathematics no time at all.