So someone like me, who doesn't run antivirus, because I've never been infected, ever, in over 20 years, can never actually download anything, because the antivirus software that's not on my machine is the only program allowed to download anything?
Antivirus software is not for surfing the Internet. Antivirus software is for scanning for and removing viruses. Browsers are for surfing the Internet.
Why should you move functionality from where it makes sense, to where it doesn't? From there, it's just a short step to unmaintainable spaghetti code.
Well, given that we have multi-generational welfare families, yes.
That's because welfare, by the time you get all the free prescriptions, transportation, eyeglasses, etc.etc that's all covered, pays over 200% what a minimum wage job does. When you're not qualified to do anything, then welfare gives you a ridiculously high wage.
These are trivial problems, that anybody charged with security, and even remotely competent at their job would have noticed right off the bat, and fixed.
The fact that they haven't been fixed means one of two things:
1. The TSA isn't at all about improving security. 2. The TSA has no competent employees.
I suppose a third possibility is "both of the above" but that's not the point.
This look to me to be more likely done to inform the public about the total waste of money that is the TSA, and the accompanying security theater.
Basically, they're pissed off that he publicly called them on their bullshit.
I think it's you who are falling for the propaganda.
The powerful political figures lambasted Wikileaks in the media, stating that these leaks put informants and agents at risk of death. They didn't, at the time, know exactly what was leaked.
The CIA, FBI, and other groups that are actually _involved_ in this shit, rather than just being talking heads, went through it, and stated that no such people were put at risk by what was leaked.
In some cases, yes, "citation needed" means "I'm too lazy to look it up."
In this case, though, it means "There is significant, reliable evidence to contradict your assertion. Please back up your statement with facts, other than the 'common knowledge' logical fallacy."
And to me "they've learned to work at a kitchen table or wherever" is only a small step away from "they're all on call 24/7, because they can work wherever they happen to be."
Why should I have to explain how the whole Internet is supposed to work for every link on my site, just because some clueless, easily offended n00b doesn't have a reason to sue?
rather than leaving it to some idiot PM with a BS in some lame-ass MIS program.
Seeing as the VP is such a VIP, maybe we should keep the PC on the QT, 'cause if it leaks to the VC, he could end up an MIA, then we'd all be put on KP.
Or a contracting outfit that charges like a wounded bull and whose people are no better than cheap overseas labor anyway?
Heck...the contracting outfit's programmers probably are cheap overseas labour. They're just being fronted by a domestic company that charges a 750% markup on their services.
I was going to reply to HereIAm, but with your insightful post, I'll just add the one thing I think you missed:
Not only do high beams illuminate further down the road (3x, maybe 4x, seems pretty accurate to me) they also illuminate further to the sides, as they seem spread out more. Maybe this is a function of shining further, so the angle may not be any different, but it still allows a wider view.
And no, high beams won't save you from a tree in the middle of the interstate if you're going 65mph. Daylight will.
Actually, unless at least one of either your headlights, brakes, attention span, or brain is in terrible condition, a tree in the middle of the interstate is perfectly visible in time to stop at 65mph.
With good headlights, and moderate brakes, you can hit 80 mph, and still have time to stop for something in the road.
As I previously stated, you're not qualified to drive at night. And every post you write, contrary to your intention, merely reinforces my (and many others, apparently) opinion.
That's what rural (read: mailbox on a post at the end of a laneway) mail carriers did in SW Ontario for a long time, because they didn't have the nifty right hand drive mail trucks that they seem to have in the city. Don't know if this is still true, or not.
We spend millions of dollars collectively on technology that's designed to make idiot drivers safer behind the wheel. (Regardless of the fact that they just keep on coming up with new ways to be idiots.)
What we should be doing is spending a few hundred thousand to get the idiots out from behind the wheel.
> If you find it scary to drive at night without high-beams then please stop driving at night, you aren't qualified....and that really is kind of offensive. I'm perfectly qualified to drive at night, thank you very much. Although driving at night on roads where there are no streetlights is kind of dangerous, and really no one should be doing it if it can be helped. Btw the road I'm talking about had "exactly zero lights".
That may offend you, but he's right. You're not qualified to drive at night. If you think it's scary, and can't turn on your high beams without checking your car manual, then you shouldn't be doing it. It doesn't matter how qualified you _think_ you are. You can't do it safely. End of story.
I grew up in the middle of nowhere with no street lights. I use high beams at night, make sure they're clean and well aligned, and can see quite well with them.
As for the idiot speeding on the wrong side of the road to avoid the cops....this can happen any time of day, in any location, urban or otherwise. Not exactly a night-only problem.
And more importantly, it would mean end of religions, unless we want to fool ourselves now on new, grandiose scale.
Ok...seriously....
I've worked with a lot of scientists who claim that the similarity of DNA across all life, and even large sections of chromosomes that are basically identical between such diverse species as humans and mice, are proof of evolution, because it's obvious one developed from the other, and passed on genetic material in the process.
Now, you're claiming that a completely different DNA, totally incompatible with "standard" DNA, where no genetic material could be passed on at all, is proof for evolution.
But the problem is, Shaniqua's son could be a completely criminal hooligan punk, but she's still going to cry racism, if she doesn't see that side of her kid. Hell, even if she does see that side of her kid, she might still do it. At least some people are going to believe her, and there will have to be an investigation, lots of public bullshit, and probably consequences for the teacher who hauled the punk on the carpet.
If, on the other hand, the completely criminal hooligan punk is the son of a white accountant named Roger, there's going to be no race card played, and none of this bullshit for the teacher to have to go through for calling the kid on his crap.
The system isn't racist because of people like Moryath. The system is racist because it's inherently racist. People will pull out the race card when it suits their purpose for either side of the debate, whether it's legitimate or not.
I think what he's trying to say is that the number of things that are currently dead is more than the number of things that are currently alive, but he's too obnoxious to say it properly.
However, even that is arguable, depending on your parameters.
Slashdot Mirror
Great idea.
So someone like me, who doesn't run antivirus, because I've never been infected, ever, in over 20 years, can never actually download anything, because the antivirus software that's not on my machine is the only program allowed to download anything?
Antivirus software is not for surfing the Internet. Antivirus software is for scanning for and removing viruses.
Browsers are for surfing the Internet.
Why should you move functionality from where it makes sense, to where it doesn't? From there, it's just a short step to unmaintainable spaghetti code.
What?
How the heck does Dr. Seuss get modded troll?!?!
Well, given that we have multi-generational welfare families, yes.
That's because welfare, by the time you get all the free prescriptions, transportation, eyeglasses, etc.etc that's all covered, pays over 200% what a minimum wage job does. When you're not qualified to do anything, then welfare gives you a ridiculously high wage.
Hence, the problem you mention.
What the hell difference does it make?
These are trivial problems, that anybody charged with security, and even remotely competent at their job would have noticed right off the bat, and fixed.
The fact that they haven't been fixed means one of two things:
1. The TSA isn't at all about improving security.
2. The TSA has no competent employees.
I suppose a third possibility is "both of the above" but that's not the point.
This look to me to be more likely done to inform the public about the total waste of money that is the TSA, and the accompanying security theater.
Basically, they're pissed off that he publicly called them on their bullshit.
The question comes natural... can it be all without foreing intervenction?
That question came naturally?
I'd hate to see a question you have that didn't come naturally.
The question that comes naturally to me is: What the hell are you talking about?
Centipedes? In my vagina?
Well, dammit!
That's why the condom broke!!
I think it's you who are falling for the propaganda.
The powerful political figures lambasted Wikileaks in the media, stating that these leaks put informants and agents at risk of death.
They didn't, at the time, know exactly what was leaked.
The CIA, FBI, and other groups that are actually _involved_ in this shit, rather than just being talking heads, went through it, and stated that no such people were put at risk by what was leaked.
In some cases, yes, "citation needed" means "I'm too lazy to look it up."
In this case, though, it means "There is significant, reliable evidence to contradict your assertion. Please back up your statement with facts, other than the 'common knowledge' logical fallacy."
I think he might have meant petri dish encryption....
Definitely agree.
And to me "they've learned to work at a kitchen table or wherever" is only a small step away from "they're all on call 24/7, because they can work wherever they happen to be."
Your spelling, on the other hand....not so terrific.
That's not digital alteration....
That's 200 lbs of explosives! :)
Why should I have to explain how the whole Internet is supposed to work for every link on my site, just because some clueless, easily offended n00b doesn't have a reason to sue?
That's retarded.
rather than leaving it to some idiot PM with a BS in some lame-ass MIS program.
Seeing as the VP is such a VIP, maybe we should keep the PC on the QT, 'cause if it leaks to the VC, he could end up an MIA, then we'd all be put on KP.
Or a contracting outfit that charges like a wounded bull and whose people are no better than cheap overseas labor anyway?
Heck...the contracting outfit's programmers probably are cheap overseas labour. They're just being fronted by a domestic company that charges a 750% markup on their services.
I was going to reply to HereIAm, but with your insightful post, I'll just add the one thing I think you missed:
Not only do high beams illuminate further down the road (3x, maybe 4x, seems pretty accurate to me) they also illuminate further to the sides, as they seem spread out more. Maybe this is a function of shining further, so the angle may not be any different, but it still allows a wider view.
Other than that, great post.
And no, high beams won't save you from a tree in the middle of the interstate if you're going 65mph. Daylight will.
Actually, unless at least one of either your headlights, brakes, attention span, or brain is in terrible condition, a tree in the middle of the interstate is perfectly visible in time to stop at 65mph.
With good headlights, and moderate brakes, you can hit 80 mph, and still have time to stop for something in the road.
As I previously stated, you're not qualified to drive at night. And every post you write, contrary to your intention, merely reinforces my (and many others, apparently) opinion.
So how many morons drive from the passenger seat?
That's what rural (read: mailbox on a post at the end of a laneway) mail carriers did in SW Ontario for a long time, because they didn't have the nifty right hand drive mail trucks that they seem to have in the city.
Don't know if this is still true, or not.
No kidding.
We spend millions of dollars collectively on technology that's designed to make idiot drivers safer behind the wheel. (Regardless of the fact that they just keep on coming up with new ways to be idiots.)
What we should be doing is spending a few hundred thousand to get the idiots out from behind the wheel.
You can't legislate stupid.
> If you find it scary to drive at night without high-beams then please stop driving at night, you aren't qualified. ...and that really is kind of offensive. I'm perfectly qualified to drive at night, thank you very much. Although driving at night on roads where there are no streetlights is kind of dangerous, and really no one should be doing it if it can be helped. Btw the road I'm talking about had "exactly zero lights".
That may offend you, but he's right. You're not qualified to drive at night. If you think it's scary, and can't turn on your high beams without checking your car manual, then you shouldn't be doing it. It doesn't matter how qualified you _think_ you are. You can't do it safely. End of story.
I grew up in the middle of nowhere with no street lights. I use high beams at night, make sure they're clean and well aligned, and can see quite well with them.
As for the idiot speeding on the wrong side of the road to avoid the cops....this can happen any time of day, in any location, urban or otherwise. Not exactly a night-only problem.
I don't see what you're getting at.
editors just passed the garbage on to it's readers
According to your info, the previous statement should read:
editors just passed the garbage on to its readers
which is what the AC was whining about.
There were two "it's" in the post, not just one. The first one was correct. The second was not.
And more importantly, it would mean end of religions, unless we want to fool ourselves now on new, grandiose scale.
Ok...seriously....
I've worked with a lot of scientists who claim that the similarity of DNA across all life, and even large sections of chromosomes that are basically identical between such diverse species as humans and mice, are proof of evolution, because it's obvious one developed from the other, and passed on genetic material in the process.
Now, you're claiming that a completely different DNA, totally incompatible with "standard" DNA, where no genetic material could be passed on at all, is proof for evolution.
Admit it. You're just making shit up.
You may have a point.
But the problem is, Shaniqua's son could be a completely criminal hooligan punk, but she's still going to cry racism, if she doesn't see that side of her kid. Hell, even if she does see that side of her kid, she might still do it. At least some people are going to believe her, and there will have to be an investigation, lots of public bullshit, and probably consequences for the teacher who hauled the punk on the carpet.
If, on the other hand, the completely criminal hooligan punk is the son of a white accountant named Roger, there's going to be no race card played, and none of this bullshit for the teacher to have to go through for calling the kid on his crap.
The system isn't racist because of people like Moryath. The system is racist because it's inherently racist. People will pull out the race card when it suits their purpose for either side of the debate, whether it's legitimate or not.
I have no faith for the future of humanity. The average person is a total fucking idiot.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1877782&cid=34316668
I'm glad someone else noticed.....
or better dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sdb bs=512
try decrypting THAT
YOU FUCKER! THAT COMMAND OVERWROTE MY WINDOWS PARTITION!
No, it didn't. It just encrypted it. :)
I think what he's trying to say is that the number of things that are currently dead is more than the number of things that are currently alive, but he's too obnoxious to say it properly.
However, even that is arguable, depending on your parameters.