I ignored the rest of the methodology because I didn't agree with it. I chose to defend the one point that I saw of value - testing unmodified browsers against each other. You know, the kind that non-geeks use. That's it. Anything else you are reading from my original post is imagined.
What is wrong with testing the bare browser configuration? Aren't we trying to protect those who are most likely to download malware by accident, i.e., those who are also unlikely to install AdBlockPlus and NoScript?
Basically summed up Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Other Mandatory Programs (this includes such things as unemployment, food stamps, military disability, etc...) for Entitlements. The rest are pretty straightforward. Didn't even touch other discretionary spending (105 billion), which I'm sure actually also probably includes some defense spending, and Department of State (51.7 billion), which pays for mercenaries. Wars are part of the DoD budget, they've just been going on a long time and so their sum total is harder to get, but it is attainable. Right now, Afghanistan is costing 6.6 billion per month, where Iraq is costing 5.5 billion per month.
I think its a fairly accurate summary. If I could I'd Sig the entire thing.
None that I know of. The only point I was trying to really make was that when you are arguing with your reputation at stake (as it would be if it was attached to a unique identifier), the arguments tend to remain fairly civil. I'm not denying the value of anonymity.
I originally suspected as much; Islamic terrorists tend to be all about casualty count, whereas other kinds tend to focus on making political statements. The bombing of a government building reminded me more of Oklahoma City than, say, 9/11 or other Islamic extremist attacks.
My statement was more about the fact that a political party has youth camps on an isolated island. Seems shady.
Don't get me wrong, I am of the opinion that everyone should be able to do whatever it is they want so long as they aren't directly infringing on someone else's rights. But I will say that greed has a better chance of getting us off this rock than hedonism does. We need both.
Smoking dope is victimless. Acquiring it is a nightmare.
Legalization solves the acquisition problem. Personally, I don't smoke, but I have absolutely no problem with someone who smokes recreationally - a lot of my friends do, and that's perfectly OK by me. To me, alcohol is just another recreational drug, and they should all be treated the same.
Right on.
Anyone can choose to allow drugs to dominate and destroy their well-being, and legality has no influence on that behaviour. I'd rather have someone get chilled on pot, than high on violent greed as we're seeing in many big american cities.
Sigh. 'High on Violent Greed'? Seriously? I can't decide which is more ludicrous, this, or the anti-pot propaganda messages I see on TV all the time.
At least the stoner just chills out in his living room, appreciating music:)
This is actually the only reason I don't smoke pot. Alcohol makes you drunk and stupid temporarily, giving you a bit of relief from the daily grind. Then you wake up, feel horrible, regret it, and move on to doing productive things until the next time. Pot turns you (at least it turned me) into a brain-dead consumer without the hangover. It makes sitting around 'appreciating music' seem like a good use of your time. I would actually rather be doing something productive with my time. It's why I got into programming in the first place.
The bullet in the head is only a solution if you haven't institutionalized a system that seems to promote dictatorships, especially when you can just ignore the laws that are in place to prevent it, or just rewrite them with your puppet two-party congress. You need a lot more bullets and a lot more heads to stop that.
Amazon came of age in the internet era. Sony is a has been from the past era of 'we own you and do what we want'.
So less because they are a 'Big' corporation and more because they are an 'Old' corporation? I tend to think it's just more because they are, apparently, an 'Inept' corporation.
The reason they are like this is because they are a major corporation. Anything smaller could not survive such a fiasco. Security costs money, it is the first thing out the window in a major corporation.
This logic fails to pass the smell test. Amazon is a major corporation, and they have proven to be quite secure. And if security costs money, why do only small companies (who don't have the capital to spare) have security? Surely they would try to save some money here and there and possibly consider cutting security measures.
Big corporations can be guilty of many things, but this seems more like anti-corporate ranting than an 'Insightful' analysis of the situation.
Agree with most of what you say, but I do have to query one thing.
What do you mean by 'spend more on your economy'? I'm assuming you mean either directly finance (government spending) or indirectly finance (reduced government spending/taxes --> more private spending). I can agree with that, but I would also point out that in the past we have been extremely successful and still spent a ridiculous amount on defense. Perhaps 'too much' is very much a relative thing, dependent upon the strength of the economy at the time? Maybe defense spending is better if set as a percentage of GDP, not taxed income?
Slashdot Mirror
I ignored the rest of the methodology because I didn't agree with it. I chose to defend the one point that I saw of value - testing unmodified browsers against each other. You know, the kind that non-geeks use. That's it. Anything else you are reading from my original post is imagined.
What is wrong with testing the bare browser configuration? Aren't we trying to protect those who are most likely to download malware by accident, i.e., those who are also unlikely to install AdBlockPlus and NoScript?
By that logic I should add a DoE entry (currently 26.3 billion).
wikipedia
Basically summed up Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Other Mandatory Programs (this includes such things as unemployment, food stamps, military disability, etc...) for Entitlements. The rest are pretty straightforward. Didn't even touch other discretionary spending (105 billion), which I'm sure actually also probably includes some defense spending, and Department of State (51.7 billion), which pays for mercenaries. Wars are part of the DoD budget, they've just been going on a long time and so their sum total is harder to get, but it is attainable. Right now, Afghanistan is costing 6.6 billion per month, where Iraq is costing 5.5 billion per month.
I think its a fairly accurate summary. If I could I'd Sig the entire thing.
See Sig. Some amount smaller than the total for DoD.
Yeah, but he will do that for hours without tiring or injuring himself. You won't. That's the real advantage of the suit.
None that I know of. The only point I was trying to really make was that when you are arguing with your reputation at stake (as it would be if it was attached to a unique identifier), the arguments tend to remain fairly civil. I'm not denying the value of anonymity.
No, because the name Dylan Goss isn't a unique identifier. Post your name and address and then you might make a stronger point.
Is poorly named unless the police also have to give a DNA sample to the arrested.
Seems like Anonymous Coward is right - we're fucked.
We don't expect fools such as you to understand. Feel free to keep living in our shadow, silly internet troll.
Thanks. That was the context I was looking for. Still seems odd to me, but that might be just me.
I originally suspected as much; Islamic terrorists tend to be all about casualty count, whereas other kinds tend to focus on making political statements. The bombing of a government building reminded me more of Oklahoma City than, say, 9/11 or other Islamic extremist attacks.
My statement was more about the fact that a political party has youth camps on an isolated island. Seems shady.
Uhhh... maybe I don't know the context, but this seems wrong. The shooting moreso, but the isolated island youth camp for a political party...
Anyone know anything about these?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T819usZLQtE&feature=channel_video_title
I wonder why Star Wars didn't have any of these guys.
Don't get me wrong, I am of the opinion that everyone should be able to do whatever it is they want so long as they aren't directly infringing on someone else's rights. But I will say that greed has a better chance of getting us off this rock than hedonism does. We need both.
You probably haven't much either, but don't let that stop you from pretending you know exactly how the deal went down.
Smoking dope is victimless. Acquiring it is a nightmare.
Legalization solves the acquisition problem. Personally, I don't smoke, but I have absolutely no problem with someone who smokes recreationally - a lot of my friends do, and that's perfectly OK by me. To me, alcohol is just another recreational drug, and they should all be treated the same.
Right on.
Anyone can choose to allow drugs to dominate and destroy their well-being, and legality has no influence on that behaviour. I'd rather have someone get chilled on pot, than high on violent greed as we're seeing in many big american cities.
Sigh. 'High on Violent Greed'? Seriously? I can't decide which is more ludicrous, this, or the anti-pot propaganda messages I see on TV all the time.
At least the stoner just chills out in his living room, appreciating music :)
This is actually the only reason I don't smoke pot. Alcohol makes you drunk and stupid temporarily, giving you a bit of relief from the daily grind. Then you wake up, feel horrible, regret it, and move on to doing productive things until the next time. Pot turns you (at least it turned me) into a brain-dead consumer without the hangover. It makes sitting around 'appreciating music' seem like a good use of your time. I would actually rather be doing something productive with my time. It's why I got into programming in the first place.
The bullet in the head is only a solution if you haven't institutionalized a system that seems to promote dictatorships, especially when you can just ignore the laws that are in place to prevent it, or just rewrite them with your puppet two-party congress. You need a lot more bullets and a lot more heads to stop that.
Amazon came of age in the internet era. Sony is a has been from the past era of 'we own you and do what we want'.
So less because they are a 'Big' corporation and more because they are an 'Old' corporation? I tend to think it's just more because they are, apparently, an 'Inept' corporation.
The reason they are like this is because they are a major corporation. Anything smaller could not survive such a fiasco. Security costs money, it is the first thing out the window in a major corporation.
This logic fails to pass the smell test. Amazon is a major corporation, and they have proven to be quite secure. And if security costs money, why do only small companies (who don't have the capital to spare) have security? Surely they would try to save some money here and there and possibly consider cutting security measures.
Big corporations can be guilty of many things, but this seems more like anti-corporate ranting than an 'Insightful' analysis of the situation.
The idea that Americans are somehow better than other people is an outdated notion.
Surely you aren't naive enough to think only Americans think they are better than everyone else? Have you ever been to Europe?
It's called pride. It's a human affliction, and it manifests in different ways, but it always shows up.
...the porn scanners are bad because they waste money.
Now I agree.
Right, its a useful 'feature' if they tell you about it and let you turn it off. Otherwise it is covert tracking, even if by accident.
Agree with most of what you say, but I do have to query one thing.
What do you mean by 'spend more on your economy'? I'm assuming you mean either directly finance (government spending) or indirectly finance (reduced government spending/taxes --> more private spending). I can agree with that, but I would also point out that in the past we have been extremely successful and still spent a ridiculous amount on defense. Perhaps 'too much' is very much a relative thing, dependent upon the strength of the economy at the time? Maybe defense spending is better if set as a percentage of GDP, not taxed income?