You are exactly right. I got the Bank of America one right because I cheated and tried the URL for myself and found it was legit. The lame CapitalOne question got me because I was too bored to try the same test a second time. Their explanation of why it was legit was in fact an explanation of why it was verly likely an phishing attempt. I call bullshit.
Why does this get talked about so little? Millions of fundamentalist Christians must know that the people pounding the table for Intelligent Design are lying when they claim that they are not promoting religious views. Do none of them have the courage or character to say that this should stop? Will no one stand up and declare that lying to promote Christianity undermines the principles it supposedly stands for?
I wish I knew what to pack for our upcoming trip to the Dark Ages.
Look, as a good atheist, I frequently enjoy a hearty laugh at religion's many absurdities (when I'm not screaming in frustration at the way it has spawned war after war). So I would like to see science produce a well-documented theory of how the hell we all got here. Unfortunately, it hasn't yet. Evolutionary science just isn't ready for this fight. Read Fred Reed on the subject, and see if he doesn't make you say "yeah I always wondered about that" several times. It's pretty discouraging, actually.
I believe in evolution, but I don't see how anyone can say they've been shown proof (or anything like it) that random mutation and natural selection are the key components.
After WWII and the advent of the atom bomb, the US adopted the policy of Massive Retaliation. This meant that the US would employ "nucular" weapons should it feel itself threatened by the actions of another country. It probably looked good on paper.
It wasn't good. As a strategy, it stunk because, of course, it was completely unusable. Nuking a third-world country in bed with the Soviets because they attacked another third-world country in be with ourselves was just not doable.
This law is the file-sharing war's equivalent of Massive Retaliation. How many college sophomores are actually going to be jailed because they uploaded an unreleased movie to the internet? Not many, I would think.
The geniuses who passed this law have shot themselves in the foot again.
Chips will get faster and faster, but with more and more uncertainty until we have computers that can understand everything in a split second, but with a 50/50 chance of being wrong.
What's really funny/sad about this is that these poor bastards are projecting so hard that when they finally got some "events" that couldn't be explained by anything going on in the world at the time they just changed the rules to allow correlation with events in the future. I don't know whether to laugh or puke.
Nabisco used to be a cigarette company - that's right, Nabisco the _food_ company.
Frankly, it's not clear why you even mention this, but just in case it's important to your point, Nabisco has never been a tobacco company. In the big merger craze of the '80's, Nabisco bought (or merged with--it's a matter of perspective) R.J.Reynolds. They combined their finances, but never their operations, and many of the employees at Nabisco were heartsick about the deal at the time. Over time, RJR became the half of the company people focused on--maybe it was because of their immense profitability, maybe because they were always in the news, maybe just because they put the "RJR" before the the "Nabisco" in the corporate name. Finally, people started talking about how RJR's legal liablity was keeping shareholders from realizing the value of the company's hidden gem, Nabisco, so Nabisco spun off R.J.Reynolds and things were back like they were before--for about a year, then Kraft Foods, a subsidiary of Altria, aka. Philip Morris, bought Nabisco. So now, they're right back in bed with those cigarette guys, only this time they're not even nominally in charge.
But it's not like they were a tobacco company that decided one day to quit making cigarettes and start making Oreos and Ritz Crackers. The damn name says it all: NAtional BIScuit COmpany.
When it comes to talking about all of the confusion that forking creates, it probably should be fought with answers that are real, simple, and above all logical.
Of course, because simplicity and logic always win the day in our elections.
Why is this a troll? It may be sarcastic, but it raises a valid argument against the parent's attitude about kernel security. It should be modded up, at least to the level of the parent, so they can be viewed together.
Anyway, I'm interested in this subject because the mouse thing seems like the last barrier between me (and my wife) and a Mac. We surf the Web in Mozilla, using an MS Explorer (4 buttons, plus a clickable wheel). The ability to use the side buttons to do back-page and forward-page without moving the mouse cursor is completely non-negotiable for us, and I'm wondering if I can do this on a Mac without a lot of hassle.
Anyone got an answer? I would prefer a simple "yes, it's trivial," or "no, that's not supported."
Re:It is NOT Virtuous, give me a break
on
Why I Love The GPL
·
· Score: 1
Well, um, no.
The analogy is flawed. If we insist on comparing software to food, we should say that using a program is like receiving an unending supply of food, since it works over and over. When a developer gives other people access to the source code, that would be like giving people access to the kitchen. The GPL simply keeps people from taking the kitchen for their own.
Of course, this is wrong, because the "kitchen" can be endlessly replicated at no cost to the original developer, so having someone else modify and/or sell copies of it isn't the same as having someone steal your cookware. This shows that we should NOT insist on saying software is food.
Whether you agree with the GPL or not is not my decision, but please don't base your opinion on useless metaphors like this one.
Actually, children are so good at seeing through their parents' bullshit to the underlying behavior that at the same time they are most decidedly NOT learning to floss just because they are told that they should, they ARE internalizing this parenting "technique" to be passed on to their own progeny.
The only reason Slashdot can run this kind of bullshit story is because Slashdot doesn't matter. Imagine for a moment that there actually were a "Linux community" and that it had somehow found a way to give 750M USD to a charity. Then imagine that some Microsoft house organ ran an article calling that act of charity everything from cynically-motivated to plain miserly. If this were discovered by the mainstream media and widely publicized, it would be devastating to Microsoft's image. Fortunately for "us," there is no us. This whole sorry episode can be explained away as a bunch of bored, under-employed geeks masturbating onto their computer screens to make themselves feel better about their lowly station in life. Linux will continue to thrive because we aren't Linux.
For the record, there are a number of things about Bill and Melinda Gates that we can all be grateful for (and no, his ruthless and unscrupulous business tactics are not among them). One is the fact that they give away so much money that finding effective ways to do so (effective both for the recipients and for themselves, I don't doubt--I don't mean to paint them as saints) is practically a full-time job for Bill's father. Another is that they don't seek to turn their unbelievable wealth into unbelievable political clout. The fact that Microsoft ever was sued by the U.S. government (even though a change of presidents caused the suit to be effectively dropped) is testimony to how willing Gates was to just stay away from Washington--until he found out it won't stay away from him.
Just as there is no way for a man in Bill Gates's position to give away money and not have it look like self-aggrandizement, there is no way for the Slashdot crowd to criticize it without looking like a bunch of crying assholes.
Well, I haven't done any research here, but I've been a Steeler fan for over 30 years so I've paid a good bit of attention to their games, and I would be very surprised to find they've covered the spread more than twice this year. Nobody plays down to an opponent like Cowher.
"...he kept saying things we had refuted in the first half of the day," said Denton....
Hmmm, a single morning to rigorously explain away a persistent discrepancy in performance, observed in every society in the world, and which the president of Harvard says need to be studied. I bet not. I think it's more likely that what we did in the first half of the day was make it clear that we have a lot of theories that might explain the problem that are much more to our liking than saying women aren't as good at math as men.
Personally, as the father of three girls and one boy, I found the two-trucks story very familiar. We still have three of the kids living with us. They're eight years old; they've always had access to the exact same toys, sports equipment, books, and television shows; their parents are very keen to make sure that no interest goes unpursued and no talent undeveloped--but we are well on our way to raising two typical women and one typical man (except that one of the girls loves computer games). We could try harder to change that, I guess, but my wife and I really don't see the point in trying to pound a peg into the wrong hole. As long as the opportunity is there for women who want to work in math or science, I don't see why it matters if the numbers come out even.
This computer problem of Comair's just demonstrates how unworkable the hub-and-spoke system of flight scheduling is. It's a flawed concept, foisted on a naive public by an industry locked in some sort of mass psychosis. In the pursuit of minor economies of scale, the big airlines treat their passengers like packages (hey! it works for Fedex, and their cargo can't even walk itself to the next gate...), treat airport runways and air traffic controllers like unlimited resources, and waste vast amounts of jet fuel. The fact that Southwest Airlines (which does not use a hub-and-spoke scheduling system) is profitable, and the rest of our major airlines are either in, just out of, or about to go into, bankruptcy doesn't seem to dent their thick skulls.
I have watched the operation at Atlanta for over 21 years, and I've seen how cutthroat the competition for a major hub is, but it feels like watching two dogs fight over two bones--you can't tell if they're fighting out of greed or stupidity. Southwest doesn't even fly into Atlanta--they know that only a pyrrhic victory would be possible under those circumstances. Management at the other airlines has been criminally incompetent ever since airline deregulation, but it's the passengers, employees and shareholders who pay the penalty time and again.
I'm afraid it's not necessary to have your head in the sand to be mystified and misinformed. Even if you have sources you think you can trust, they might be wrong, or they might be lying. Having more news sources than ever has somehow turned out to mean the bullshit spreads even faster than before. Of course, the truth does leak out, but how do you recognize it? It's why, after four years of Bush's presidency, nobody really know jack shit about him--is he the world's most incompentent moron? a cynical mastermind? a crusading white knight? a typical pol? Since you hear every possible story, and all from supposedly reputable sources, what you believe all too often comes down to your preconceptions.
The people that amaze me are the ones that think they know something. You might find out thiry years after the fact, if the principles decide to come clean before they die, our you might have to wait until everybody who could have had a stake in the lies has died and the historians sort it all out--if they documents haven't all been shredded by then.
And no, I'm not coming to China any time real soon, thank you. It's fashionable in some circles to pretend that there's no real difference between governments or societies, but that is not true. China is a repressive one-party state with a very big shake-up in its future. Maybe, if everything comes out well, I'll come visit the new, free China.
Slashdot Mirror
You are exactly right. I got the Bank of America one right because I cheated and tried the URL for myself and found it was legit. The lame CapitalOne question got me because I was too bored to try the same test a second time. Their explanation of why it was legit was in fact an explanation of why it was verly likely an phishing attempt. I call bullshit.
I wish I knew what to pack for our upcoming trip to the Dark Ages.
Sure wish you hadn't posted AC. Follow-up questions galore.
I believe in evolution, but I don't see how anyone can say they've been shown proof (or anything like it) that random mutation and natural selection are the key components.
It wasn't good. As a strategy, it stunk because, of course, it was completely unusable. Nuking a third-world country in bed with the Soviets because they attacked another third-world country in be with ourselves was just not doable.
This law is the file-sharing war's equivalent of Massive Retaliation. How many college sophomores are actually going to be jailed because they uploaded an unreleased movie to the internet? Not many, I would think.
The geniuses who passed this law have shot themselves in the foot again.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but human intelligence comes to mind as one possibility. (I'm assuming neurons count as "minimalist.")
We're inventing Dad.
What's really funny/sad about this is that these poor bastards are projecting so hard that when they finally got some "events" that couldn't be explained by anything going on in the world at the time they just changed the rules to allow correlation with events in the future. I don't know whether to laugh or puke.
Frankly, it's not clear why you even mention this, but just in case it's important to your point, Nabisco has never been a tobacco company. In the big merger craze of the '80's, Nabisco bought (or merged with--it's a matter of perspective) R.J.Reynolds. They combined their finances, but never their operations, and many of the employees at Nabisco were heartsick about the deal at the time. Over time, RJR became the half of the company people focused on--maybe it was because of their immense profitability, maybe because they were always in the news, maybe just because they put the "RJR" before the the "Nabisco" in the corporate name. Finally, people started talking about how RJR's legal liablity was keeping shareholders from realizing the value of the company's hidden gem, Nabisco, so Nabisco spun off R.J.Reynolds and things were back like they were before--for about a year, then Kraft Foods, a subsidiary of Altria, aka. Philip Morris, bought Nabisco. So now, they're right back in bed with those cigarette guys, only this time they're not even nominally in charge.
But it's not like they were a tobacco company that decided one day to quit making cigarettes and start making Oreos and Ritz Crackers. The damn name says it all: NAtional BIScuit COmpany.
I believe he means the judge's refusal to grant summary judgment.
Of course, because simplicity and logic always win the day in our elections.
Why is this a troll? It may be sarcastic, but it raises a valid argument against the parent's attitude about kernel security. It should be modded up, at least to the level of the parent, so they can be viewed together.
Anyway, I'm interested in this subject because the mouse thing seems like the last barrier between me (and my wife) and a Mac. We surf the Web in Mozilla, using an MS Explorer (4 buttons, plus a clickable wheel). The ability to use the side buttons to do back-page and forward-page without moving the mouse cursor is completely non-negotiable for us, and I'm wondering if I can do this on a Mac without a lot of hassle.
Anyone got an answer? I would prefer a simple "yes, it's trivial," or "no, that's not supported."
The analogy is flawed. If we insist on comparing software to food, we should say that using a program is like receiving an unending supply of food, since it works over and over. When a developer gives other people access to the source code, that would be like giving people access to the kitchen. The GPL simply keeps people from taking the kitchen for their own.
Of course, this is wrong, because the "kitchen" can be endlessly replicated at no cost to the original developer, so having someone else modify and/or sell copies of it isn't the same as having someone steal your cookware. This shows that we should NOT insist on saying software is food.
Whether you agree with the GPL or not is not my decision, but please don't base your opinion on useless metaphors like this one.
Actually, children are so good at seeing through their parents' bullshit to the underlying behavior that at the same time they are most decidedly NOT learning to floss just because they are told that they should, they ARE internalizing this parenting "technique" to be passed on to their own progeny.
I know, I know, -1 Offtopic.
For the record, there are a number of things about Bill and Melinda Gates that we can all be grateful for (and no, his ruthless and unscrupulous business tactics are not among them). One is the fact that they give away so much money that finding effective ways to do so (effective both for the recipients and for themselves, I don't doubt--I don't mean to paint them as saints) is practically a full-time job for Bill's father. Another is that they don't seek to turn their unbelievable wealth into unbelievable political clout. The fact that Microsoft ever was sued by the U.S. government (even though a change of presidents caused the suit to be effectively dropped) is testimony to how willing Gates was to just stay away from Washington--until he found out it won't stay away from him.
Just as there is no way for a man in Bill Gates's position to give away money and not have it look like self-aggrandizement, there is no way for the Slashdot crowd to criticize it without looking like a bunch of crying assholes.
Well, I haven't done any research here, but I've been a Steeler fan for over 30 years so I've paid a good bit of attention to their games, and I would be very surprised to find they've covered the spread more than twice this year. Nobody plays down to an opponent like Cowher.
Hmmm, a single morning to rigorously explain away a persistent discrepancy in performance, observed in every society in the world, and which the president of Harvard says need to be studied. I bet not. I think it's more likely that what we did in the first half of the day was make it clear that we have a lot of theories that might explain the problem that are much more to our liking than saying women aren't as good at math as men.
Personally, as the father of three girls and one boy, I found the two-trucks story very familiar. We still have three of the kids living with us. They're eight years old; they've always had access to the exact same toys, sports equipment, books, and television shows; their parents are very keen to make sure that no interest goes unpursued and no talent undeveloped--but we are well on our way to raising two typical women and one typical man (except that one of the girls loves computer games). We could try harder to change that, I guess, but my wife and I really don't see the point in trying to pound a peg into the wrong hole. As long as the opportunity is there for women who want to work in math or science, I don't see why it matters if the numbers come out even.
Your post is a demonstration that when crazy people drink, they should refrain from posting to Slashdot.
I have watched the operation at Atlanta for over 21 years, and I've seen how cutthroat the competition for a major hub is, but it feels like watching two dogs fight over two bones--you can't tell if they're fighting out of greed or stupidity. Southwest doesn't even fly into Atlanta--they know that only a pyrrhic victory would be possible under those circumstances. Management at the other airlines has been criminally incompetent ever since airline deregulation, but it's the passengers, employees and shareholders who pay the penalty time and again.
That would truly be a triumph of computer programming, given how few people seem to be smart enough to draw that conclusion.
Huh? So the lawyers that make a living defending patents have an interest in the system, but the ones that make a living fighting them don't?
Hell, yes, you're trying to launch Skynet.
Yeah. Click here for details (sucker).
The people that amaze me are the ones that think they know something. You might find out thiry years after the fact, if the principles decide to come clean before they die, our you might have to wait until everybody who could have had a stake in the lies has died and the historians sort it all out--if they documents haven't all been shredded by then.
And no, I'm not coming to China any time real soon, thank you. It's fashionable in some circles to pretend that there's no real difference between governments or societies, but that is not true. China is a repressive one-party state with a very big shake-up in its future. Maybe, if everything comes out well, I'll come visit the new, free China.