Maybe - but it was both limited in scope and targeted based on probable cause (however flimsy the probable might have been). It's better than mass surveillance and does not attempt to bludgeon corporations into violating customer privacy and security using the legal system.
Are you kidding? Considering that god wrote a program that is self-modifying, evolutionary, infinitely adaptable, and capable of self-reflection and consciousness from a few basic parameters that started the size of an infinitesimal speck containing all the energy in the universe... I would say god is an uncomprehendingly amazing coder!
Why not just make safe gun use and storage one of the first required classes? Rather than try and ban something that isn't going away, teach safe use and respect for guns and life.
May I ask, when does the right to bear arms become the requirement to bear arms? Is firearm possession so prevalent that gun safety and training needs to be a required course in college?
I understand you were likely making the statement tongue-in-cheek, but how would you allow for students who wanted to opt out? What about those students whose religious beliefs would be violated because they belong to a pacifist or non-resistant religion? Frankly I would not use a firearm if my life depended on it, and my family has emigrated numerous times over the course of centuries to avoid persecution by religious groups and governments that wished to compel military service.
The culture and rhetoric around US citizen firearm rights and mass violence has long since passed into the realm of ridiculousness.
It is a design flaw, but you are correct that it is also a testing failure.
It is a simple use case that should have been discovered during testing and addressed - but that does not take away from the fact it was a design flaw in the first place. It's a chain of errors that resulted in this problem being present in production.
New from CXC Simulations! The firing squad simulator so realistic, it could kill you!
CXC Simulations does not assume responsibility for accidental death or injury cause by use of simulator. All participants use the simulator at their own risk.
So, you've completely skipped over the obvious point and made an unfounded supposition.
The Amish are Mennonite which one of the founding tenants is non-resistance. It's like pacifism, except less militant. These days the tenants of mennonism are bent and broken six ways to sunday, but the Amish as a sect are extremely devout and are more likely to hold to them than modern mainstream Mennonites.
As a general rule Mennonites will not own, touch, or allow weaponry into their home that has no legitimate peaceful purpose. Some own rifles specifically for hunting, but in general guns are a big no-no. Mennonites historically refuse to serve as police, in the military, or in ther government as they will take no role where they may as a matter of course cause someone to come to harm, or be responsible for others who would cause someone to come to harm. (Government is responsible for both military and police forces).
A recruitment drive for undercover officers in an Amish community is beyond absurd and would involve the recruiters being forcibly removed from the premisis (figuratively).
Caveat: I am a modern mainstream Mennonite, and we have none of the taboos against technology and serving in police, security, and government is accepted these days. But I for one hold strongly to our roots of non-resistance and reject anything that may put me in contact with violence (or the possibility of it) or weaponry.
Nothing in your comment contradicts the parent poster's assertion that they are engaging in Vandalism. Willful defacement and destruction of property whether done through boredom or target practice is still vandalism.
Umm, if I am a customer buying a software product I do not care if the code is good quality, or cleverly engineered, as long as it doesn't impact the cost, security, or usability of the product.
All I care about is whether or not it works and meets my needs.
I am saying this as a consumer (end user), producer (developer), and requirements creator (analyst).
Not really. If you take a careful look at most drug laws all the way back to prohibition they explicitly outlaw the sale and possession of certain substances, not the consumption. It effectively produces the same result, but avoids the thorny legal issue around legislation of what you can do to yourself.
Please readjust your thinking about Mennonites... you are so very wrong that you almost circle completely back again.
I will state for a fact that I am Mennonite. I got my first computer when I was 6 (1988) and I am currently employed as a software developer.
Although the Amish and the Old Order are Mennonites (which are among the few sects that have community restrictions on technology) the reverse is not true. It is equivalent to me saying that you are Christian, sometimes mistaken as Mormon. I'm not saying it's impossible for you to be monagamous, but I'm sure you were raised in a polygamous cult.
I will further add to my comment in saying that I do know some Old Order and Amish people, and have had a nice long conversation with an Old Order deacon and teacher who explained that it is not technology that they shun, but anything new that may split their community. They take a very long time to evaluate new techology (usually about 300 years or so) but they do use some modern equipment. The Old Order community that I was on used modern combines (computer controlled) in order to quickly and efficiently harvest their fields.
Yes, I've done that more than a few times myself. Under pressure of a deadline, and the code just needs to work is a situation I have found myself in more times than I would like. But given the nature of my job, it is entirely possible that the code gets done, and then not looked at again for years. Just recently a client came to us for enhancements to a codebase that hadn't been touched in close to 5 years, and there are a few spots that are 'make it work' instead of 'clean and pretty'.
In this situation I will often flag the section of code with a "TODO" and write a brief explanation regarding how the code SHOULD be structured such as://TODO: Future Rev. restructure by abstracting common elements from X, Y, and Z and merge object creation into a factory.
This serves very well as a 'this is a hack' flag to me but also reminds me why it was a hack and what I was thinking on how to improve it.
There are religions that don't accept members (through baptism) until they reach adulthood. They are called Anabaptists (many sects began during the Reformation because they believed that Martin Luther didn't address all their grievances with the Catholic Church).
One of the more widespread of the Anabaptist sects are the Mennonites (of which I am one). I was baptized at the age of 26, because prior to then I didn't have a reason or desire to attend church. But, things happen, and I found a reason and a need in my life to be part of the church. It hasn't changed my belief structure (I still am agnostic/athiest) but that does not preclude the need for the belonging and philosophy of church. I may not believe there is a god, but a small hope that it might be true can give strength in trying times.
I use a (homemade) grid mat, erasable markers, and little colored stone gems that I got at the dollar store that I wrote numbers and symbols on with a paint pen.
The only reason I started using this setup was that my players preferred it because it gave them a better ability to visualize a combat area and *gasp* speed up combat! They no longer had to ask me about positioning, if they could do one thing or another, they could see it and decide for themselves. Made combat quicker because everyone was now prepared when their turn came.
I would love to have the surface to facilitate the kind of game I already run, so that I don't have to: - Remember my 'stone' miniatures - Remember to bring paper-towel and a spray bottle - Remember to bring markers - Easily create creatures that are bigger than a single space (its a pain moving a 3x3 grid size monster across the board that uses 9 stones).
No, his objections are completely valid. With digital photography nearly every professional photograph is airbrushed with the exception of news agencies. Portrait photos that are taken at a studio that you pay for are airbrushed, advertisements, marketing material, you name it.
My sister does this for a living and has worked at several photography studios, everything gets airbrushed from reducing/eliminating blemishes to changing the color of clothing. Unless an agency has some particular expectation of photographic accuracy (either documentation or news purposes) then there are always 'flaws' in an image that either weren't noticed at the time it was taken, or couldn't be controlled by the photographer. This happened before digital photography in the darkroom or through airbrushing, but it is vastly easier to do digitally.
We were perfectly capable of using motorized or animal transportation without seat belts for millennia... IMHO with a little care and good control these devices are completely unnecessary.
It's not that I don't agree with your point, but I don't agree with the argument that you've made. Just because we've gone without something for a long time, and care will mostly mitigate circumstances that would result in an unfavourable result, this does not mean the device is unnecessary or useless.
Now I don't think I should need such a device with my daughter, but I can easily imagine plausible circumstances in which an urgent matter arises and such a device would be handy to have available if only to give me peace of mind. Because you are not going to be able to watch your children 24hours a day forever... it's part of growing up. And maybe instead of following them to school the first time that they walk "alone", I will make sure my daughter arrives safely by checking my iPhone from my living room.
That doesn't make sense. 1) In most situations (any that I can think of) you can't prove someone is not guilty simply because you cannot find a DNA sample from them at the crime scene. 2) Now with the possibility of fabricating DNA evidence and planting it at the scene, you can't prove someone is not guilty due to DNA evidence being found from a different person.
Please explain how you can prove someone is not guilty via DNA evidence either prior to, or after this discovery.
Ugh, add to that any country that receives US television broadcasts. American advertising leakage is huge in Canada since at least half of the stations that I get are American in origin.
If you are planning to make most of your money by selling the software directly, then yes I agree that you would be nuts to open source it. But that is not how the game is played. You play the game by open sourcing your software in order to build recognition and acceptance, and you make money by selling support contracts to businesses who need up-time guarantees and someone to call when things go wrong.
Once you have business acceptance and money coming in from contracts you can mine the community for software improvements (as well as creating your own). Then if something happens (like a buy-out) and the community goes on a fork-frenzy, WHO CARES? This is NOT a bad situation to be in because this means that the community is fairly large and committed to your database. In fact this may simply increase your exposure and bring in even more customers, because remember that your customers are NOT the people who USE your software, they are the businesses that pay for SUPPORT.
That is how the game is played... or at least one way that it can be played.
To say that more people were affected by the World Trade Center Attack vs Nuclear Weapons you have to have the same scale.
Direct attack:
WTC = 2819
Hiroshima & Nagasaki (alone) = 220,000 in 1945 + later radiation deaths Subsequent Conflicts:
WTC = Afghanistan & Iraq
Nuclear Bombs = Cold War, Korean War, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs (Cuba), Afghanistan (Russia), World Trade Center Attack, Afghanistan (US), Iraq...
Well really the World Trade Center Attack is a bastard child of the Cold War, and by extension is a result of fear caused by Nuclear Weaponry.
Emotional:
WTC: United States, North America, NATO, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan & Neighbours.
Nuclear Bombs = If you consider all the skirmishes and proxy wars between the US and Russian allies since the start of the Cold War, you are looking at the vast majority of the world's population since the late 1940's has been emotionally affected by the development of Nuclear Weaponry.
I agree with your statement that it doesn't take a mushroom cloud to send a message (although it would be a particularly effective one!) but don't downplay the impact Nuclear Weaponry has had on our society just because their existence is now commonplace and unremarkable to us.
If someone is bent on killing you and the only means you have to defend yourself is with deadly force, is it wrong to exercise that force? Or would you stand on your morals and be slaughtered like an animal?
Yes. Sorry, but I don't buy into the no-win game, life is not zero-sum and there is always a better solution. No matter what philosophy or moral position you hold to there is ALWAYS a contrive scenario that will force you to decide between morality and something else you value. Catholics: In a situation where childbirth is very likely (or guaranteed) to kill both the mother and child, is abortion acceptable? Kill or be Killed: If the person wanting to kill you is using human shields do you sacrifice an innocent life to save your own? your family? what if they have 10 shields? a hundred? a million?
If there is no point where you will stand up and say "I will sacrifice myself to uphold this moral position" then you in fact have no more morals than an animal. If you will do anything, go to any lengths to save yourself then you are a clinical psychopath.
It just so happens that you and I draw the line at different places. To you killing is acceptable is certain circumstances, to me it is not under any circumstances and that is the moral position that I will die to uphold. However like everything it is a double-edged sword. If someone knows that you are willing to kill to defend yourself then if you come into conflict they know that they must use deadly force to defeat you. If they know that no matter what happens I will not kill, then in order to overcome me deadly force is not required and in such a manner my life may be preserved.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe - but it was both limited in scope and targeted based on probable cause (however flimsy the probable might have been). It's better than mass surveillance and does not attempt to bludgeon corporations into violating customer privacy and security using the legal system.
Are you kidding? Considering that god wrote a program that is self-modifying, evolutionary, infinitely adaptable, and capable of self-reflection and consciousness from a few basic parameters that started the size of an infinitesimal speck containing all the energy in the universe... I would say god is an uncomprehendingly amazing coder!
Why not just make safe gun use and storage one of the first required classes? Rather than try and ban something that isn't going away, teach safe use and respect for guns and life.
May I ask, when does the right to bear arms become the requirement to bear arms? Is firearm possession so prevalent that gun safety and training needs to be a required course in college?
I understand you were likely making the statement tongue-in-cheek, but how would you allow for students who wanted to opt out? What about those students whose religious beliefs would be violated because they belong to a pacifist or non-resistant religion? Frankly I would not use a firearm if my life depended on it, and my family has emigrated numerous times over the course of centuries to avoid persecution by religious groups and governments that wished to compel military service.
The culture and rhetoric around US citizen firearm rights and mass violence has long since passed into the realm of ridiculousness.
It is a design flaw, but you are correct that it is also a testing failure.
It is a simple use case that should have been discovered during testing and addressed - but that does not take away from the fact it was a design flaw in the first place. It's a chain of errors that resulted in this problem being present in production.
New from CXC Simulations! The firing squad simulator so realistic, it could kill you!
CXC Simulations does not assume responsibility for accidental death or injury cause by use of simulator. All participants use the simulator at their own risk.
So, you've completely skipped over the obvious point and made an unfounded supposition.
The Amish are Mennonite which one of the founding tenants is non-resistance. It's like pacifism, except less militant. These days the tenants of mennonism are bent and broken six ways to sunday, but the Amish as a sect are extremely devout and are more likely to hold to them than modern mainstream Mennonites.
As a general rule Mennonites will not own, touch, or allow weaponry into their home that has no legitimate peaceful purpose. Some own rifles specifically for hunting, but in general guns are a big no-no. Mennonites historically refuse to serve as police, in the military, or in ther government as they will take no role where they may as a matter of course cause someone to come to harm, or be responsible for others who would cause someone to come to harm. (Government is responsible for both military and police forces).
A recruitment drive for undercover officers in an Amish community is beyond absurd and would involve the recruiters being forcibly removed from the premisis (figuratively).
Caveat: I am a modern mainstream Mennonite, and we have none of the taboos against technology and serving in police, security, and government is accepted these days. But I for one hold strongly to our roots of non-resistance and reject anything that may put me in contact with violence (or the possibility of it) or weaponry.
Nothing in your comment contradicts the parent poster's assertion that they are engaging in Vandalism. Willful defacement and destruction of property whether done through boredom or target practice is still vandalism.
Umm, if I am a customer buying a software product I do not care if the code is good quality, or cleverly engineered, as long as it doesn't impact the cost, security, or usability of the product.
All I care about is whether or not it works and meets my needs.
I am saying this as a consumer (end user), producer (developer), and requirements creator (analyst).
One might even call it... a death star?
Not really. If you take a careful look at most drug laws all the way back to prohibition they explicitly outlaw the sale and possession of certain substances, not the consumption. It effectively produces the same result, but avoids the thorny legal issue around legislation of what you can do to yourself.
Please readjust your thinking about Mennonites... you are so very wrong that you almost circle completely back again.
I will state for a fact that I am Mennonite. I got my first computer when I was 6 (1988) and I am currently employed as a software developer.
Although the Amish and the Old Order are Mennonites (which are among the few sects that have community restrictions on technology) the reverse is not true. It is equivalent to me saying that you are Christian, sometimes mistaken as Mormon. I'm not saying it's impossible for you to be monagamous, but I'm sure you were raised in a polygamous cult.
I will further add to my comment in saying that I do know some Old Order and Amish people, and have had a nice long conversation with an Old Order deacon and teacher who explained that it is not technology that they shun, but anything new that may split their community. They take a very long time to evaluate new techology (usually about 300 years or so) but they do use some modern equipment. The Old Order community that I was on used modern combines (computer controlled) in order to quickly and efficiently harvest their fields.
I need to change my company password every month, but the password strength for my company account remains strong.
My password strength for a website forum where I never need to change it however, is usually weak.
The password strength I use is highly correlated with the sensitivity of the information it allows access to and the importance of the systems.
I would fall into the 96% of people who don't use non-alphanumerics for "Rockyou.com"
Yes, I've done that more than a few times myself. Under pressure of a deadline, and the code just needs to work is a situation I have found myself in more times than I would like. But given the nature of my job, it is entirely possible that the code gets done, and then not looked at again for years. Just recently a client came to us for enhancements to a codebase that hadn't been touched in close to 5 years, and there are a few spots that are 'make it work' instead of 'clean and pretty'.
In this situation I will often flag the section of code with a "TODO" and write a brief explanation regarding how the code SHOULD be structured such as: //TODO: Future Rev. restructure by abstracting common elements from X, Y, and Z and merge object creation into a factory.
This serves very well as a 'this is a hack' flag to me but also reminds me why it was a hack and what I was thinking on how to improve it.
It's like finding a whole new wing of the Library of Congress.
Happy?
Also, do not look into laser with remaining eye.
There are religions that don't accept members (through baptism) until they reach adulthood. They are called Anabaptists (many sects began during the Reformation because they believed that Martin Luther didn't address all their grievances with the Catholic Church).
One of the more widespread of the Anabaptist sects are the Mennonites (of which I am one). I was baptized at the age of 26, because prior to then I didn't have a reason or desire to attend church. But, things happen, and I found a reason and a need in my life to be part of the church. It hasn't changed my belief structure (I still am agnostic/athiest) but that does not preclude the need for the belonging and philosophy of church. I may not believe there is a god, but a small hope that it might be true can give strength in trying times.
I use a (homemade) grid mat, erasable markers, and little colored stone gems that I got at the dollar store that I wrote numbers and symbols on with a paint pen.
The only reason I started using this setup was that my players preferred it because it gave them a better ability to visualize a combat area and *gasp* speed up combat! They no longer had to ask me about positioning, if they could do one thing or another, they could see it and decide for themselves. Made combat quicker because everyone was now prepared when their turn came.
I would love to have the surface to facilitate the kind of game I already run, so that I don't have to:
- Remember my 'stone' miniatures
- Remember to bring paper-towel and a spray bottle
- Remember to bring markers
- Easily create creatures that are bigger than a single space (its a pain moving a 3x3 grid size monster across the board that uses 9 stones).
No, his objections are completely valid. With digital photography nearly every professional photograph is airbrushed with the exception of news agencies. Portrait photos that are taken at a studio that you pay for are airbrushed, advertisements, marketing material, you name it.
My sister does this for a living and has worked at several photography studios, everything gets airbrushed from reducing/eliminating blemishes to changing the color of clothing. Unless an agency has some particular expectation of photographic accuracy (either documentation or news purposes) then there are always 'flaws' in an image that either weren't noticed at the time it was taken, or couldn't be controlled by the photographer. This happened before digital photography in the darkroom or through airbrushing, but it is vastly easier to do digitally.
We were perfectly capable of using motorized or animal transportation without seat belts for millennia... IMHO with a little care and good control these devices are completely unnecessary.
It's not that I don't agree with your point, but I don't agree with the argument that you've made. Just because we've gone without something for a long time, and care will mostly mitigate circumstances that would result in an unfavourable result, this does not mean the device is unnecessary or useless.
Now I don't think I should need such a device with my daughter, but I can easily imagine plausible circumstances in which an urgent matter arises and such a device would be handy to have available if only to give me peace of mind. Because you are not going to be able to watch your children 24hours a day forever... it's part of growing up. And maybe instead of following them to school the first time that they walk "alone", I will make sure my daughter arrives safely by checking my iPhone from my living room.
That doesn't make sense.
1) In most situations (any that I can think of) you can't prove someone is not guilty simply because you cannot find a DNA sample from them at the crime scene.
2) Now with the possibility of fabricating DNA evidence and planting it at the scene, you can't prove someone is not guilty due to DNA evidence being found from a different person.
Please explain how you can prove someone is not guilty via DNA evidence either prior to, or after this discovery.
Just more things to add to the list of things that have happened since Duke Nukem Forever was announced.
(Yes, I know it's dead...)
Ugh, add to that any country that receives US television broadcasts. American advertising leakage is huge in Canada since at least half of the stations that I get are American in origin.
Why do you have to be nuts to open source it?
If you are planning to make most of your money by selling the software directly, then yes I agree that you would be nuts to open source it. But that is not how the game is played. You play the game by open sourcing your software in order to build recognition and acceptance, and you make money by selling support contracts to businesses who need up-time guarantees and someone to call when things go wrong.
Once you have business acceptance and money coming in from contracts you can mine the community for software improvements (as well as creating your own). Then if something happens (like a buy-out) and the community goes on a fork-frenzy, WHO CARES? This is NOT a bad situation to be in because this means that the community is fairly large and committed to your database. In fact this may simply increase your exposure and bring in even more customers, because remember that your customers are NOT the people who USE your software, they are the businesses that pay for SUPPORT.
That is how the game is played... or at least one way that it can be played.
I wouldn't overgeneralize if I were you.
To say that more people were affected by the World Trade Center Attack vs Nuclear Weapons you have to have the same scale.
Direct attack:
WTC = 2819
Hiroshima & Nagasaki (alone) = 220,000 in 1945 + later radiation deaths
Subsequent Conflicts:
WTC = Afghanistan & Iraq
Nuclear Bombs = Cold War, Korean War, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs (Cuba), Afghanistan (Russia), World Trade Center Attack, Afghanistan (US), Iraq...
Well really the World Trade Center Attack is a bastard child of the Cold War, and by extension is a result of fear caused by Nuclear Weaponry.
Emotional:
WTC: United States, North America, NATO, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan & Neighbours.
Nuclear Bombs = If you consider all the skirmishes and proxy wars between the US and Russian allies since the start of the Cold War, you are looking at the vast majority of the world's population since the late 1940's has been emotionally affected by the development of Nuclear Weaponry.
I agree with your statement that it doesn't take a mushroom cloud to send a message (although it would be a particularly effective one!) but don't downplay the impact Nuclear Weaponry has had on our society just because their existence is now commonplace and unremarkable to us.
If someone is bent on killing you and the only means you have to defend yourself is with deadly force, is it wrong to exercise that force? Or would you stand on your morals and be slaughtered like an animal?
Yes. Sorry, but I don't buy into the no-win game, life is not zero-sum and there is always a better solution. No matter what philosophy or moral position you hold to there is ALWAYS a contrive scenario that will force you to decide between morality and something else you value.
Catholics: In a situation where childbirth is very likely (or guaranteed) to kill both the mother and child, is abortion acceptable?
Kill or be Killed: If the person wanting to kill you is using human shields do you sacrifice an innocent life to save your own? your family? what if they have 10 shields? a hundred? a million?
If there is no point where you will stand up and say "I will sacrifice myself to uphold this moral position" then you in fact have no more morals than an animal. If you will do anything, go to any lengths to save yourself then you are a clinical psychopath.
It just so happens that you and I draw the line at different places. To you killing is acceptable is certain circumstances, to me it is not under any circumstances and that is the moral position that I will die to uphold. However like everything it is a double-edged sword. If someone knows that you are willing to kill to defend yourself then if you come into conflict they know that they must use deadly force to defeat you. If they know that no matter what happens I will not kill, then in order to overcome me deadly force is not required and in such a manner my life may be preserved.