Why didn't he just follow the orders, leave, then file a complaint?
Because he's under no obligation to destroy his own property just because some jackbooted thug with a Napoleon complex tells him to.
If you got off a train wearing a backpack, and a security guard told you you had to throw the contents of your backback into an incinerator because there is a "no trespassing" sign you can't see, would you just comply and then file a complaint?
If you would, then you have no place in a free society.
You mean the same Canada that taxes anything even vaguely related to music or movies -- including blank media and concert halls -- and sends that tax money straight to the RIAA/MPAA?
You know, I live in a Canada, but it's really nothing like that at all. I've never heard of the Canada you're talking about (I even searched Google for it.) Frankly I'm a little surprised that there is another country called Canada.
The Canada I live in has a levy on blank CDs, just like the USA. However none of the money goes to the RIAA or MPAA - it goes to the CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Collective) who distributes it to music artists and labels (not all of which are CRIA members.)
(Seriously, if you're going to criticize something, get your facts straight first.)
32 and I STOPPED watching in the early 90s with the worst of all doctors and his side kick "Ace".
Soo.. you stopped watching several years after the program had ended? Isn't that kinda like saying "I hated that movie so much I walked out twenty minutes after the final credits had rolled, when the ushers were sweeping the isles!"
Its *considered* harmful to children in this case as it exposes a part of the female anatomy considered again by the society to be shameful and/or only to be exposed in the act of sex.
So wait... you're saying that "society" believes that when a woman is breastfeeding her child, that she's really having sex with it?
As a result, viewing this part of the female anatomy at a young age is assumed by this society to lead to children having and accepting sex more freely.
So you're claiming that "society" thinks that unless breastfed children are blindfolded first, that they'll start having sex immediately? (Well, I guess that's a given if your first claim is taken at first value.)
All I have to say is that you *really* need to see a mental health professional. Your statements are neither rational nor normal.
Which completely ignores the fact in most states (all?!?), businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
Including blacks and hispanics? Last time I checked, the laws forbidding business owners from discriminating against visible minorities. These laws are (legally) pretty well grounded, I suspect that "company policy prohibits us selling to Jews" would get thrown out pretty damn fast, and the owner of such an establishement would be on the receiving end of a large fine.
She's forcing her morality on everyone there.
How fucked up are you that you believe that feeding an infant is about morality? Seriously, you need professional help - I advise making an appointment with a psychiatrist as soon as possible.
A) Saving $200 and using Linux, where you have a bug that causes it to eat all your data, and you lose all of your work. OR B) Spending $200 on Windows, and when it has a bug that causes it to eat your data, Microsoft pays someone to re-create the work for you.
It's pretty obvious which one is better. It's just as obvious which one is pure fantasy.
Why on earth would google or Wikipedia have any information on eebra82's knowledge of Windows features?
Here's a tip for you: if someone makes a claim but doesn't substantiate it, and they get slammed for it, don't be an apologist for them. It just makes you look like an idiot.
*sigh* You know, if you're gonna continue with this bullshit, you could at least try to make it believable, rather than making provably false assertions.
Either back up your statements with facts (examples of "very legitimate reasons for a state to seek limits in the distribution of news, and limits to what its citizens communicate to outsiders" would be a good start) or just STFU.
the security of systems relies at some point on the obscurity of certain pieces of data
No it doesn't. Obscurity is neither a necessary or desirable element of security.
Whether it be a user password or a map of a network topology
The first of these isn't obscurity, and the second should not result in the ability to compromise a system, so keeping it obscure won't help security (in fact, the belief that keeping it obscure is beneficial actually *reduces* your security.)
Obscurity is information that is obscured - ie hidden with the belief that an attacker won't find it. In some cases, this belief is justified (strong encryption) in others, this isn't (network topology, listening ports, etc.)
In any properly designed system (Such as Unix, or even Windows login) passwords are not obscured, they are one-way hashes, with both the location and hash algorithm known. If the passwords were kept in plaintext, and their location was kept secret, then that would be obscurity.
Even considering that the system may have been used inappropriately, is the crime worth the possible destruction of the entire network at the hands of hackers?
You're making the (extremely) flawed assumption that the *names* of people who used computers will lead to the destruction of the network, which is absurd.
I'm with the other posters who mentioned this too: I think the rate at which Doctor Who is going through companions lately is too rapid and they're not really fully coming into their own.
<aol> ME TOO! </aol>
In fact there were two of the *best* potential companions that only lasted a single episode: Reinette and Jenny. It seems to me that they weren't kept around simply because they no longer fit the format (Companions are now always from contemporary Earth, and only show up at the beginning of a series, and stay to the end. Nobody is ever from the past/future/other planets, or joins midway through.)
On the plus side, the ending of "The Doctor's Daughter" seems to imply that Jenny might be getting a spin-off, but I'd love to have seen her join up with the Doctor.
Please re-read the post you replied to. The poster said quite emphatically that the game was over. As in, they finished it, and everybody knew the final score.
This is nothing like cutting off a game that hadn't finished yet.
The part where you have 19 MegaBYTES per second of bandwidth...(full 1080p stream from disc)
No.
Besides the fact that a stream's bandwidth is *never* defined in bytes per second (because 'byte' in the context of a stream isn't well-defined - ie. does it include error correction bits, transmission overhead, etc.), the bluray association itself says that BD-ROM video streams are 54Mbps.
Slashdot Mirror
Why didn't he just follow the orders, leave, then file a complaint?
Because he's under no obligation to destroy his own property just because some jackbooted thug with a Napoleon complex tells him to.
If you got off a train wearing a backpack, and a security guard told you you had to throw the contents of your backback into an incinerator because there is a "no trespassing" sign you can't see, would you just comply and then file a complaint?
If you would, then you have no place in a free society.
You mean the same Canada that taxes anything even vaguely related to music or movies -- including blank media and concert halls -- and sends that tax money straight to the RIAA/MPAA?
You know, I live in a Canada, but it's really nothing like that at all. I've never heard of the Canada you're talking about (I even searched Google for it.) Frankly I'm a little surprised that there is another country called Canada.
The Canada I live in has a levy on blank CDs, just like the USA. However none of the money goes to the RIAA or MPAA - it goes to the CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Collective) who distributes it to music artists and labels (not all of which are CRIA members.)
(Seriously, if you're going to criticize something, get your facts straight first.)
32 and I STOPPED watching in the early 90s with the worst of all doctors and his side kick "Ace".
Soo.. you stopped watching several years after the program had ended? Isn't that kinda like saying "I hated that movie so much I walked out twenty minutes after the final credits had rolled, when the ushers were sweeping the isles!"
I think it really depends on when you first started watching it.
Dunno about that.. I started with Pertwee, and I think that Tom Baker was the best doctor, followed by Tennant, with Pertwee a close third.
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
There's no place like localhost?
Wouldn't "There's no place like ~/" be better?
Its *considered* harmful to children in this case as it exposes a part of the female anatomy considered again by the society to be shameful and/or only to be exposed in the act of sex.
So wait... you're saying that "society" believes that when a woman is breastfeeding her child, that she's really having sex with it?
As a result, viewing this part of the female anatomy at a young age is assumed by this society to lead to children having and accepting sex more freely.
So you're claiming that "society" thinks that unless breastfed children are blindfolded first, that they'll start having sex immediately? (Well, I guess that's a given if your first claim is taken at first value.)
All I have to say is that you *really* need to see a mental health professional. Your statements are neither rational nor normal.
Which completely ignores the fact in most states (all?!?), businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
Including blacks and hispanics? Last time I checked, the laws forbidding business owners from discriminating against visible minorities. These laws are (legally) pretty well grounded, I suspect that "company policy prohibits us selling to Jews" would get thrown out pretty damn fast, and the owner of such an establishement would be on the receiving end of a large fine.
She's forcing her morality on everyone there.
How fucked up are you that you believe that feeding an infant is about morality? Seriously, you need professional help - I advise making an appointment with a psychiatrist as soon as possible.
It's a normal Microsoft marketing strategy. You are supposed to rush out and buy another Zune, because you thought it was your fault.
I thought that was Apple's marketing strategy?
Of course, it wouldn't be the first time MS stole Apple's ideas. :P
Which sounds better:
I have a better one for you.
Which sounds better:
A) Saving $200 and using Linux, where you have a bug that causes it to eat all your data, and you lose all of your work.
OR
B) Spending $200 on Windows, and when it has a bug that causes it to eat your data, Microsoft pays someone to re-create the work for you.
It's pretty obvious which one is better. It's just as obvious which one is pure fantasy.
'linear' as in 'sequence of events that follow one another as a direct consequence of the previous one'
<sarcasm>
Wait - don't you science-type guys always say that correlation != causation?!?!
Ha - more proof that evolution is just a bunch of inconsistent crap!
</sarcasm>
(sorry, I couldn't resist.)
How hard is it to google or Wikipedia?
Why on earth would google or Wikipedia have any information on eebra82's knowledge of Windows features?
Here's a tip for you: if someone makes a claim but doesn't substantiate it, and they get slammed for it, don't be an apologist for them. It just makes you look like an idiot.
The changes and additions that Windows 7 brings are more significant than you think.
But apparently not significant enough that you can actually name any of them.
McCain would probably have stood up to him
Two points:
1. McCain lost any credibility he had when he endorsed US torture of foreigners.
2. If McCain was someone who would stand up to Cheney, he'd never have been chosen for the Republican ticket.
Communism killed more than 100 million people in the last century
Capitalism has killed more than a million people in the past 4 years. What's your point, other than to create a straw man?
Wrong on every point.
*sigh* You know, if you're gonna continue with this bullshit, you could at least try to make it believable, rather than making provably false assertions.
Either back up your statements with facts (examples of "very legitimate reasons for a state to seek limits in the distribution of news, and limits to what its citizens communicate to outsiders" would be a good start) or just STFU.
Go troll Digg.
You know, you're just too stupid to be an effective troll. Go bug people at Digg.
Looks like your "troll" mod was well-deserved.
Liberalism, the People, etc. is deconstruction and places power in the hands of those who are most easily fooled.
You fail it.
several people threatened them with the 'L' word
Umm.. they threatened to become lesbians?
Nice straw man. Care to explain how locking down your network has anything to do with telling people about your network?
As Gorshkov said, a network is either secure, or it isn't. Disclosing the topology doesn't change that.
the security of systems relies at some point on the obscurity of certain pieces of data
No it doesn't. Obscurity is neither a necessary or desirable element of security.
Whether it be a user password or a map of a network topology
The first of these isn't obscurity, and the second should not result in the ability to compromise a system, so keeping it obscure won't help security (in fact, the belief that keeping it obscure is beneficial actually *reduces* your security.)
Obscurity is information that is obscured - ie hidden with the belief that an attacker won't find it. In some cases, this belief is justified (strong encryption) in others, this isn't (network topology, listening ports, etc.)
In any properly designed system (Such as Unix, or even Windows login) passwords are not obscured, they are one-way hashes, with both the location and hash algorithm known. If the passwords were kept in plaintext, and their location was kept secret, then that would be obscurity.
Even considering that the system may have been used inappropriately, is the crime worth the possible destruction of the entire network at the hands of hackers?
You're making the (extremely) flawed assumption that the *names* of people who used computers will lead to the destruction of the network, which is absurd.
You might want to look up the "doctrine of laches" before you make such an assertion.
I'm with the other posters who mentioned this too: I think the rate at which Doctor Who is going through companions lately is too rapid and they're not really fully coming into their own.
<aol>
ME TOO!
</aol>
In fact there were two of the *best* potential companions that only lasted a single episode: Reinette and Jenny. It seems to me that they weren't kept around simply because they no longer fit the format (Companions are now always from contemporary Earth, and only show up at the beginning of a series, and stay to the end. Nobody is ever from the past/future/other planets, or joins midway through.)
On the plus side, the ending of "The Doctor's Daughter" seems to imply that Jenny might be getting a spin-off, but I'd love to have seen her join up with the Doctor.
Umm, no.
Please re-read the post you replied to. The poster said quite emphatically that the game was over. As in, they finished it, and everybody knew the final score.
This is nothing like cutting off a game that hadn't finished yet.
The part where you have 19 MegaBYTES per second of bandwidth...(full 1080p stream from disc)
No.
Besides the fact that a stream's bandwidth is *never* defined in bytes per second (because 'byte' in the context of a stream isn't well-defined - ie. does it include error correction bits, transmission overhead, etc.), the bluray association itself says that BD-ROM video streams are 54Mbps.