This is despite the fact that 90% of the boxed software you can get at best buy will not work on it, and that it is perfectly possible to wipe the machine and install Windows to get this software to work. Thus showing that the "joe user can't run their software" argument is bullshit.
So what you're arguing is that if someone bought a computer with Linux preinstalled, they'd just wipe it and install Windows anyway the instant they discover certain software won't work (to say nothing about Wine).
I'm not sure, but it seems to me that this negates the rest of your point. I'm sure to be missing something.
The OP's argument was that Linux will do better than it is if it can run Windows software perfectly. Your argument is that it'll do better than it is if it comes preinstalled (fair point, I agree). Then you use OS X as an example and make a statement that the solution to being unable to run certain software is to install Windows anyway, which seems to defeat the purpose!
Either way, I don't think it matters. Linux on the desktop isn't going to happen any time soon for many reasons; yes, it's easy to condense it to a handful, but I don't think such simplification is truly appreciative of the hurdles that still exist. Never mind market share.
there is no way a @#$ robot can judge what to do about oncoming accidents, like a pedestrian, a deer, a squirrel, a semi jackknifing, an ambulance passing, a crash ahead of you, a gigantic pothole, a box full of dishes that fell off a truck, a big tree branch, a patch of black ice, a tire blowing out, a semi weaving in a strong wind, etc etc etc.
the solution to the 'i dont want to waste my time driving' problem is to build more trains, and make cities more walkable. to do that, you first have to win over the 'trains = communism' crowd using some kind of distributed jobs program (like the military does for its socialist money wasting mega-projects) and through targeting conservative locations for building up the rail infrastructure so they will get pork from it.
Good grief, man! You were making a really good point until you turned half of your post into a rant against the right-wing military industrial complex or whatever the current groupthink buzzword is for defense spending and generic angsty hatred toward individuals who don't happen to agree with you.
But yes, I certainly agree. AI platforms for driving vehicles have a long ways to go until they're able to interact with any imaginable situation (though I suspect it'll mostly involve stopping/slowing down and letting the human take over). That still doesn't negate the point that it's fairly impressive!
For future reference, though, save the political rant for a more appropriate discussion like those you might find on politics.slashdot.org. Otherwise you come off as an angry disaffected hipster with an axe to grind.
I, for one, find Google's efforts in this area to be very interesting even if it's not commercialized for decades. Worthless for now? Maybe, but it's a demonstration of technology that could potentially make roads safer in the future even if only parts of the system are implemented. Think collision warning/avoidance for the masses since not everyone has $80,000 to blow.
I generally moderate against anyone who has enters a discussion in an insulting manner, and who doesn't actually bring anything real to the table. But then again I rarely down-mod people, I try to stick with the positive moderation.
I generally stick with positive moderations and save my points; if there's something that's an obvious troll or otherwise completely unrelated to the discussion (think Goatse), I may moderate it down if I happen to catch the story early. Since I tend to read/. very sporadically, moderating up is about the only thing I feel the need to do. Then again, there are many gray areas, too; one man's flamebait could be another's legitimate, snarky point. There's nothing outright wrong with being snarky, and sometimes it amuses me.
Then again, I may have my mindset stuck in the "5 points and 5 points only" of yesteryear, too, which tends me toward modding up or not modding at all.
I can't find the original link I had posted (although I doubt it's the one you're referring to), but here's one that contains a picture of the bomber that looks vaguely like one of the ones I came across:
To answer Nadaka a ways up the reply chain: Yes, there has been an incident where someone has attempted to blow up a sensitive target by stuffing themselves with explosives.
The entire point of my post was to show that there are no benefits to extending wiretaps and that conventional wiretaps by themselves aren't needed to catch true criminals because real evidence can be found elsewhere.
Exactly. I don't think you took it out of context, and if someone was afraid of that, that's what the "parent" link is for--read the whole thing rather than pasting in the entire comment. It's not rocket science, although I guess this is Slashdot...
I think the entire thing is an absurd power grab. The FBI can already seize hardware or enforce the installation of packet sniffing hardware in cases where they're trying to catch someone (although I've not heard of this in years--maybe they've become too technophobic or lazy, neither of which can be fixed by passing new laws). In fact, I seriously think this entire debate is absolutely idiotic. Someone is worried that the FBI doesn't have the "same" power to monitor online activities, never mind that they have the power to physically and forcibly obtain hardware regardless of who it affects (think the FreeDNS issue a few days ago)--but we're worried about packet sniffing, which they can already do? Nope, this isn't about giving the FBI equivalent access. It's about giving the government more than they need.
The absolute last thing we need is for the government to have a free pass to monitoring everything we do online. Sure, they may claim they won't abuse it unless the site is trafficking in illicit materials, but imagine how useful it would be to track details about political dissenters...
I'm sure no past president or previous administration has ever willfully abused the FBI's access to certain materials in order to keep an eye on political opponents before. Ever. (That was sarcasm for those of you who can't detect it in text.)
But giving them full phone access and no internet access is only going to help criminals trying to avoid detection. Be consistent, that's all I'm saying.
I don't know how your comment even got moderated insightful. With a court order/warrant, the FBI already has the power to install packet sniffers to monitor traffic, and an ISP that doesn't comply could certainly face unsavory punishment. As with traditional wiretapping, they need a properly signed court order.
Generally, though, it seems that the FBI just busts in to the data center and seizes machines to trawl them for illicit materials, logs, or whatever. But there's nothing stopping them from monitoring the traffic by court order either. Seriously, if they have the power to physically seize your hardware, they have the power to push the ISP into monitoring network traffic. This sounds instead like a power grab--or an overbearing extension of powers--not simply extending their efforts to a "different medium." It might also be laziness--rather than having to actually do real work, they want the ability to remotely monitor everything. That is something I think you should be vehemently opposed to.
Just imagine if this backdoor were conveniently broken in some difficult to discover manner and an adversary were able to collect details like credit card numbers, back accounts, etc., all because of some stupid government regulation^Wencouraged feature that required^Wrecommended remote access for the FBI in all web software.
I can't see the Apache foundation following along with this, though, much less any other open source foundations.
America, land of the oppressed, home of the paranoid.
Anyone who calls themselves 'generally pro-life' is probably someone who is actually pro-choice.
Here's a pop quiz: How long should women got to jail for getting an abortion?
If you find the idea of that silly...yeah, you're not really pro-life. You're in the vast majority of the pro-choice people who want abortions to be legal but less common. You know, the vast majority of Democrats. (And Republicans, for that matter.)
Pointless strawman debate. I'm not even going to attempt to answer that question.
Regardless, you're making the same mistake that many people on the right make: The world is not exclusively black and white. We exist on a continuum between two points (or multiple, depending on your political philosophy). If you can't understand that, then there's no point carrying this conversation further. I realize that this is your world view, and you're entitled to it, but it is not my world view and thus I vehemently disagree.
Well, at no point has any elected Democratic even vaguely suggested banning any sorts of guns at all. At most, they have suggested banning 30-bullet clips for handguns, which are essentially only used in mass-shootings of people. (No one needs 30 bullets in self-defense or to deter crime or to go hunting.) And they want to close the 'gun show' loophole, which is essentially basically just a way to get around criminal checks.
[citation needed]; although I never said anything about Democrats banning guns. I find it absolutely hilarious that you go off on this tangent when I never said anything about the Dems banning guns. I said that I was pro-gun ownership and gun rights. You took this to mean that I was implying that all Democrats are against guns. How you tied together a statement of my beliefs with a direct accusation is beyond me. Guilty conscience? Sensitivity? Trolling?
You do, however, require some education:
First, those things that hold bullets in a metal sleeve using a spring to push them upward into the feeding mechanism of the gun are called magazines. Clips are little more than metal straps that hold the rounds (they "clip" the rounds together) in place and the gun typically has a spring loaded extractor to remove them. For an example of a true clip, please look up the M1 Garand. If you cherish linguistic accuracy as much as you seem to indicate by repeatedly arguing how various conservative figures have contorted the meaning of various terms, then I think you'll appreciate being educated away from the colloquial use of "clip" to mean anything that holds bullets. It certainly does not.
My opinion is that 30 round magazines do not a mass shooting make. The Arizona shooter could have easily used 8 or 10 round magazines, taped together, and flipped them when he ran out. Taped magazines are equally illegal in some jurisdictions, but then if someone is planning on killing someone else, they're not likely to obey the law in the first place. Plus, during a shooting, most people are in such a state of shock that they're not about to examine when the shooter is changing out an empty magazine for another--which would give them some time to seek cover, fire back, or attack the assailant. Further, individuals who are either trained or have sufficient practice can swap a magazine quickly enough to keep shooting in a matter of a few seconds (or less), and it doesn't take much practice either! Lower capacities wouldn't have stopped the shooter. The only guaranteed way to stop someone is to kill him. But that would take us down another path entirely, which you'd undoubtedly argue against.
The Fort Hood shooter had multiple firearms during his shooting--which would also circumvent any capacity limits.
There are legitimate use cases for larger capacities; for on such example, I suggest that you spend 30 minutes on the range with a handful of 8-10 round magazines, then you'll start to see where the larger capacity ones com
You think someone that won't hard over their FB credentials to their employer and will lose their job over it, is going to give it to a search engine and create a cached copy? You are a complete moron if so. Think before you speak. You won't have so much saliva on your toes!
I personally think this whole thing is just outrageously stupid. If nothing else, the employee should be fired for giving their credentials away freely. Of course, the government doesn't think this way--"we want your credentials to sites so we can see what you're posting!" rather than "if you give up your privacy freely, what other credentials might you give up?" What a strange world we live in...
Although, I guess that's one way to get a job at HBGary. Oh, you give up credentials to any account just because someone asks? You're hired!
The generally acknowledged "pick any" in engineering is "Cost, Schedule, Performance" within which you pick any two to be as originally desired. Choose three of four though, that's, charming, lol.
I suspect the OP knew that much, but he was simply being humorous or attempting to add tongue in cheek humor to the conversation.
You also neglected the "fast, good, and cheap" from business, too, which is effectively the same thing but with smaller words so that bean counters can more easily understand.
Sorry, but I don't see a whole lot of conservatives blocking energy production. Liberals want to ban any energy production that may make someone money. They are against natural gas, nuclear, and even renewable, green energy. Try to cover Death Valley with solar panels and you'll have a horde of liberals protesting that it will harm some endangered fly that lives there. Try to put wind turbines in West Texas and you have environmentalists complaining about the damage to birds that may fly into the spinning blades.
Not to jump in and interrupt your points, but I thought I'd like to add some (slightly) anecdotal evidence.
Out here in southern NM, there were some plants to put a molten salt plant in for power generation. It was supposed to create a few thousand jobs, turn this part of the country into a power exporter, and so on.
Then it was blocked because of the local ecogroups that decided the land area it would impact would harm biodiversity. As far as I know, it'll never be built.
In short--none of these renewable energy sources are going to be deployed on a large scale precisely because various special interest groups have our policymakers (and legal system) in a choke hold.
At least with what we have we can fix it and adjust it as needed, whereas if we repeal it then we have to start over and every interest group and corporation is going to be eyeballing it to see what they can get slipped in.
Which is exactly what happened the first time around, except only a gazillion times worse (remember the 1099 fiasco?).:/
Is this revenge or pragmatism? When someone says they're going to attack you, a preemptive strike is often the most intelligent move you can make. This is not like a drive-by shooting on a crowded street; any "bystander" hurt by an attack on HBGary is a tool who is funding their nefarious behavior, they are part of the problem, and they deserve what happens to them.
You're right, and that's also another side of the coin. Thanks, drinky.
Of course, I don't really lean either way. Part of me wishes to play devil's advocate, but I certainly do believe that HBGary was more or less asking for what happened to them. Plus, Anonymous knew Mr. Barr was planning on meeting with the FBI so they had no idea whether he was going to release names (or not). He claimed he wouldn't, but given his continued deception (attempted, anyway) toward members of Anonymous, you're absolutely right--it's easy to see how they would have believed an attack was imminent.
Regardless of whether you see the attacks as preemptive or retaliatory, I believe you would agree that they are the result of the arrogance of one man blowing up in his own face. Mr. Barr's problem (well, one of many) was that he honestly believed himself to be smarter than everyone else. While I'm not so sure recent events will change his inflated self-opinion, I suspect he'll have a hard time being hired for analyst work in the future.
Or maybe not. The corporate world often dooms itself by picking up well known people regardless of their performance history.
Revenge is almost never the right thing to do. It is a thing to do, and it's an unfortunate human trait that the overwhelming majority of us feel when we have been wronged or perceive that a wrong has been committed against us. I've posted in a previous thread about my thoughts related to this, but I can essentially sum it up by stating that I think it was wrong what Anonymous did primarily because they have may have hurt many more people than just Barr. Though I do admit that I can't think of a more deserving target than Barr given his arrogance that could have lead to hurting innocent people with his own hands. And I think that's one of the more frightening underpinnings of this story that isn't getting due press--what happens if a (rogue) researcher is so confident he's identified a dangerous group of hackers that he's willing to do whatever it takes, even if his assumptions were completely wrong? What if they're so hungry for clients or press that they don't care if innocent people get slammed?
The other thing that surprises me about Barr is that he must have been greatly ignorant of basic childhood rhymes. There's plenty of sayings that come to mind that I'm sure he's heard before: play with fire, and you're going to get burned; don't poke the bear; let sleeping giants lie; and the list goes on and on.
Back to the discussion: sure, it's surprising that a security/consultancy firm like HBGary was hit so hard by something as simple as the attacks outlined in TFA, but I think it is far more surprising to me that Mr. Barr did not see this coming. From the previous articles I read on Ars Technica, it seems to me that the only level-headed person in the whole ordeal was Barr's programmer--a man who warned Barr numerous times not just about possible retaliation but that the names Barr had accumulated were almost certainly innocent people. But Barr was certain that they were the right names. Can you imagine the damage he would have done if he released them publicly or to the FBI (assuming that the FBI would take him seriously--I'd like to believe they wouldn't, but given the recent DHS fiasco with FreeDNS I have my doubts)? The potential for some poor innocent bystander who happened to friend the wrong person on Facebook may have found their doors knocked down at 6AM for something they didn't do. All that because of Barr's certainty he was right.
I guess it just surprises me that a security company whose job it is to analyze malware and is almost certainly well aware of the personality profile of the typical attacker didn't see this out of control freight train. I know that doesn't justify thoroughly destroying a company, but I don't think they're particularly deserving of much sympathy either. Barr's programmer warned company executives in the e-mails as reported by Ars, and I seem to recall at least one exchange where one of the higher ups told Barr to back off. He didn't, and he cost all of them dearly.
It's not unlike having a family reunion at the zoo where one of the overly curious bull-headed adolescents decides it would be funny to open the bear cage and poke it with a stick or throw rocks at it. He is then surprised when he and his entire family is mauled.
Family member: "Aaron, what are you doing?" Aaron: "I'm going to poke the bears." Family member: "Don't do that. They'll get angry." Aaron: "I just want to open the cage." Family member: "Are you serious? That's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard." *bear cage opens, bear gets poked* *assorted growls and screams* Weeks later, in recovery; Aaron: "I don't know why it was so angry..."
Regardless, I'm with a couple of the previous posters. This is going to go into college books for the next 30-50 years as an example not unlike Enron. Further, as someone else also pointed out, Barr probably did more to further educate the technology-minded masses on exploits in a single week by screwing himself over than he has in decades.
On the plus side, I doubt he'll be poking the bear cage any time soon.
Considering the individual you're replying to seems comfortable with asking me to commit intellectual dishonesty by associating myself with a party whose core ideals I find increasingly more repulsive, I suspect debating him won't be of much use.
Though, I do appreciate that you brought many useful examples to the conversation. Some people simply have too great a veil pulled over their eyes to see beyond their own biases. Particularly when one so vehemently believes that a term, such as "conservative" has been changed so drastically in as little as 3-5 years that there's (his words) "no point using it anymore." It sounds not unlike many of the talking points coming out of some of the fringe-left blogs as of late... Hmm!
But either way, it irritates me that the parent poster devolved this into a debate of political parties. As you rightfully pointed out--it never was. There is another possibility, though: He may simply be trolling for his own entertainment. This is likely the case since the original post involved an argument over the definition of words and how "conservative" doesn't necessarily mean what he thinks it should mean.
Essentially, it's like playing poker where the rules always change. You can't. The moment someone redefines a word in an argument, there's no way to convince them otherwise. Go figure.
I don't know how that could possibly be 'easier'. Just call yourself a Democrat and get it over with.
No, because I refuse to associate with a party that holds core beliefs with which I largely disagree; I'm generally pro-life, pro-gun ownership and gun rights, and the list goes on. The Democrats have, in this sense, become a party that tries desperately to appeal to both some moderates who would disagree with me on many of these individuals and to the far-left comprised of everyone from environmental nutjobs to fringe socialists.
But judging by some of your other statements and replies made to individuals below me, I suspect there's no real point arguing this principle with you. Yes, the Republicans have been trashing the meaning of fiscal conservatism, but that doesn't mean I can't use it as it was intended before the neocons started contorting it.
Someone else said it best in another thread--I believe it was Omestes, and you could probably find his comments with regards to this--that associating with just a single party like "republican" or "democrat" is just outrageous. Many of us have beliefs all over the spectrum, and aside from (as I stated elsewhere) making it so it's easier in conversation to identify with one or the other, it's almost intellectually dishonest to use it for any other purpose. As such, the Republicans typically ascribe to more of my fundamental beliefs than the Dems ever will precisely because the latter has to appeal to far too many left-wing principles that I refuse to ever be associated with.
Please, do not argue with me about my choice of association; we'll simply be debating differences in our world views and philosophies that would be largely counterproductive. I have made my choices to associated with conservative leanings for specific reasons; whether you disagree or not is fine, but I feel your criticism is misplaced and somewhat ignorant of the greater picture for reasons I refuse to iterate as I don't want to write another essay.
I don't know about the US jurisdictions as I'm Swedish, but here the Self Defense laws are pretty harsh, you're only allowed to use violence to defend yourself to the extent it's necessary to defend yourself, any more then that and you're on the line for Assault/Manslaughter yourself.
Allow me to educate you (and myself, because I honestly don't know what applies to which US jurisdiction as there are so many) insofar as my knowledge stretches to New Mexico and the neighboring States. First, though, I will freely admit that US law is highly convoluted, because it largely depends on the State you're in. This is by design, and the States are granted a great deal of leeway--certainly enough such that a law that applies in one State doesn't in another. Further, even so much as transporting firearms across State lines may require special permits--or not at all. Of course, there's a much deeper discussion to all of this, and the primary reason I'm using US law as an example is because individual cited in the article resides in Pennsylvania.
That said, I have no idea what Pennsylvania law is with regards to use of lethal force, but in New Mexico at least, self defense is fairly lenient; IANAL, but as I understand it, if there is a clear and present danger to you or to others that a violent crime is to be committed, you may use lethal force. Yes, you will probably go to jail until it's sorted out; yes, you will probably have your firearm confiscated; yes, you may wind up going to court. However, all of these "mays" are circumstantial. In the case of a potential rape victim, I highly doubt the victim would be booked by law enforcement. Questioned, certainly, but the laws here as I understand them (as I'm sure they are in Arizona and Texas) have seen some revision specifically for circumstances of self defense and are undoubtedly much more lenient than they are in Sweden. Of course, there are limitations such as the Castle Doctrine and how it applies to personal property (the NM interpretation of it is generally more strict), but there have been some recent changes.
Notably, some years prior, Governor Richardson signed concealed carry into law. This means that as long as your are licensed and authorized by the State, you may carry a firearm concealed with you wherever you go (I do believe it's limited such that CCW is not allowed if you are or are going to drink alcohol and you can be jailed or fined) for the purposes of self defense. There are also many other places where you cannot carry as outlined here (PDF warning).
In NM, these are the applicable laws (as far as I know):
In particular, NM Law section 30-2-7 may indicate some leniency compared to Sweden:
30-2-7. Justifiable homicide by citizen. Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases: A. when committed in the necessary defense of his life, his family or his property, or in necessarily defending against any unlawful action directed against himself, his wife or family; B. when committed in the lawful defense of himself or of another and when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury against such person or another, and there is imminent danger that th
uh, did you you not realise that, while the various meme-variations based on it are satire, Bill O'Reilly did actually cite an inability to explain the tides as supporting evidence for religion? Here is the quote:
âoeIâ(TM)ll tell you why [religion is] not a scam, in my opinion. Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You canâ(TM)t explain that. You canâ(TM)t explain why the tide goes in.â
I don't watch television, and I most especially do not watch Bill O'Reilly.
For the benefit of the doubt and for my sanity, I'll presume that you are just ignorant rather than deliberately trying to conceal the truth.
Funny how you paraphrase me. Great originality. You're right, though. I dislike O'Reilly enough that I was ignorant!
Now, being as you're an AC and you're probably trolling, I'll do the work for you since you were evidently far too lazy to bother using Google. Sure, I should've used it initially, but I was surprised that O'Reilly was even dumber than I thought--hence why I simply assumed that the meme, like most, was entirely satirical.
Here's a good link among many others related to O'Reilly's inability to explain the tides and related ideas in science. Since our AC friend who replied to me could only provide me with a quote (and not a link), I will redeem myself by providing it.
So yes, I was wrong. It wasn't entirely satirical; I simply assumed someone couldn't be so stupid as to state something so outlandish as to declare that the tides cannot be explained. Hence, that is why I assumed it was pure satire. Of course, it's easier to make assumptions about me being ignorant--and that's fine because I shouldn't have given O'Reilly the benefit of the doubt and assumed it was simply something taken out of context--but please do us all a favor and supply useful links instead of just quotes or cite your quotes by providing a link. It's much more educational and it doesn't waste as much of my time as having to go look up this rubbish myself.
Then again, I'd probably be posting as an AC, too, if I couldn't use Google well enough to find a link to what I was quoting.:)
As far as I'm aware most rapes are nonviolent, though generally while disabling the rapist is wise if you want to avoid getting raped I wouldn't recommend trying to castrate him as that's very likely to be lethal and will get you on the hook on criminal charges as excessive.
Depends on the jurisdiction. In most states in the US, even if it did go to court, a prosecutor would have a very hard time selling the jury on putting a woman away after being the victim of rape or attempted rape. If she felt the need to resort to the use of physical violence--fatal violence--most defense attorneys would probably use that as an example of how greatly the victim feared she was in danger. There have been more than a handful of cases where the rapist was shot multiple times by the victim or potential victim and except for maybe a rare outlying circumstance, I can't think of any that wound up in jail.
Better to kill the bastard than to be another dead body on the nightly news, I say. I realize there are some people on/. who don't believe violence in any form is appropriate, but I think even they would agree that a woman should be allowed to use any means necessary to spare her own life when faced with violent acts. On the other hand, a violent criminal 1) can't commit any more acts of violence when he's dead nor will he 2) suck up taxpayer money rotting in jail. It's a win-win!
As much as O'Reilly annoys me, I really, sincerely hope that you are able to recognize satire when you see it and are just hoping for some karma by being sarcastic or trolling. For the benefit of the doubt and for my sanity, I'll presume the latter.
1) Of course, about a third of people who claim to be on the political right aren't actually on the political right, either. The vast majority of people think they are more conservative than they actually are, with a good portion of 'moderates' and even many 'conservatives', when quizzed on actual policy, end up to the left of Democrats on 90% of the issues.
This is also true. I think it's a matter of simplicity for some of us, though.
For example, it's easier to identify myself as a conservative rather than stating something akin to: I'm fiscally conservative, I believe we should retain a limited federal government, but I am also socially liberal in that I believe there should be safety nets for people who lack the ways and the means to look after themselves (notably healthcare and the elderly) while also being a mostly secular Southern Baptist who......and I could go on. But I do understand your point.
I also admit that when I was in college, it was really entertaining to just identify myself as a conservative and watch my classmates balk but that's in league with some of my real life trollish tendencies.:)
I WISH someone would try to exploit my fears. If there were more people out there afraid of over reaching police powers and corporate control of the justice system, this country would be a much better place.
Or the MPAA. But since most of their member corporations own major news outlets, it'd never happen.
I've been in debates where people claimed literally *all* evil stems from religion. I don't even know where to start... a somewhat aware five year old realizes this is not true?? it does get a bit scary sometimes... it's all about the Dunning-Kruger effect I guess ^^
I think I know that type: They're so vehemently anti-religious, that clearly all the world's ills are the bitter fruits from the tree of religion. Never mind that nearly all Communist entities have been decidedly atheist/anti-religious as well and are just as bad (often worse) in terms of human rights issues and personal freedoms. I suppose the Catholic Church from a half millennia ago came close--and it's certainly funny how many times that is brought up in conversation as a sort of equivalence argument--but contemporary examples are fewer in number.
Now, if they made their argument with "All evil stems from people," I might agree.
But yes, I'm glad you got the general gist of what I meant when I mentioned a general (very general) comparison to Nazi philosophy. It isn't identical by any means, but you're absolutely right--in spirit, it isn't all that much different. Hating, and there most certainly are anti-religious types who hate, is just the first step on a long road to persecution of those different from others by race, creed, or religion. In small numbers, it's little more than background noise--a minor annoyance not unlike that of a gnat--but in greater numbers, it becomes a tremendous threat to personal security and freedom, among other things. After all, if one believes that we truly are free, then that one must also defend the rights of others to do, say, and believe that they wish. The anti-religious movement seems instead to be content in their belief that we are all free as long as we choose to believe the same, and they often use the argument of how dangerous religion is and its influence over otherwise free governments. But is it really freedom to purge the freedoms of others for nothing more than perceived danger or influence? In many regards, it's the opposite side of the same coin they espouse to be against.
we're in bad shape, people...
I think we are. Every debate on Fox News, Glen Beck, and/or religion tends to boil down to the same "If religion were to go away, everything would be perfect" argument with blatant disregard for history. It's a shame.
Sorry, I don't agree with that. MSIE may be insecure, but as long as it's updated through WSUS it's definitely more secure than the firefox some random user installed and forgot to update for about 2 years. So unless centrally managed, I agree that other browsers should not be installed. (This goes for any part of software, not only browsers.)
Huh? Firefox has been capable of self-updating for well over two years now. If anyone is running an outdated version, it was probably a 2.x install from at least 4 years prior. Yes, updates would require that the user have sufficient permissions to update it, but I think you're looking at entirely the wrong problem.
1) Most exploits with browsers are not actually exploits with browsers (except for IE, because of the various stupid holes that exist in MSHTML and are either never patched quickly or for reasons various other posts have pointed out in response to me). It's usually a problem with Flash. 2) Point to me an exploit exclusively targeted toward a hole in Firefox that was successful. You won't find one, because IE is a softer target. Why? Well, I think you need to take that up with organizations that insist on running MSIE6 or other similarly older versions. 3) If someone knows enough (or knows someone who knows enough) about software in general to install Firefox, the whole issue is moot. 4) MSIE-only organizations usually have enough bureaucracy and bloat to where they won't roll out patches to IE fast enough anyway to make a difference. It's a cultural thing.
Your disagreement is largely based on interpretation, and I think it's misplaced. Not every company is going to roll out the latest IE just because a patch has been rolled out--especially if it might interfere with other software they have installed that relies on some weird limitation of a prior version!
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're arguing is that if someone bought a computer with Linux preinstalled, they'd just wipe it and install Windows anyway the instant they discover certain software won't work (to say nothing about Wine).
I'm not sure, but it seems to me that this negates the rest of your point. I'm sure to be missing something.
The OP's argument was that Linux will do better than it is if it can run Windows software perfectly. Your argument is that it'll do better than it is if it comes preinstalled (fair point, I agree). Then you use OS X as an example and make a statement that the solution to being unable to run certain software is to install Windows anyway, which seems to defeat the purpose!
Either way, I don't think it matters. Linux on the desktop isn't going to happen any time soon for many reasons; yes, it's easy to condense it to a handful, but I don't think such simplification is truly appreciative of the hurdles that still exist. Never mind market share.
Good grief, man! You were making a really good point until you turned half of your post into a rant against the right-wing military industrial complex or whatever the current groupthink buzzword is for defense spending and generic angsty hatred toward individuals who don't happen to agree with you.
But yes, I certainly agree. AI platforms for driving vehicles have a long ways to go until they're able to interact with any imaginable situation (though I suspect it'll mostly involve stopping/slowing down and letting the human take over). That still doesn't negate the point that it's fairly impressive!
For future reference, though, save the political rant for a more appropriate discussion like those you might find on politics.slashdot.org. Otherwise you come off as an angry disaffected hipster with an axe to grind.
I, for one, find Google's efforts in this area to be very interesting even if it's not commercialized for decades. Worthless for now? Maybe, but it's a demonstration of technology that could potentially make roads safer in the future even if only parts of the system are implemented. Think collision warning/avoidance for the masses since not everyone has $80,000 to blow.
They're both totally invalid years!
Use: 2011-03-13. ;)
I generally stick with positive moderations and save my points; if there's something that's an obvious troll or otherwise completely unrelated to the discussion (think Goatse), I may moderate it down if I happen to catch the story early. Since I tend to read /. very sporadically, moderating up is about the only thing I feel the need to do. Then again, there are many gray areas, too; one man's flamebait could be another's legitimate, snarky point. There's nothing outright wrong with being snarky, and sometimes it amuses me.
Then again, I may have my mindset stuck in the "5 points and 5 points only" of yesteryear, too, which tends me toward modding up or not modding at all.
I can't find the original link I had posted (although I doubt it's the one you're referring to), but here's one that contains a picture of the bomber that looks vaguely like one of the ones I came across:
Al Qaeda Bombers Learn from Drug Smugglers.
Hope that helps.
To answer Nadaka a ways up the reply chain: Yes, there has been an incident where someone has attempted to blow up a sensitive target by stuffing themselves with explosives.
Exactly. I don't think you took it out of context, and if someone was afraid of that, that's what the "parent" link is for--read the whole thing rather than pasting in the entire comment. It's not rocket science, although I guess this is Slashdot...
I think the entire thing is an absurd power grab. The FBI can already seize hardware or enforce the installation of packet sniffing hardware in cases where they're trying to catch someone (although I've not heard of this in years--maybe they've become too technophobic or lazy, neither of which can be fixed by passing new laws). In fact, I seriously think this entire debate is absolutely idiotic. Someone is worried that the FBI doesn't have the "same" power to monitor online activities, never mind that they have the power to physically and forcibly obtain hardware regardless of who it affects (think the FreeDNS issue a few days ago)--but we're worried about packet sniffing, which they can already do? Nope, this isn't about giving the FBI equivalent access. It's about giving the government more than they need.
The absolute last thing we need is for the government to have a free pass to monitoring everything we do online. Sure, they may claim they won't abuse it unless the site is trafficking in illicit materials, but imagine how useful it would be to track details about political dissenters...
I'm sure no past president or previous administration has ever willfully abused the FBI's access to certain materials in order to keep an eye on political opponents before. Ever. (That was sarcasm for those of you who can't detect it in text.)
I don't know how your comment even got moderated insightful. With a court order/warrant, the FBI already has the power to install packet sniffers to monitor traffic, and an ISP that doesn't comply could certainly face unsavory punishment. As with traditional wiretapping, they need a properly signed court order.
Generally, though, it seems that the FBI just busts in to the data center and seizes machines to trawl them for illicit materials, logs, or whatever. But there's nothing stopping them from monitoring the traffic by court order either. Seriously, if they have the power to physically seize your hardware, they have the power to push the ISP into monitoring network traffic. This sounds instead like a power grab--or an overbearing extension of powers--not simply extending their efforts to a "different medium." It might also be laziness--rather than having to actually do real work, they want the ability to remotely monitor everything. That is something I think you should be vehemently opposed to.
Just imagine if this backdoor were conveniently broken in some difficult to discover manner and an adversary were able to collect details like credit card numbers, back accounts, etc., all because of some stupid government regulation^Wencouraged feature that required^Wrecommended remote access for the FBI in all web software.
I can't see the Apache foundation following along with this, though, much less any other open source foundations.
America, land of the oppressed, home of the paranoid.
Pointless strawman debate. I'm not even going to attempt to answer that question.
Regardless, you're making the same mistake that many people on the right make: The world is not exclusively black and white. We exist on a continuum between two points (or multiple, depending on your political philosophy). If you can't understand that, then there's no point carrying this conversation further. I realize that this is your world view, and you're entitled to it, but it is not my world view and thus I vehemently disagree.
[citation needed]; although I never said anything about Democrats banning guns. I find it absolutely hilarious that you go off on this tangent when I never said anything about the Dems banning guns. I said that I was pro-gun ownership and gun rights. You took this to mean that I was implying that all Democrats are against guns. How you tied together a statement of my beliefs with a direct accusation is beyond me. Guilty conscience? Sensitivity? Trolling?
You do, however, require some education:
First, those things that hold bullets in a metal sleeve using a spring to push them upward into the feeding mechanism of the gun are called magazines. Clips are little more than metal straps that hold the rounds (they "clip" the rounds together) in place and the gun typically has a spring loaded extractor to remove them. For an example of a true clip, please look up the M1 Garand. If you cherish linguistic accuracy as much as you seem to indicate by repeatedly arguing how various conservative figures have contorted the meaning of various terms, then I think you'll appreciate being educated away from the colloquial use of "clip" to mean anything that holds bullets. It certainly does not.
My opinion is that 30 round magazines do not a mass shooting make. The Arizona shooter could have easily used 8 or 10 round magazines, taped together, and flipped them when he ran out. Taped magazines are equally illegal in some jurisdictions, but then if someone is planning on killing someone else, they're not likely to obey the law in the first place. Plus, during a shooting, most people are in such a state of shock that they're not about to examine when the shooter is changing out an empty magazine for another--which would give them some time to seek cover, fire back, or attack the assailant. Further, individuals who are either trained or have sufficient practice can swap a magazine quickly enough to keep shooting in a matter of a few seconds (or less), and it doesn't take much practice either! Lower capacities wouldn't have stopped the shooter. The only guaranteed way to stop someone is to kill him. But that would take us down another path entirely, which you'd undoubtedly argue against.
The Fort Hood shooter had multiple firearms during his shooting--which would also circumvent any capacity limits.
There are legitimate use cases for larger capacities; for on such example, I suggest that you spend 30 minutes on the range with a handful of 8-10 round magazines, then you'll start to see where the larger capacity ones com
I personally think this whole thing is just outrageously stupid. If nothing else, the employee should be fired for giving their credentials away freely. Of course, the government doesn't think this way--"we want your credentials to sites so we can see what you're posting!" rather than "if you give up your privacy freely, what other credentials might you give up?" What a strange world we live in...
Although, I guess that's one way to get a job at HBGary. Oh, you give up credentials to any account just because someone asks? You're hired!
I suspect the OP knew that much, but he was simply being humorous or attempting to add tongue in cheek humor to the conversation.
You also neglected the "fast, good, and cheap" from business, too, which is effectively the same thing but with smaller words so that bean counters can more easily understand.
Not to jump in and interrupt your points, but I thought I'd like to add some (slightly) anecdotal evidence.
Out here in southern NM, there were some plants to put a molten salt plant in for power generation. It was supposed to create a few thousand jobs, turn this part of the country into a power exporter, and so on.
Then it was blocked because of the local ecogroups that decided the land area it would impact would harm biodiversity. As far as I know, it'll never be built.
In short--none of these renewable energy sources are going to be deployed on a large scale precisely because various special interest groups have our policymakers (and legal system) in a choke hold.
Which is exactly what happened the first time around, except only a gazillion times worse (remember the 1099 fiasco?). :/
Why, Al Gore of course!
Silly Slashdot. ;)
You're right, and that's also another side of the coin. Thanks, drinky.
Of course, I don't really lean either way. Part of me wishes to play devil's advocate, but I certainly do believe that HBGary was more or less asking for what happened to them. Plus, Anonymous knew Mr. Barr was planning on meeting with the FBI so they had no idea whether he was going to release names (or not). He claimed he wouldn't, but given his continued deception (attempted, anyway) toward members of Anonymous, you're absolutely right--it's easy to see how they would have believed an attack was imminent.
Regardless of whether you see the attacks as preemptive or retaliatory, I believe you would agree that they are the result of the arrogance of one man blowing up in his own face. Mr. Barr's problem (well, one of many) was that he honestly believed himself to be smarter than everyone else. While I'm not so sure recent events will change his inflated self-opinion, I suspect he'll have a hard time being hired for analyst work in the future.
Or maybe not. The corporate world often dooms itself by picking up well known people regardless of their performance history.
Revenge is almost never the right thing to do. It is a thing to do, and it's an unfortunate human trait that the overwhelming majority of us feel when we have been wronged or perceive that a wrong has been committed against us. I've posted in a previous thread about my thoughts related to this, but I can essentially sum it up by stating that I think it was wrong what Anonymous did primarily because they have may have hurt many more people than just Barr. Though I do admit that I can't think of a more deserving target than Barr given his arrogance that could have lead to hurting innocent people with his own hands. And I think that's one of the more frightening underpinnings of this story that isn't getting due press--what happens if a (rogue) researcher is so confident he's identified a dangerous group of hackers that he's willing to do whatever it takes, even if his assumptions were completely wrong? What if they're so hungry for clients or press that they don't care if innocent people get slammed?
The other thing that surprises me about Barr is that he must have been greatly ignorant of basic childhood rhymes. There's plenty of sayings that come to mind that I'm sure he's heard before: play with fire, and you're going to get burned; don't poke the bear; let sleeping giants lie; and the list goes on and on.
Back to the discussion: sure, it's surprising that a security/consultancy firm like HBGary was hit so hard by something as simple as the attacks outlined in TFA, but I think it is far more surprising to me that Mr. Barr did not see this coming. From the previous articles I read on Ars Technica, it seems to me that the only level-headed person in the whole ordeal was Barr's programmer--a man who warned Barr numerous times not just about possible retaliation but that the names Barr had accumulated were almost certainly innocent people. But Barr was certain that they were the right names. Can you imagine the damage he would have done if he released them publicly or to the FBI (assuming that the FBI would take him seriously--I'd like to believe they wouldn't, but given the recent DHS fiasco with FreeDNS I have my doubts)? The potential for some poor innocent bystander who happened to friend the wrong person on Facebook may have found their doors knocked down at 6AM for something they didn't do. All that because of Barr's certainty he was right.
I guess it just surprises me that a security company whose job it is to analyze malware and is almost certainly well aware of the personality profile of the typical attacker didn't see this out of control freight train. I know that doesn't justify thoroughly destroying a company, but I don't think they're particularly deserving of much sympathy either. Barr's programmer warned company executives in the e-mails as reported by Ars, and I seem to recall at least one exchange where one of the higher ups told Barr to back off. He didn't, and he cost all of them dearly.
It's not unlike having a family reunion at the zoo where one of the overly curious bull-headed adolescents decides it would be funny to open the bear cage and poke it with a stick or throw rocks at it. He is then surprised when he and his entire family is mauled.
Family member: "Aaron, what are you doing?"
Aaron: "I'm going to poke the bears."
Family member: "Don't do that. They'll get angry."
Aaron: "I just want to open the cage."
Family member: "Are you serious? That's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard."
*bear cage opens, bear gets poked*
*assorted growls and screams*
Weeks later, in recovery; Aaron: "I don't know why it was so angry..."
Regardless, I'm with a couple of the previous posters. This is going to go into college books for the next 30-50 years as an example not unlike Enron. Further, as someone else also pointed out, Barr probably did more to further educate the technology-minded masses on exploits in a single week by screwing himself over than he has in decades.
On the plus side, I doubt he'll be poking the bear cage any time soon.
Considering the individual you're replying to seems comfortable with asking me to commit intellectual dishonesty by associating myself with a party whose core ideals I find increasingly more repulsive, I suspect debating him won't be of much use.
Though, I do appreciate that you brought many useful examples to the conversation. Some people simply have too great a veil pulled over their eyes to see beyond their own biases. Particularly when one so vehemently believes that a term, such as "conservative" has been changed so drastically in as little as 3-5 years that there's (his words) "no point using it anymore." It sounds not unlike many of the talking points coming out of some of the fringe-left blogs as of late... Hmm!
But either way, it irritates me that the parent poster devolved this into a debate of political parties. As you rightfully pointed out--it never was. There is another possibility, though: He may simply be trolling for his own entertainment. This is likely the case since the original post involved an argument over the definition of words and how "conservative" doesn't necessarily mean what he thinks it should mean.
Essentially, it's like playing poker where the rules always change. You can't. The moment someone redefines a word in an argument, there's no way to convince them otherwise. Go figure.
No, because I refuse to associate with a party that holds core beliefs with which I largely disagree; I'm generally pro-life, pro-gun ownership and gun rights, and the list goes on. The Democrats have, in this sense, become a party that tries desperately to appeal to both some moderates who would disagree with me on many of these individuals and to the far-left comprised of everyone from environmental nutjobs to fringe socialists.
But judging by some of your other statements and replies made to individuals below me, I suspect there's no real point arguing this principle with you. Yes, the Republicans have been trashing the meaning of fiscal conservatism, but that doesn't mean I can't use it as it was intended before the neocons started contorting it.
Someone else said it best in another thread--I believe it was Omestes, and you could probably find his comments with regards to this--that associating with just a single party like "republican" or "democrat" is just outrageous. Many of us have beliefs all over the spectrum, and aside from (as I stated elsewhere) making it so it's easier in conversation to identify with one or the other, it's almost intellectually dishonest to use it for any other purpose. As such, the Republicans typically ascribe to more of my fundamental beliefs than the Dems ever will precisely because the latter has to appeal to far too many left-wing principles that I refuse to ever be associated with.
Please, do not argue with me about my choice of association; we'll simply be debating differences in our world views and philosophies that would be largely counterproductive. I have made my choices to associated with conservative leanings for specific reasons; whether you disagree or not is fine, but I feel your criticism is misplaced and somewhat ignorant of the greater picture for reasons I refuse to iterate as I don't want to write another essay.
Allow me to educate you (and myself, because I honestly don't know what applies to which US jurisdiction as there are so many) insofar as my knowledge stretches to New Mexico and the neighboring States. First, though, I will freely admit that US law is highly convoluted, because it largely depends on the State you're in. This is by design, and the States are granted a great deal of leeway--certainly enough such that a law that applies in one State doesn't in another. Further, even so much as transporting firearms across State lines may require special permits--or not at all. Of course, there's a much deeper discussion to all of this, and the primary reason I'm using US law as an example is because individual cited in the article resides in Pennsylvania.
That said, I have no idea what Pennsylvania law is with regards to use of lethal force, but in New Mexico at least, self defense is fairly lenient; IANAL, but as I understand it, if there is a clear and present danger to you or to others that a violent crime is to be committed, you may use lethal force. Yes, you will probably go to jail until it's sorted out; yes, you will probably have your firearm confiscated; yes, you may wind up going to court. However, all of these "mays" are circumstantial. In the case of a potential rape victim, I highly doubt the victim would be booked by law enforcement. Questioned, certainly, but the laws here as I understand them (as I'm sure they are in Arizona and Texas) have seen some revision specifically for circumstances of self defense and are undoubtedly much more lenient than they are in Sweden. Of course, there are limitations such as the Castle Doctrine and how it applies to personal property (the NM interpretation of it is generally more strict), but there have been some recent changes.
Notably, some years prior, Governor Richardson signed concealed carry into law. This means that as long as your are licensed and authorized by the State, you may carry a firearm concealed with you wherever you go (I do believe it's limited such that CCW is not allowed if you are or are going to drink alcohol and you can be jailed or fined) for the purposes of self defense. There are also many other places where you cannot carry as outlined here (PDF warning).
In NM, these are the applicable laws (as far as I know):
Excusable homicide
Justifiable homicide by public officer or public employee
Justifiable homicide by citizen
When homicide is excusable of justifiable defendant to be acquitted
In particular, NM Law section 30-2-7 may indicate some leniency compared to Sweden:
I don't watch television, and I most especially do not watch Bill O'Reilly.
Funny how you paraphrase me. Great originality. You're right, though. I dislike O'Reilly enough that I was ignorant!
Now, being as you're an AC and you're probably trolling, I'll do the work for you since you were evidently far too lazy to bother using Google. Sure, I should've used it initially, but I was surprised that O'Reilly was even dumber than I thought--hence why I simply assumed that the meme, like most, was entirely satirical.
Here's a good link among many others related to O'Reilly's inability to explain the tides and related ideas in science. Since our AC friend who replied to me could only provide me with a quote (and not a link), I will redeem myself by providing it.
So yes, I was wrong. It wasn't entirely satirical; I simply assumed someone couldn't be so stupid as to state something so outlandish as to declare that the tides cannot be explained. Hence, that is why I assumed it was pure satire. Of course, it's easier to make assumptions about me being ignorant--and that's fine because I shouldn't have given O'Reilly the benefit of the doubt and assumed it was simply something taken out of context--but please do us all a favor and supply useful links instead of just quotes or cite your quotes by providing a link. It's much more educational and it doesn't waste as much of my time as having to go look up this rubbish myself.
Then again, I'd probably be posting as an AC, too, if I couldn't use Google well enough to find a link to what I was quoting. :)
Depends on the jurisdiction. In most states in the US, even if it did go to court, a prosecutor would have a very hard time selling the jury on putting a woman away after being the victim of rape or attempted rape. If she felt the need to resort to the use of physical violence--fatal violence--most defense attorneys would probably use that as an example of how greatly the victim feared she was in danger. There have been more than a handful of cases where the rapist was shot multiple times by the victim or potential victim and except for maybe a rare outlying circumstance, I can't think of any that wound up in jail.
Better to kill the bastard than to be another dead body on the nightly news, I say. I realize there are some people on /. who don't believe violence in any form is appropriate, but I think even they would agree that a woman should be allowed to use any means necessary to spare her own life when faced with violent acts. On the other hand, a violent criminal 1) can't commit any more acts of violence when he's dead nor will he 2) suck up taxpayer money rotting in jail. It's a win-win!
As much as O'Reilly annoys me, I really, sincerely hope that you are able to recognize satire when you see it and are just hoping for some karma by being sarcastic or trolling. For the benefit of the doubt and for my sanity, I'll presume the latter.
This is also true. I think it's a matter of simplicity for some of us, though.
For example, it's easier to identify myself as a conservative rather than stating something akin to: I'm fiscally conservative, I believe we should retain a limited federal government, but I am also socially liberal in that I believe there should be safety nets for people who lack the ways and the means to look after themselves (notably healthcare and the elderly) while also being a mostly secular Southern Baptist who... ...and I could go on. But I do understand your point.
I also admit that when I was in college, it was really entertaining to just identify myself as a conservative and watch my classmates balk but that's in league with some of my real life trollish tendencies. :)
Or the MPAA. But since most of their member corporations own major news outlets, it'd never happen.
I think I know that type: They're so vehemently anti-religious, that clearly all the world's ills are the bitter fruits from the tree of religion. Never mind that nearly all Communist entities have been decidedly atheist/anti-religious as well and are just as bad (often worse) in terms of human rights issues and personal freedoms. I suppose the Catholic Church from a half millennia ago came close--and it's certainly funny how many times that is brought up in conversation as a sort of equivalence argument--but contemporary examples are fewer in number.
Now, if they made their argument with "All evil stems from people," I might agree.
But yes, I'm glad you got the general gist of what I meant when I mentioned a general (very general) comparison to Nazi philosophy. It isn't identical by any means, but you're absolutely right--in spirit, it isn't all that much different. Hating, and there most certainly are anti-religious types who hate, is just the first step on a long road to persecution of those different from others by race, creed, or religion. In small numbers, it's little more than background noise--a minor annoyance not unlike that of a gnat--but in greater numbers, it becomes a tremendous threat to personal security and freedom, among other things. After all, if one believes that we truly are free, then that one must also defend the rights of others to do, say, and believe that they wish. The anti-religious movement seems instead to be content in their belief that we are all free as long as we choose to believe the same, and they often use the argument of how dangerous religion is and its influence over otherwise free governments. But is it really freedom to purge the freedoms of others for nothing more than perceived danger or influence? In many regards, it's the opposite side of the same coin they espouse to be against.
I think we are. Every debate on Fox News, Glen Beck, and/or religion tends to boil down to the same "If religion were to go away, everything would be perfect" argument with blatant disregard for history. It's a shame.
Huh? Firefox has been capable of self-updating for well over two years now. If anyone is running an outdated version, it was probably a 2.x install from at least 4 years prior. Yes, updates would require that the user have sufficient permissions to update it, but I think you're looking at entirely the wrong problem.
1) Most exploits with browsers are not actually exploits with browsers (except for IE, because of the various stupid holes that exist in MSHTML and are either never patched quickly or for reasons various other posts have pointed out in response to me). It's usually a problem with Flash.
2) Point to me an exploit exclusively targeted toward a hole in Firefox that was successful. You won't find one, because IE is a softer target. Why? Well, I think you need to take that up with organizations that insist on running MSIE6 or other similarly older versions.
3) If someone knows enough (or knows someone who knows enough) about software in general to install Firefox, the whole issue is moot.
4) MSIE-only organizations usually have enough bureaucracy and bloat to where they won't roll out patches to IE fast enough anyway to make a difference. It's a cultural thing.
Your disagreement is largely based on interpretation, and I think it's misplaced. Not every company is going to roll out the latest IE just because a patch has been rolled out--especially if it might interfere with other software they have installed that relies on some weird limitation of a prior version!