Composites are physically very strong, and the use of epoxy rather than polyester will improve the lifespan.
That's the thing...I rarely keep a laptop for more than 4 or 5 years so the durability of the case usually isn't an issue. But to have one in a gorgeous, stabilized wood case with some rich-looking wood grain, that would be pretty nice.
But since we are looking back, it turns out your choice was unneeded after all.
Actually, what you mean is that my choice hasn't been needed yet. And hopefully, it never will be. The same could be said for the earthquake kits many people around here have in their homes, not to mention the fire extinguishers they keep in their kitchens and garages.
All questionable devices should go on a separate network segment that is isolated via a strict firewall.
I agree, but Joe and Jane Average will never do this or even understand the reason for doing it.
For the bad guys, the world is full of soft, delicious, blissfully unaware victims-in-waiting like them, and I don't see it getting any better anytime soon.
You do realize that normal banks also have websites, right? And that the money in your bank account isn't actually comprised of bills sitting in a locker? Bank 'robberies' nowadays happen in a very different way than they used to, but they still happen.
You do realize that the money in my account is backed by the institution, right? And you do realize that the institution or the FDIC or the government will replace my money if it's stolen?
And you do realize that the people who just lost their ass in the latest bitcoin robbery are shit out of luck, unlike me, right? And you do realize that the people who just got screwed in the latest bitcoin robbery will almost certainly never get a dime back, right, because according to the article itself, no one will even investigate the robbery?
Works exactly the same. I'm not saying Bitcoin (etc) does not have inherent problems, but the lack of dependable professional exchanges/centralized storage facilities is not an inherent one.
Works exactly the same? Maybe in your world, and maybe for very, very small values of "same", but if you really believe that then you should be putting all your cash into bitcoins, because it's "exactly the same" as having your money in a real bank. Right?
Let's be brutally honest: the risks with virtual currency are many and varied, and no one has a clue how to mitigate them, at least not yet. Maybe someday, but not today and not tomorrow. And not the day after that, either.
Virtual currencies do have inherent problems and to deny that is to deny reality. Real, physical currency has inherent problems, why the hell would a virtual currency not have problems too? They may be different problems but I think as we have just seen, they exist.
Yes, necessarily. Show me a weapon that's been built but never used and I'll show you a weapon that some General or battlefield yo-yo is itching to use. It's like when police got outfitted with tasers...they had a new "tool" and they ended up using it way too often, in many cases just because they had it. Deploying these things will increase the likelihood that they'll be used, or worse, stolen and then used. As I said above, there's nothing good about nuclear weapons, nothing.
-
Thus, an air-burst attack over 100 meters high releases almost no fallout. Unfortunately the most important targets (such as missile silos) are heavily hardened and require ground-level detonations to destroy.
And thus, they won't fucking be used as air-burst weapons. And you'll just have to pardon me if I think that 100,000 tons of airborne radioactive dust isn't all that much better than 200,000 tons of airborne radioactive dust. Yeah, maybe quantitatively it's better but not qualitatively.
Any use of nukes is going to fuck shit up, and once we start using them then other nuclear powers will see that as an excuse to unlimber their nukes. "Well the US blew one up in Whatchamacallitstan, so why can't we set off one in Whoositville?"
-
Fewer civilian casulties in the worst-case scenario is a good thing, and claims to the contrary are simply asinine.
Except that politicians and Generals really don't give a flying fuck about civilian casualties...in most cases they come under the heading of "collateral damage" and we all know that shit happens in war, right?
"So, like, we hadda blow the fuck out of that there city and whaddya know there was some 'non-combatants' living there, oopsie. But that's okay, boss, it'll demoralize 'em and degrade their human infrastructure, so when ya look at it dat way, it's really a win-win!"
Yeah, so you can stop telling me how much "better" these "precision" nukes are than the big clumsy ones are. It's the difference between having your head cut off with a big knife or a little knife.
This is going to happen over and over and over and over and over. It'll be a looooooooong time, if ever, before virtual currencies are protected in any meaningful way against this sort of thing.
Look at it this way: there are maybe a half-dozen people running a something-coin exchange, but there are essentially a limitless number of bad guys out there who, from the safety of their basements, can spend all the time in the world thinking up ways to crack your system. Sooner or later one of them s going to do it, and *boom*, away go the something-coins. And that's assuming that the something-coin exchange guys aren't themselves in on it or playing along. Or "go bad" later. Or get extorted, or find themselves in a jam and need some money ASAP. The attack surface is, in a word, enormous.
Yes, real banks get robbed, but that takes some real time and effort and most of the time the robbers get caught. In contrast, the risk-to-reward ratio for virtual currency is so unbalanced that it's a natural target with minimal risks. No bullets flying around, no get-away cars, no bank guards, no logistics about hauling the cash away, no dye-packets to worry about. It's like a crime made in heaven.
I don't have the answers (if there really are any) but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the problems inherent in virtual currencies. All of the people who lost money in this will, in all likelihood, never get a dime back. And worse yet, even the people who didn't lose money directly still take a hit when the currency undergoes devaluation because of the robbery. It seems like there are a LOT of risks and not many rewards.
I find the idea of virtual currencies interesting, but not mature or safe enough to put "real" money into any of them. Maybe someday, but not today...
Yes, and by preparing for things you can mitigate the effects if they should happen. The risk/reward ratio is sometimes so steep that it makes sense to prepare. Just like we prepare to try to reduce the consequences of an earthquake, we also prepare to try to reduce the consequences of a crime against us. That might be why you don't wander around with money hanging out of your pockets, because a) it would increase your chances of being a victim of a crime, and b) you fear being the victim of a crime, as would any rational person.
I have a much higher, real risk of giving away free money, you have almost no risk of being in some armed confrontation where carrying a gun will save you
What about the person who has never been a victim but think they might...?
I would tell them to take whatever steps they felt were reasonable to prepare for such an eventuality, regardless of whether or not I thought their fear was justified. Or put another way...
What about the person who has never been in a fire but think they might?
I would tell them to take whatever steps they felt were reasonable to prepare for such an eventuality, regardless of whether or not I thought their fear was justified. Like keeping a fire extinguisher handy. You might not need it, but when you do, you really, really need it.
Are we going around in circles? You seem to equate probability with irrational fear? Hint, they aren't the same thing.
You still haven't explained why you don't want to get a ticket. It's almost as if you fear the consequences, like your insurance rates going up, having to go to court and/or pay money in fines...tell me again why you don't want to get a ticket?
unless there's other information I'm not aware of, it can only be because you've overstated the 1:1000000 risk for no logical reason. This is what irrational fear is.
Tell that to someone who's been the victim of a violent crime. Just tell them not to worry about it, it'll *probably* never happen again because it's sooooo unlikely, just like it was the first time.
Unlike a fire though, a fire extinguisher NEVER increases your risk of being in a fire, whereas owning a gun does increase you chance of being shot.
So...just owning a gun has some magical power that makes you more likely to be the victim of a crime? How does that work, exactly, is it like a high-frequency magnetic field that only attracts bad people or something?
And before I forget, tell me again why you don't want to get a ticket? I mean, it's just a ticket, what's the problem, is getting a ticket going to harm you somehow?
A "precision-guided" nuclear munition that leaves a 10-mile crater. THAT'S JUST FUCKING BRILLIANT.
Seriously, all this does is increase the likelihood that one or more of these will be used. It's fucking insane.
I'm generally a strong supporter of the military, but there's nothing good about nuclear weapons, nothing. Using one of these things will be the match that sets the entire world on fire.
I wouldn't describe it as totally unbiased, but it did seem less biased than all the other options here in the USA.
Bingo. It wasn't totally unbiased, but they covered a lot of stuff that never made it into the 3-minute "news" cycle that most of the news outlets in the US live and die by.
The answer is "no", you ignorant web-obsessed dipsticks.
Phone numbers will be around for a long, long time, so stop babbling this nonsensical bullshit.
Obviously it's "Whackjob Wednesady" at slashdot, where the dumbest "news" article gets posted to the front page while real news is buried where it will never see the light of day.
I will *probably* get a ticket if I don't wear a seatbelt
Why are you afraid of getting a ticket? It's because you're afraid of the consequences of getting a ticket. Your reasoning tells you to be afraid of the affect on your insurance, finances, driving record, etc, otherwise why would you care?
-
But you said the risk of an accident was greater than the risk of needing your gun?
Yes, I believe the risk of an accident is greater than the risk of needing a gun. I also believe the risk of being in another fire is less than either of those things, and yet I still keep a fire extinguisher handy. It's about the risk-to-consequences ratio.
-
Most people who have guns (and fire extinguishers) don't *need* them. Where a fire extinguisher differs from a gun of course is that I've never heard of anyone being killed by a fire extinguisher.
Your thinking is unclear. People are killed by fires when they don't have a fire extinguisher, just like some people are killed by criminal assault when they don't have a gun.
You need to learn the difference between fear and reason.
Lol, that's nothing more than a disingenuous way of saying you're afraid of the penalties for getting caught breaking the law.:)
-
I've already explained my position. I don't wear a helmet for the same reason I don't lock my doors or own a gun. I believe the risk of injury is so low as to not worry about it.
Well, then we're in agreement about wearing a helmet while driving. I also believe the risk of injury is so low as to not worry about it.
-
Your position is inconsistent, and that is the result irrational fear.
No, it's not, anymore than keeping a fire extinguisher handy is "fearful". Being prepared for eventualities isn't necessarily fearful (although it can be), often it's result of prior experience and prudent reasoning. As I said, I've been injured, I've been in fires, and I've been in an earthquake. Being prepared for those kinds of things is rational. Being prepared for the possibility of being a victim of a crime is also rational.
I'm curious why it bothers you so much that other people want to be prepared for things that are proven to occur. Why do you care, why not let other people live the way they want? It should be clear that I'm hurting no one and may someday help someone, whether it's with a first aid kit or a fire extinguisher or, yes, a firearm. Would you prefer than I and others not be in a position to help you, your family, or complete strangers if the need arises? That's just silly and more than a bit anti-social.
Maybe you just lead a charmed life and will never have to worry about anything ever. But in truth, we both understand that you do all sorts of things out of an entirely rational fear of the consequences, like not driving with your eyes shut.
I used to walk 2 miles to school by myself or with friends every damn morning from the time I started kindergarten and no one thought twice about it. EVERYBODY walked to school and there was no fear-mongering over it.
I guess all of out mothers and fathers should be rounded up and charged, all 150 million of them. The ones that have passed away can get off by having their gravestones amended with the text, "Child Endangerer".
The penny seems pretty useless, frankly, and I speak as someone who's grown up using them for 50+ years.
I don't think it would be a bad thing to get rid of pennies, but no doubt some groups would manage to link it to communism, socialism, moral decay, the decline of 'Murica, and a host of other imagined sinister "problems" or conspiracies. I can almost hear the outraged cries and fear-mongering now.
Slashdot Mirror
Composites are physically very strong, and the use of epoxy rather than polyester will improve the lifespan.
That's the thing...I rarely keep a laptop for more than 4 or 5 years so the durability of the case usually isn't an issue. But to have one in a gorgeous, stabilized wood case with some rich-looking wood grain, that would be pretty nice.
But since we are looking back, it turns out your choice was unneeded after all.
Actually, what you mean is that my choice hasn't been needed yet. And hopefully, it never will be. The same could be said for the earthquake kits many people around here have in their homes, not to mention the fire extinguishers they keep in their kitchens and garages.
I don't know how durable it will actually be, but it sure looks nice.
All questionable devices should go on a separate network segment that is isolated via a strict firewall.
I agree, but Joe and Jane Average will never do this or even understand the reason for doing it.
For the bad guys, the world is full of soft, delicious, blissfully unaware victims-in-waiting like them, and I don't see it getting any better anytime soon.
You do realize that normal banks also have websites, right? And that the money in your bank account isn't actually comprised of bills sitting in a locker?
Bank 'robberies' nowadays happen in a very different way than they used to, but they still happen.
You do realize that the money in my account is backed by the institution, right? And you do realize that the institution or the FDIC or the government will replace my money if it's stolen?
And you do realize that the people who just lost their ass in the latest bitcoin robbery are shit out of luck, unlike me, right? And you do realize that the people who just got screwed in the latest bitcoin robbery will almost certainly never get a dime back, right, because according to the article itself, no one will even investigate the robbery?
Works exactly the same. I'm not saying Bitcoin (etc) does not have inherent problems, but the lack of dependable professional exchanges/centralized storage facilities is not an inherent one.
Works exactly the same? Maybe in your world, and maybe for very, very small values of "same", but if you really believe that then you should be putting all your cash into bitcoins, because it's "exactly the same" as having your money in a real bank. Right?
Let's be brutally honest: the risks with virtual currency are many and varied, and no one has a clue how to mitigate them, at least not yet. Maybe someday, but not today and not tomorrow. And not the day after that, either.
Virtual currencies do have inherent problems and to deny that is to deny reality. Real, physical currency has inherent problems, why the hell would a virtual currency not have problems too? They may be different problems but I think as we have just seen, they exist.
Not necessarily.
Yes, necessarily. Show me a weapon that's been built but never used and I'll show you a weapon that some General or battlefield yo-yo is itching to use. It's like when police got outfitted with tasers...they had a new "tool" and they ended up using it way too often, in many cases just because they had it. Deploying these things will increase the likelihood that they'll be used, or worse, stolen and then used. As I said above, there's nothing good about nuclear weapons, nothing.
-
Thus, an air-burst attack over 100 meters high releases almost no fallout. Unfortunately the most important targets (such as missile silos) are heavily hardened and require ground-level detonations to destroy.
And thus, they won't fucking be used as air-burst weapons. And you'll just have to pardon me if I think that 100,000 tons of airborne radioactive dust isn't all that much better than 200,000 tons of airborne radioactive dust. Yeah, maybe quantitatively it's better but not qualitatively.
Any use of nukes is going to fuck shit up, and once we start using them then other nuclear powers will see that as an excuse to unlimber their nukes. "Well the US blew one up in Whatchamacallitstan, so why can't we set off one in Whoositville?"
-
Fewer civilian casulties in the worst-case scenario is a good thing, and claims to the contrary are simply asinine.
Except that politicians and Generals really don't give a flying fuck about civilian casualties...in most cases they come under the heading of "collateral damage" and we all know that shit happens in war, right?
"So, like, we hadda blow the fuck out of that there city and whaddya know there was some 'non-combatants' living there, oopsie. But that's okay, boss, it'll demoralize 'em and degrade their human infrastructure, so when ya look at it dat way, it's really a win-win!"
Yeah, so you can stop telling me how much "better" these "precision" nukes are than the big clumsy ones are. It's the difference between having your head cut off with a big knife or a little knife.
This is going to happen over and over and over and over and over. It'll be a looooooooong time, if ever, before virtual currencies are protected in any meaningful way against this sort of thing.
Look at it this way: there are maybe a half-dozen people running a something-coin exchange, but there are essentially a limitless number of bad guys out there who, from the safety of their basements, can spend all the time in the world thinking up ways to crack your system. Sooner or later one of them s going to do it, and *boom*, away go the something-coins. And that's assuming that the something-coin exchange guys aren't themselves in on it or playing along. Or "go bad" later. Or get extorted, or find themselves in a jam and need some money ASAP. The attack surface is, in a word, enormous.
Yes, real banks get robbed, but that takes some real time and effort and most of the time the robbers get caught. In contrast, the risk-to-reward ratio for virtual currency is so unbalanced that it's a natural target with minimal risks. No bullets flying around, no get-away cars, no bank guards, no logistics about hauling the cash away, no dye-packets to worry about. It's like a crime made in heaven.
I don't have the answers (if there really are any) but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the problems inherent in virtual currencies. All of the people who lost money in this will, in all likelihood, never get a dime back. And worse yet, even the people who didn't lose money directly still take a hit when the currency undergoes devaluation because of the robbery. It seems like there are a LOT of risks and not many rewards.
I find the idea of virtual currencies interesting, but not mature or safe enough to put "real" money into any of them. Maybe someday, but not today...
the difference is in the probability.
Yes, and by preparing for things you can mitigate the effects if they should happen. The risk/reward ratio is sometimes so steep that it makes sense to prepare. Just like we prepare to try to reduce the consequences of an earthquake, we also prepare to try to reduce the consequences of a crime against us. That might be why you don't wander around with money hanging out of your pockets, because a) it would increase your chances of being a victim of a crime, and b) you fear being the victim of a crime, as would any rational person.
I have a much higher, real risk of giving away free money, you have almost no risk of being in some armed confrontation where carrying a gun will save you
What about the person who has never been a victim but think they might...?
I would tell them to take whatever steps they felt were reasonable to prepare for such an eventuality, regardless of whether or not I thought their fear was justified. Or put another way...
What about the person who has never been in a fire but think they might?
I would tell them to take whatever steps they felt were reasonable to prepare for such an eventuality, regardless of whether or not I thought their fear was justified. Like keeping a fire extinguisher handy. You might not need it, but when you do, you really, really need it.
Are we going around in circles? You seem to equate probability with irrational fear? Hint, they aren't the same thing.
You still haven't explained why you don't want to get a ticket. It's almost as if you fear the consequences, like your insurance rates going up, having to go to court and/or pay money in fines...tell me again why you don't want to get a ticket?
unless there's other information I'm not aware of, it can only be because you've overstated the 1:1000000 risk for no logical reason. This is what irrational fear is.
Tell that to someone who's been the victim of a violent crime. Just tell them not to worry about it, it'll *probably* never happen again because it's sooooo unlikely, just like it was the first time.
Unlike a fire though, a fire extinguisher NEVER increases your risk of being in a fire, whereas owning a gun does increase you chance of being shot.
So...just owning a gun has some magical power that makes you more likely to be the victim of a crime? How does that work, exactly, is it like a high-frequency magnetic field that only attracts bad people or something?
And before I forget, tell me again why you don't want to get a ticket? I mean, it's just a ticket, what's the problem, is getting a ticket going to harm you somehow?
A "precision-guided" nuclear munition that leaves a 10-mile crater. THAT'S JUST FUCKING BRILLIANT.
Seriously, all this does is increase the likelihood that one or more of these will be used. It's fucking insane.
I'm generally a strong supporter of the military, but there's nothing good about nuclear weapons, nothing. Using one of these things will be the match that sets the entire world on fire.
"GNOME Settings Area Getting a Refurbishment", also known as, "What Can We Fuck Up Today?"
They'll 'improve' it until it's so ruined that totally unusable, and then they'll slap a "Done" sticker on it.
I wouldn't describe it as totally unbiased, but it did seem less biased than all the other options here in the USA.
Bingo. It wasn't totally unbiased, but they covered a lot of stuff that never made it into the 3-minute "news" cycle that most of the news outlets in the US live and die by.
The answer is "no", you ignorant web-obsessed dipsticks.
Phone numbers will be around for a long, long time, so stop babbling this nonsensical bullshit.
Obviously it's "Whackjob Wednesady" at slashdot, where the dumbest "news" article gets posted to the front page while real news is buried where it will never see the light of day.
He appears to be confirming that he has commented on the potential existence of such a rumour.
Can we confirm that the comment on the potential existence of the rumor may or may not exist, or is it in an undetermined state?
I will *probably* get a ticket if I don't wear a seatbelt
Why are you afraid of getting a ticket? It's because you're afraid of the consequences of getting a ticket. Your reasoning tells you to be afraid of the affect on your insurance, finances, driving record, etc, otherwise why would you care?
-
But you said the risk of an accident was greater than the risk of needing your gun?
Yes, I believe the risk of an accident is greater than the risk of needing a gun. I also believe the risk of being in another fire is less than either of those things, and yet I still keep a fire extinguisher handy. It's about the risk-to-consequences ratio.
-
Most people who have guns (and fire extinguishers) don't *need* them. Where a fire extinguisher differs from a gun of course is that I've never heard of anyone being killed by a fire extinguisher.
Your thinking is unclear. People are killed by fires when they don't have a fire extinguisher, just like some people are killed by criminal assault when they don't have a gun.
As watering the currency is immoral
I'm not sure what you mean by "watering the currency".
I'm also unsure how removing the penny from circulation would be "immoral".
A spokesperson for Fortinet told El Reg, "This was not a 'backdoor' vulnerability issue but rather a management authentication issue."
Later they said, "You didn't get 'pwned', you got 'haxored'...it's like, totally different, man."
And just for the record, I'm not "eating a potato", I'm "utilizing a starch resource with a multi-pronged utensil!"
This just in......French Conservatives Push Law To Make Pi Equal to 3.0
Next up, French Conservatives Push Law To Make Kids Turn That Darn Music Down
French Conservatives Push Law To Stop People From Thinking Bad Thoughts
You need to learn the difference between fear and reason.
Lol, that's nothing more than a disingenuous way of saying you're afraid of the penalties for getting caught breaking the law. :)
-
I've already explained my position. I don't wear a helmet for the same reason I don't lock my doors or own a gun. I believe the risk of injury is so low as to not worry about it.
Well, then we're in agreement about wearing a helmet while driving. I also believe the risk of injury is so low as to not worry about it.
-
Your position is inconsistent, and that is the result irrational fear.
No, it's not, anymore than keeping a fire extinguisher handy is "fearful". Being prepared for eventualities isn't necessarily fearful (although it can be), often it's result of prior experience and prudent reasoning. As I said, I've been injured, I've been in fires, and I've been in an earthquake. Being prepared for those kinds of things is rational. Being prepared for the possibility of being a victim of a crime is also rational.
I'm curious why it bothers you so much that other people want to be prepared for things that are proven to occur. Why do you care, why not let other people live the way they want? It should be clear that I'm hurting no one and may someday help someone, whether it's with a first aid kit or a fire extinguisher or, yes, a firearm. Would you prefer than I and others not be in a position to help you, your family, or complete strangers if the need arises? That's just silly and more than a bit anti-social.
Maybe you just lead a charmed life and will never have to worry about anything ever. But in truth, we both understand that you do all sorts of things out of an entirely rational fear of the consequences, like not driving with your eyes shut.
This is insanity.
I used to walk 2 miles to school by myself or with friends every damn morning from the time I started kindergarten and no one thought twice about it. EVERYBODY walked to school and there was no fear-mongering over it.
I guess all of out mothers and fathers should be rounded up and charged, all 150 million of them. The ones that have passed away can get off by having their gravestones amended with the text, "Child Endangerer".
The penny seems pretty useless, frankly, and I speak as someone who's grown up using them for 50+ years.
I don't think it would be a bad thing to get rid of pennies, but no doubt some groups would manage to link it to communism, socialism, moral decay, the decline of 'Murica, and a host of other imagined sinister "problems" or conspiracies. I can almost hear the outraged cries and fear-mongering now.
I wear a seatbelt because I'm required to by law
Oh, so you're afraid of the penalties that disobeying the law entails? I thought you said you didn't let fear influence your decisions?
-
So no helmet, but you have a gun. That my friend, is the difference between a rational approach to risk management, and fear.
No, that's the sign of you being disingenuous. The real question is why don't YOU wear a helmet when you drive?
Sound and Vision, We Could Be Heroes...lots of great stuff from him over the years.
RIP, David.
Let's see, I work hard, find a bug, save you millions in legal fees.....and my reward is that you promise not to sue me?
Wow, that's like really enticing, where do I sign?
Geez, what late bloomer.
"Better latent than never."