Firebird/Mozilla (I use both, diffent computers) is just fine with my bank as well, Downey Savings.
Though, even with user agent switching, I have yet to get Yahoo's Launchcast to work in Firebird. So, some sites are still broken.
Personally, I've given up on trying to use logic to convice these people that privacy is important, whether or not they have anything to hide. Now I just give a just as silly response:
Them: If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about.
Me: If I haven't done anything wrong why do you need to know?
But then, given the current environment in the US, I guess the whole idea of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to thought-criminals.
Of course, had you RTFA, you might have noted that the plants have been genetically engineered to be infertile, so you only get one generation out of a planting. Though, that should be enough to locate and remove landmines, and not enough to take over an area and force out existing species.
As for the planting, ya its going to be as easy as doing a water drop on a fire, just with a seed/fertalizer mixture (kida like hydro-seeding).
IANAL, but my recollection is that if a trademark/patent/copyright is not vigorusly defended, it becomes null and void (thus we have some of the stupid cases of people being sued over something that many of us would consider innocent). Moreover CSS wasn't patented, it was a trade secret, which works differently. Basically, if its a trade secret you can go after someone for revealing it, and try to keep them from revealing it to anyone else. But, if someone figures your secret out, and tells the whole world, it loses its protected status.
Since, to my understanding, CSS was figured out by people who did not have access to the original code, they can talk about it, and it kills the trade secret status.
Wouldn't have mattered much which operating system they were using. From the Article:
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with the right password
Basically, someone screwed up, and as we know, computers will do exactly what you tell them to do, not necessarilly what you want them to do. Whether this thing was running Windows, Linux, or DOS, if the person setting up the system didn't secure the folders properly, they are going to be avilable to anyone. The only question is, if they were publicly available, was it really illegal, or wrong, for the Republicans to view them? Wrong, is probably easy to answer, it should have been obvious from the content of the files that they were meant to be confidential, but illegal is another story. It would seem that the Democrats did not take reasonable steps to ensure confidentiality, so can they really claim that the Republicans broke into thier system and stole the documents? Or is it just a case of the Republicans getting lucky because of this oversight?
And lastly, what ever happened to testing? If the tech had spent a few minutes logging in as different users, and checking that they couldn't get to specific places, this should have been found.
Probably not at first, but once production scales up, we might be able to. Keep in mind that getting off the moon is no where near as difficult as getting off the Earth. And once you get part of the way back (don't recall exact distance offhand, something like a 1/3 of the way, I think), gravity will do the rest. Then, just make sure that your shipping containers have a good heat shield and parachute system, and we can bring the tanks in like we did the Apollo Crews. Might even be worth while to set up a landing zone, on dry land, and just make the containers more impact resistant. The containers themselves would probably have to be some sort of concrete, made from lunar dust, so that part might be hard, but I'm sure we can figure something out.
Yield to the right, is usually used (at least here in California) for two (or more) people arriving at a 4 way stop at the same time, and assuming that thier movements would conflict. As for roundabouts, I've never actually seen one, much less driven in one, so I can't comment.
Ok, for those that didn't RTFA, and for those that did, but still would like a Reader's Digest version, broken down by paragraph:
1. Whaaa, snipers keep killing me,I'm a god, they must all suck.
2. I only care about K:D ratios, therefore that must be all they care about.
3. Sniper rifles in games aren't realistic. People keep killing me with them, I'm a god, therefore sniping doesn't take and skills. I hate campers.
4. I'll justify my position by listing some strawman arguments.
5. Realism, sniper rifles kill people with one shot, this can't be real. Editor's note: Yes, guns can and do kill, or disable, people with one shot. And in this type of game, disabled is as good as dead. For reference, see Viginia Sniper. Also note, that the other guns he lists also tend to kill people quickly and messily.
6. Historical Accuracy, there's too many snipers. Editor's note: People also don't rush into firefights and dance around each other spraying bullets, this is usually called suicide. Realism has little to do with games, other than a basis for the game.
7. Weapon Diversity, whaaa snipers keep killing me so I feel compled to snipe also. Editor's Note: did you even consider finding a way to deal with the sniper, other than a headlong rush?
8. Skill, I'm an Ub3r l33t g@m!ng g0d, they kill me, therefore sniping must not require skills. Page Two
1. My opinions are now fact, because I say so. Everone wants to use the sniper rifle because it gives a good K:D ratio, and this is all people care about.
2. Snipers make me actually have to think about tactics, I just want to run in like a mad man shooting my gun.
3. Whaa, snipers make me have to think about tactics. They don't have skillz, but they can aim damn well. They make the game hard for me, because I have to outthink them, but they are the ones who don't think about the game. Editor's note: Ok, so they can aim like crazy, but they don't have any skills? Also, they seem to be able to control the game, but they are the one's who don't understand the flow of the game? And they don't know how to survive in a real firefight? Ok, the last may be true, but it sounds like they beat you before they got to that stage, by out-thinking you.
4. Whaa, I can't deal with snipers so I'm going to call them names.
5. Whaa, snipers get too many kills. Its not realistic. Editor's Note: Yes, we have established that we are playing a game, move on already. Page Three
1. There are some games that actually have the snipers weaked enough that they don't bother me.
2. I like these games, the snipers aren't a threat to my masculinity.
3. I don't want weaked snipers. I want CoD without snipers, 'case they kill me.
4. Limiting snipers doesn't solve the problem, I still get killed by the few snipers in the map.
5. Everyone would agree with me, if they would only try it. The only way to play an FPS is to do brainless headlong rushes at the enemy.
6. Whaa, snipers make me have to think.
So why is this article more than the standard, "I hate campers" rant? The guy spends three pages complaining about snipers, and only comes up with the solution of removing them from games. Its sounds like he needs to either figure out a way to deal with snipers, or just stick to servers where rushing and spraying is the only tactic. Personally, I'd rather have snipers, they make me have to actually think about what I am doing. Do I want to cover that wide open area, and risk getting shot? Or do I find a more circutiuos route that is safer? Or maybe even figure how to deal with the sniper, and then take the quick route.
Who modded this guy funny ? Since when is repeating the first paragraph of the article funny ?
Well, the first paragrapg of the article is kind of funny. Anyone who truly believes that this voice analyzer will be able to work as a lie detector on anyone, without a baseline of that person to go from, deserves to be laughed at. Granted, with the current atmosphere in the US today, with reguards to airport security, the government might just buy it.
Though, I have to say that, on seeing this,the first thought I had was, if I get asked this question at an airport now, by people wearing glasses, it would be tempting to say yes, or ask if blowing the plane up counts? This is just another syptom of a much larger problem, the government is now so scared of being viewed as not doing enough for security, that they will jump at the chance to appear to be doing something, no matter how misguided, and no matter how many civil liberties they have to trample on to do it.
I agree, its nice to have managers who actully want to know, and will act on that knowledge. But all too often, the result is that the person bringing up the problem gets treated worse than the cause of the problem.
This isn't to say that there aren't managers who will do what needs to be done, and not shoot the messenger, but do you want to risk your job on it? Its going to have to be a judgement call on the part of the employee. If the manager seems like the type of person who gets shit done, and does it right, tell him. If the manager spends half an hour extolling the benifits of thier "open door policy", and teamwork, and giving more than 100%, then shut up, sit down, and try not to rock the boat.
Or the other litmus test we use at my company, if the new CEO (yes, we've gone through several recently) provides any of those playing buzzword bingo, with an actual bingo, during thier initial speech, we know we are in for a few more months of big speeches and no meaningful action.
Just smile, nod and enjoy the free food. Sure, it would be nice to try and let the executives know the problems you are facing, but as the Dispair poster says, "Sometimes the best way to increse moral is to fire all the unhappy people." You aren't unhappy are you?
Seriously, you, and a large portion of the staff should discuss the idea of all suggestions being given to the exec anoymously. Try to find someway to disassociate the idea from the person. Granted this isn't perfect, but it might help some.
Two things on this. First off, one would have to assume that some sort of breaking system would exist (such as on current highrise elevators), so that, if the climber malfunctioned, it would just leave a bunch of people stranded until they can get a maintainance crew up to it. Second, even if the thing does fall back to Earth, its upper velocity will still be bound by air resistance, so it will hit hard, and kill everyone in and under the elevator, but it shouldn't hit hard enough to cause significant damage to the area around the impact. Unlike an incomming metorite, this thing won't have a huge velocity to start with, only what it gets from falling.
One other thing to consider, they may be able to build the climber with some sort of parachute, or a lifting body design, such that, if it comes loose, it doesn't kill everyone on board. Though that would be one big parachute.
As long as you are not the minority that the US government decides to oppress this time. Or, have schools stopped teaching that the US government put people of Japaneese ancestry in concentration camps during WWII, for our protection. Or perhaps you slept through the lecture on McCarthyism? Those Communists are bad, after all, we should work to keep people from expressing that view.
No, the US government has never, in recent history, done anything to warrant me being worried about them misusing information about me.
But, really, bank records? Its not like its the usual dirty laundry like how much porn you have on your computer... unless your doing something illegal, what reason would you have to hide it? (I honestly am inquiring... I'm sure/.ers can help me out here...)
You are asking the wrong question. The question that should always be asked is, why do they need it? If the answer is some nebulous, for your security answer, then they don't really need it, they are just fishing. There should be a specific and functional answer as to why such information is needed. Moreover, why do they want to avoid judicial oversight? Its not like they couldn't get this information before, it just required a judge to sign the subpeona. Sure, it takes a little time, but those records aren't going anywhere. The only reason, that I can see, that the FBI would want to be able to do this without judicial oversight, is to avoid pesky questions about thier resons for what they are doing.
And, to answer your question, read up on the Stazi (sorry, couldn't find a good link), or the East German secret police. Basically they existed to terrorize the populous, and many of the tactics being pushed by the US government today smell the same as those the Stazi employed.
Its not that I want to keep the FBI/Police/etc. out of all bank records. They should have access to that, but it damn well better be under judicial oversight.
For those of you who think this is an ok thing to do, try pulling something similar at work. You wont get fired, and prob not sent home w/out pay for a day, but your boss and others will most likely come in your office and be like umm... wtf?
Maybe I'm special, but I would probably just get a chuckle out of most of my co-workers. The last guy who sent one of these out domain wide, by mistake during a test, just got razzed for it a bit.
Seriously, the kid was experimenting with a command he had learned. He was actually trying to further his own education by playing with stuff on his own. God forbid a student actually be interested in learning and try to go beyond the approved ciriculum. Yes, it can cause problems, but this should be anticipated and some pre-emptive measures taken. For example, why the hell was the computer lab on the same LAN as the actual school network? Forget disabling the messenger service, it should be there to experiment with, but the computer lab should have been on a separate VLAN, which is not routed to the normal school network, and had all internet traffic logged, with some good outgoing firewalling and URL/IP re-direction. Also, have a central image server (which is powered off all day) and at the end of each day, just multicast a pure image back out to all of the clients. This way the students can actually try things and learn on thier own, and even if they screw a system, it's ready to roll the next day.
So yes this is a case of "oh god teachers have no clue.", whoever set that school's LAN up needs a good whack from the clue stick. Sure, what the kid did was disruptive, but only because the school failed to plan for students who actually want to learn,and god forbid, actually experiment. If anything, this type of thing should be encourged, the whole "think outside the box" idea. But no, schools are now more interested in churning out mediocre students who are good citizens and don't think for themselves.
I don't think there is any difference (morally), but there is some difference in how people view the value of such things. First off, very few pieces of software are alone in thier market, most have at least one, or more, competitors; and, as such, they have to price thier product competativly. The only notable exception is Microsoft, who has a virtual monopoly on the desktop, and it would seem that running a pirate version of Windows is pretty common. So people are willing to pay a price that they see as fair, and so piracy is not as normal. With music, there is a monopoly, or at the very least we have the members of the RIAA getting together to fix prices (funny, sounds like a Sheman Act violation, but I digress). And as a reaction, a black market has spung up, which is hardly a suprise.
In all, I'm not trying to justify piracy, mostly, I was pointing out one of the possible reasons for its existance. And, of course, complaining about the physical/digital comparisons which are so common but flawed all to hell.
Now, if I did want to go about justifying piracy, I would probably start by going after the current length of copyright, and claiming that I would refuse to recognise copyrights after 7 years. Which is really just a form of civil disobediance, and still of questionable justification. Afterall, who am I to set a time limit on copyrights? Though, I will say, that I don't think that 90 years is in keeping with the idea of what copyrights are supposed to do.
I never said the purchasing itself represented the parents' views. It can't. It only puts the decision to purchase directly into the hands of the parents.
As I attempted to point out, it still fails to do so. It will do so on those titles which the government has deemed "unsafe", but will not do so on other titles, which may be just as objectionable. The only way you're ever going to really get that type of control into the hand of parents, is to deny kids access to all video games, without parental consent. Which, if we're going to try and give the parents control, would probably be a better way to go, but then, that would, and should, be viewed as rather extreme. I still stand by my point, this is just another form of parents wanting to have the government watch over thier kids for them.
Yes, but that is not an argument. We have laws against killing, and people still kill! OMG!
Given, its part of a much larger one that I didn't feel like typing when I posted. Its meant to tie back into the idea of cost versus benefit. We have laws against killing, what is the benefit? We have a way to deal with killers, and hopefully, less killing going on. The cost? Well, enforcement, houseing of those that break the law, and a few others. Are the costs worth the benefit? This is a value decision that everyone has to make, but the majority of society has said yes. Now, what about a law keeping kids from getting a hold of 'M' games easily? Costs are basically enforcement, and dealing with offenders. What's the benefit? Well, kids won't get a hold of games that are deemed objectionable by the government, easily. So, now the value judgement, is it worth it? There is not a clear concensus on this (otherwise, why would we be having this discussion?) There are those who think that it is fitting for society, as a whole, to pay for watching over everyone's kids. Then there are those that think it should be the parents who should be watching over the kids. I guess the comprimise, that I would be happy with, would be some sort of child tax, if you have kids you have to pay an extra tax to cover the extra costs of the government playing nanny to your kids.
Spoken like someone who has no children. You can't control your kids, unless you abuse them to the point where they go Clockwork Orange. You can discipline them and train them, but no kid is expected to be well-trained or well-disciplined such that they will always do the right thing. That is why they are KIDS. If they could be fully trusted, or have full responsibility for themselves, we would call them ADULTS.
Ahh yes, the "You don't have kids, so you don't know argument". Ok, you got me, I don't have kids, this is a decision that I have made because I don't think I have the resources available to properly raise a child (that whole personal responsibility thing again). However, this does not disqualify me from having an opinion about the laws that are going to affect me, and how tax money is going to be spent. Sorry, if the law is going to affect me, I have every right to get involved. Now, I do understand that kids are not able to be controlled 24/7, they are going to go out and do things that you don't want them to do. Nor do I think its good to control them that tightly anyways. Just from antecdotal evidence, it seems to me that the tighter kids are controlled, the more wild they go when they do get some measure of freedom.
However, we are talking about video game sales. Its not that hard to occasionally look at the screen your kid is playing on, to figure out if they should be playing that game or not. Or, (insert diety here) forbid that you actually sit down and play some of those games with them from time to time. Its quite possible to monitor thier playtime, without being too intrusive. And if they are trying to put one past you, eventually, you'll catch them, and be able to punish them, and put that punishment in the right context.
Yes, it does. It disallows the child from purchasing it for himself. It gives the parents control over that purchase. How do you not get this? 20 points higher than me, and he thinks a big guy like that can wear his clothes?
No, it just gives either the government, or a private organization, control over what a child can purchase, but does nothing to represent the parent's views. Now, these views will often line up, as most people will agree that a child shouldn't be playing "Debbie does Dallas: The Video Game", but there will be more questionable titles that either will or won't be put on the restricted list, but this will not necessarilly represent the views of the parents. In fact, a child may still end up getting a hold of games that the parents find objectionable. In the end, the parent will have not gained anything other than a false sense of security. I stand by my original point, the parents need to do their job and control what thier children have access to.
As for how I don't "get this", its easy, I believe in personal responsibility. If you can't or won't control what your children are doing, what the hell are you doing having kids? Yes, some things are going to get by you, kids are ignorant, they aren't dumb. This is all part of the experience of growing up.
You are ignoring reality. Just flat-out living in fantasyland. We have had laws for hundreds of years in this country prohibiting minor access to what society deems is "adult" material. It's not that parents aren't able to do their job, but that kids are stupid and run out and do what they are disallowed anyway, regardless of what their parents say. We have laws against kids buying porn and alcohol, but in most cases, parents are allowed to provide those materials to their children. Only the most extreme people -- or kids -- think this is an example of a "nanny government."
So, if I get you right, you are basically saying that the fact that because kids can do things, ouside of parental supervision, we should allow the government to decide for everyone what is acceptable for thier kids, and what isn't? Basically, you want the government to watch what your kids are doing when you aren't. Sound's a lot like a nanny to me. I'm hardly an extreme person, I just have this deeply seated belief that raising children is the burden of the parents who decided to have them, not the rest of society. Have kids, teach them as you wish, and I will teach mine as I wish, but keep the damned government out of it, it tends to screw up everything else it does.
What really matters is there is hardly any loss of revenue due to stealing cars: It allows me to get cars that I wouldn't buy or rent anyway. There is simply no loss of money. If I don't have the garage, I just don't drive or park those cars I steal! How's that for an argument? Those Ford/GM/Honda/Toyota fools just don't get it, now do they?
I would have thought that, by now, people would stop trying to equate digital copyright infringment to physical theft. The analogies tend to have rather glaring holes in them. Let's look at this one...
Ok, first off, when a person downloads a copyrighted song, from an unauthorized source, they are infringing on a copyright, no arguments there. Now, the question is, what happens to the original? Nothing. Ok, so to try and correct this analogy it would have to run something like this:
Someone purchases a car. They then park it in the street with a sign on it saying, "copy me." Our nefarious "pirate" comes along, sees the car and whips out his Magic Car Copying Machine (patent pending) and makes an exact replica of the car in question. He then drives this replica off, leaving the original car none the worse for wear.
Alright, this analogy is obviously silly, as there is no such thing as a Magic Car Copying Machine (patent pending), but it is much closer to what is actually happening. Now, are people justified in violating copyrights? No. But let's not pretend that its even close to shop-lifting or grand theft auto. Further, if we did have a replicator (ala Star-Trek), would there be this much concern over its use? For example, if I could replicate food, would that be bad? What if I was replicating a BigMac, is it now bad because its recipe might be copy-righted? Part of the problem with this whole debate, is that we don't have a really good physical equivilent. Yes, unauthorized copying probably decreses the value of things. On the other hand, perhaps it is just a response to an item being percieved to be overpriced by an artificial monopoly on distribution. Remember, both sides of the equation are greedy. On one side, you have the consumer trying to get something for as cheep of price as possible, on the other side you have the seller trying to get as much money for an item as possible. The hope is, that somewhere in the middle, they will meet on a price agreeable to both. Now, when the seller is the only game in town, he tends to gouge the customer, but if the customer has another source, even a dubious one, they might just use it if the chance of getting caught is low enough. Such that, in the end, the seller is probably getting about what the product is worth, and the consumers (as a whole) are probably paying a fair price for it, the cost is just distributed differently.
It just kills me when people say the government shouldn't be involved, this is an issue for parents. Hello, brainiac: that is what the law DOES, it puts the parents in control.
It would seem that you are the one who is missing the point here. This law does not "put the parents in control", it does nothing of the sort. Currently the parents are in control, they are just failing to exercise that control in a responsible fashion. On the other hand, this law is just another example of parents who don't want to bother taking the time to raise thier children properly, and instead want a nanny government to do it for them. There is no reason for this law, if you don't want your kids playing 'M' rated or violent games, then don't let them; but let's not go and expect the government to play nanny for everyone.
Some of us actually like the NET SEND command. Moreover, its a damed useful tool, if used correctly. As an example, where I work we set up a number of databases (MS SQL), and one of the things we tend to include is a trigger that, if a backup job fails, the server is sent a NET SEND with a backup failed warning, and all of the applicable information, along with a message telling our customer to contact us, and how to do so, so that we can get thier backups working again, before the database crashes (ever seen an MSSQL DB transaction log fill the drive? Not pretty).
And all it takes is a simple firewall to stop this shit. For those that haven't figured it out yet, wake up, and protect your box, people! If you have broadband (DSL, Cable, etc.) get a cheap US$50 router with a built in firewall. For most people its going to be a plug and surf operation. For those that do anything else, it may take a bit more, but its still rather easy.
Other way round. If an ice cap melts, it will release water into the ocean. Generally speaking this is away from the axis of rotation (think: the geographical poles) Overall this should mean more mass further from the axis of rotation, hence slower rotation (conservation of momentum).
On the other hand, if we have the ice caps growing, there should be more mass closer to the axis of rotation, and through the same principal, the Earth should rotate faster.
Of course, I would tend to question how much of an affect the the melting or growth of ice caps has on the Earth. Consider that all of the ice in the world is a very small fraction of the total mass of the Earth. Technically, if all of it became concentrated at the poles or equator there may be a mesurable difference, but I seriously doubt it would amount to a 1 second difference in rotational speed throughout the year. But then, I've not bothered to do the math, so I could be wrong.
I rarely get a home-made system to work 'just right' there is always one (usually minor) problem somewhere that won't go away, or shows up every 10~15 reboots
I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that most people who build thier own machines tend to get junk parts. I have a friend who is forever trying to build and upgrade his machine with parts bought at Fry's. Now, not to knock Fry's, but if you walk in there, make sure you have a good clue about manufacturers and all the in's and out's of system building, 'cause while they have some low prices, its often on junk parts. This friend, unfortunatly, has really no clue about what parts are good and what parts are junk, nor does he take the time to research his purchases, so his computers are always running into trouble, and I am forever fielding questions from him. I, on the other hand, have built two computers for myself in the past several years, and both have run flawlessly (except for the one time the network driver blew out in WinXP, though that was a software issue, and right in the middle of a LAN party, too) (Oh, and that whole WinMe virus. I got a pre-release [legal] copy, installed it and now realize that it was basically a virus).
Ok, so to put a conclusion on this rambling post, if you're going to build your own computer, make sure you know what brands/parts to get, and research your choices. Yes, quality parts cost a bit more, but they tend to last longer and be more stable. And, for those that have bought Dell recently, Dell uses junk parts. At work I get the joy of pushing out several Dell machines a week, and its a damn good thing we have the Gold Service contract, or my job would be much harder.
You also sort of screwed the pooch on the card you picked. Take a read through the article, you'll notice that the higher end GF4 cards tend to beat the heck out of the FX5600 card. And the price difference is really minor. At home, I run a GForce4 Ti4600 at 4X AGP, and am very happy with it, granted my processor is a bit faster, but I think this has more to do with the video card.
Unfortunatly, I have watched more people fall into this trap than I care to count, they buy into the latest cards when, in fact, a slightly older card runs better. Yes, I can't run the spiffy DX9 features, but consider that:
1. There are no games out there that require them, or even make that big of difference with them.
2. By the time I have to upgrade (e.g. full DX9 support required) the FX5900 or Radeon9800 Pro should be reasonable in price (for me sub-$200).
But, as long as your new card plays the games you want to play, and does so well enough for you, then I guess that's what counts. But to everyone, I would recommend staying one step behind the technology curve, you save money and still get good performance, unless, of course, you have the money to blow on the latest video card, then, um, could you buy me one too?:-)
I don't know, having read through the article, I thought that the FBucks thing was pure shite. The problem is, that you can get some of the older cards for dirt cheap now, plus the bargin cards cost very little as well, so it tends to inflate thier numbers in that table quite a bit. Granted, anyone researching video cards is probably capable of looking at the data and realizing that the GF440MX card is junk for gaming.
Now, as you mentioned, the idea of picking a price point and buying the best card in that range is a great way to go, I wish that Tom's had just created a table based around that insted. It would have allowed someone with a budget to look at the cards in thier range and pick the best one. though even this can be misleading, depending upon the price range.
About the only interesting thing I did see in the FBucks thing, is that is backed up what I have been telling people for some time now, get a GForce4 and wait on the FX cards. Though, just looking at the raw data you can come up with this. The 4600 tends to beat the stuffing out of the FX5200 and FX5600 in most tests, and it really doesn't cost much more. Sure you don't get the DX9 features, but with the 5200 and 5600 your not going to have a fast enough card to appriciate those features anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Firebird/Mozilla (I use both, diffent computers) is just fine with my bank as well, Downey Savings.
Though, even with user agent switching, I have yet to get Yahoo's Launchcast to work in Firebird. So, some sites are still broken.
Personally, I've given up on trying to use logic to convice these people that privacy is important, whether or not they have anything to hide. Now I just give a just as silly response:
Them: If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about.
Me: If I haven't done anything wrong why do you need to know?
But then, given the current environment in the US, I guess the whole idea of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to thought-criminals.
Of course, had you RTFA, you might have noted that the plants have been genetically engineered to be infertile, so you only get one generation out of a planting. Though, that should be enough to locate and remove landmines, and not enough to take over an area and force out existing species.
As for the planting, ya its going to be as easy as doing a water drop on a fire, just with a seed/fertalizer mixture (kida like hydro-seeding).
IANAL, but my recollection is that if a trademark/patent/copyright is not vigorusly defended, it becomes null and void (thus we have some of the stupid cases of people being sued over something that many of us would consider innocent). Moreover CSS wasn't patented, it was a trade secret, which works differently.
Basically, if its a trade secret you can go after someone for revealing it, and try to keep them from revealing it to anyone else. But, if someone figures your secret out, and tells the whole world, it loses its protected status.
Since, to my understanding, CSS was figured out by people who did not have access to the original code, they can talk about it, and it kills the trade secret status.
Wouldn't have mattered much which operating system they were using. From the Article:
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with the right password
Basically, someone screwed up, and as we know, computers will do exactly what you tell them to do, not necessarilly what you want them to do. Whether this thing was running Windows, Linux, or DOS, if the person setting up the system didn't secure the folders properly, they are going to be avilable to anyone. The only question is, if they were publicly available, was it really illegal, or wrong, for the Republicans to view them? Wrong, is probably easy to answer, it should have been obvious from the content of the files that they were meant to be confidential, but illegal is another story. It would seem that the Democrats did not take reasonable steps to ensure confidentiality, so can they really claim that the Republicans broke into thier system and stole the documents? Or is it just a case of the Republicans getting lucky because of this oversight?
And lastly, what ever happened to testing? If the tech had spent a few minutes logging in as different users, and checking that they couldn't get to specific places, this should have been found.
Probably not at first, but once production scales up, we might be able to. Keep in mind that getting off the moon is no where near as difficult as getting off the Earth. And once you get part of the way back (don't recall exact distance offhand, something like a 1/3 of the way, I think), gravity will do the rest. Then, just make sure that your shipping containers have a good heat shield and parachute system, and we can bring the tanks in like we did the Apollo Crews. Might even be worth while to set up a landing zone, on dry land, and just make the containers more impact resistant. The containers themselves would probably have to be some sort of concrete, made from lunar dust, so that part might be hard, but I'm sure we can figure something out.
Yield to the right, is usually used (at least here in California) for two (or more) people arriving at a 4 way stop at the same time, and assuming that thier movements would conflict. As for roundabouts, I've never actually seen one, much less driven in one, so I can't comment.
Ok, for those that didn't RTFA, and for those that did, but still would like a Reader's Digest version, broken down by paragraph:
1. Whaaa, snipers keep killing me,I'm a god, they must all suck.
2. I only care about K:D ratios, therefore that must be all they care about.
3. Sniper rifles in games aren't realistic. People keep killing me with them, I'm a god, therefore sniping doesn't take and skills. I hate campers.
4. I'll justify my position by listing some strawman arguments.
5. Realism, sniper rifles kill people with one shot, this can't be real. Editor's note: Yes, guns can and do kill, or disable, people with one shot. And in this type of game, disabled is as good as dead. For reference, see Viginia Sniper. Also note, that the other guns he lists also tend to kill people quickly and messily.
6. Historical Accuracy, there's too many snipers. Editor's note: People also don't rush into firefights and dance around each other spraying bullets, this is usually called suicide. Realism has little to do with games, other than a basis for the game.
7. Weapon Diversity, whaaa snipers keep killing me so I feel compled to snipe also. Editor's Note: did you even consider finding a way to deal with the sniper, other than a headlong rush?
8. Skill, I'm an Ub3r l33t g@m!ng g0d, they kill me, therefore sniping must not require skills.
Page Two
1. My opinions are now fact, because I say so. Everone wants to use the sniper rifle because it gives a good K:D ratio, and this is all people care about.
2. Snipers make me actually have to think about tactics, I just want to run in like a mad man shooting my gun.
3. Whaa, snipers make me have to think about tactics. They don't have skillz, but they can aim damn well. They make the game hard for me, because I have to outthink them, but they are the ones who don't think about the game. Editor's note: Ok, so they can aim like crazy, but they don't have any skills? Also, they seem to be able to control the game, but they are the one's who don't understand the flow of the game? And they don't know how to survive in a real firefight? Ok, the last may be true, but it sounds like they beat you before they got to that stage, by out-thinking you.
4. Whaa, I can't deal with snipers so I'm going to call them names.
5. Whaa, snipers get too many kills. Its not realistic. Editor's Note: Yes, we have established that we are playing a game, move on already.
Page Three
1. There are some games that actually have the snipers weaked enough that they don't bother me.
2. I like these games, the snipers aren't a threat to my masculinity.
3. I don't want weaked snipers. I want CoD without snipers, 'case they kill me.
4. Limiting snipers doesn't solve the problem, I still get killed by the few snipers in the map.
5. Everyone would agree with me, if they would only try it. The only way to play an FPS is to do brainless headlong rushes at the enemy.
6. Whaa, snipers make me have to think.
So why is this article more than the standard, "I hate campers" rant? The guy spends three pages complaining about snipers, and only comes up with the solution of removing them from games. Its sounds like he needs to either figure out a way to deal with snipers, or just stick to servers where rushing and spraying is the only tactic. Personally, I'd rather have snipers, they make me have to actually think about what I am doing. Do I want to cover that wide open area, and risk getting shot? Or do I find a more circutiuos route that is safer? Or maybe even figure how to deal with the sniper, and then take the quick route.
Who modded this guy funny ? Since when is repeating the first paragraph of the article funny ?
,the first thought I had was, if I get asked this question at an airport now, by people wearing glasses, it would be tempting to say yes, or ask if blowing the plane up counts? This is just another syptom of a much larger problem, the government is now so scared of being viewed as not doing enough for security, that they will jump at the chance to appear to be doing something, no matter how misguided, and no matter how many civil liberties they have to trample on to do it.
Well, the first paragrapg of the article is kind of funny. Anyone who truly believes that this voice analyzer will be able to work as a lie detector on anyone, without a baseline of that person to go from, deserves to be laughed at. Granted, with the current atmosphere in the US today, with reguards to airport security, the government might just buy it.
Though, I have to say that, on seeing this
I agree, its nice to have managers who actully want to know, and will act on that knowledge. But all too often, the result is that the person bringing up the problem gets treated worse than the cause of the problem.
This isn't to say that there aren't managers who will do what needs to be done, and not shoot the messenger, but do you want to risk your job on it? Its going to have to be a judgement call on the part of the employee. If the manager seems like the type of person who gets shit done, and does it right, tell him. If the manager spends half an hour extolling the benifits of thier "open door policy", and teamwork, and giving more than 100%, then shut up, sit down, and try not to rock the boat.
Or the other litmus test we use at my company, if the new CEO (yes, we've gone through several recently) provides any of those playing buzzword bingo, with an actual bingo, during thier initial speech, we know we are in for a few more months of big speeches and no meaningful action.
Just smile, nod and enjoy the free food. Sure, it would be nice to try and let the executives know the problems you are facing, but as the Dispair poster says, "Sometimes the best way to increse moral is to fire all the unhappy people." You aren't unhappy are you?
Seriously, you, and a large portion of the staff should discuss the idea of all suggestions being given to the exec anoymously. Try to find someway to disassociate the idea from the person. Granted this isn't perfect, but it might help some.
Two things on this. First off, one would have to assume that some sort of breaking system would exist (such as on current highrise elevators), so that, if the climber malfunctioned, it would just leave a bunch of people stranded until they can get a maintainance crew up to it. Second, even if the thing does fall back to Earth, its upper velocity will still be bound by air resistance, so it will hit hard, and kill everyone in and under the elevator, but it shouldn't hit hard enough to cause significant damage to the area around the impact. Unlike an incomming metorite, this thing won't have a huge velocity to start with, only what it gets from falling.
One other thing to consider, they may be able to build the climber with some sort of parachute, or a lifting body design, such that, if it comes loose, it doesn't kill everyone on board. Though that would be one big parachute.
As long as you are not the minority that the US government decides to oppress this time. Or, have schools stopped teaching that the US government put people of Japaneese ancestry in concentration camps during WWII, for our protection. Or perhaps you slept through the lecture on McCarthyism? Those Communists are bad, after all, we should work to keep people from expressing that view.
No, the US government has never, in recent history, done anything to warrant me being worried about them misusing information about me.
But, really, bank records? Its not like its the usual dirty laundry like how much porn you have on your computer... unless your doing something illegal, what reason would you have to hide it? (I honestly am inquiring... I'm sure /.ers can help me out here...)
You are asking the wrong question. The question that should always be asked is, why do they need it? If the answer is some nebulous, for your security answer, then they don't really need it, they are just fishing. There should be a specific and functional answer as to why such information is needed. Moreover, why do they want to avoid judicial oversight? Its not like they couldn't get this information before, it just required a judge to sign the subpeona. Sure, it takes a little time, but those records aren't going anywhere. The only reason, that I can see, that the FBI would want to be able to do this without judicial oversight, is to avoid pesky questions about thier resons for what they are doing.
And, to answer your question, read up on the Stazi (sorry, couldn't find a good link), or the East German secret police. Basically they existed to terrorize the populous, and many of the tactics being pushed by the US government today smell the same as those the Stazi employed.
Its not that I want to keep the FBI/Police/etc. out of all bank records. They should have access to that, but it damn well better be under judicial oversight.
For those of you who think this is an ok thing to do, try pulling something similar at work. You wont get fired, and prob not sent home w/out pay for a day, but your boss and others will most likely come in your office and be like umm... wtf?
Maybe I'm special, but I would probably just get a chuckle out of most of my co-workers. The last guy who sent one of these out domain wide, by mistake during a test, just got razzed for it a bit.
Seriously, the kid was experimenting with a command he had learned. He was actually trying to further his own education by playing with stuff on his own. God forbid a student actually be interested in learning and try to go beyond the approved ciriculum. Yes, it can cause problems, but this should be anticipated and some pre-emptive measures taken. For example, why the hell was the computer lab on the same LAN as the actual school network? Forget disabling the messenger service, it should be there to experiment with, but the computer lab should have been on a separate VLAN, which is not routed to the normal school network, and had all internet traffic logged, with some good outgoing firewalling and URL/IP re-direction. Also, have a central image server (which is powered off all day) and at the end of each day, just multicast a pure image back out to all of the clients. This way the students can actually try things and learn on thier own, and even if they screw a system, it's ready to roll the next day.
So yes this is a case of "oh god teachers have no clue.", whoever set that school's LAN up needs a good whack from the clue stick. Sure, what the kid did was disruptive, but only because the school failed to plan for students who actually want to learn,and god forbid, actually experiment. If anything, this type of thing should be encourged, the whole "think outside the box" idea. But no, schools are now more interested in churning out mediocre students who are good citizens and don't think for themselves.
I don't think there is any difference (morally), but there is some difference in how people view the value of such things. First off, very few pieces of software are alone in thier market, most have at least one, or more, competitors; and, as such, they have to price thier product competativly. The only notable exception is Microsoft, who has a virtual monopoly on the desktop, and it would seem that running a pirate version of Windows is pretty common. So people are willing to pay a price that they see as fair, and so piracy is not as normal. With music, there is a monopoly, or at the very least we have the members of the RIAA getting together to fix prices (funny, sounds like a Sheman Act violation, but I digress). And as a reaction, a black market has spung up, which is hardly a suprise.
In all, I'm not trying to justify piracy, mostly, I was pointing out one of the possible reasons for its existance. And, of course, complaining about the physical/digital comparisons which are so common but flawed all to hell.
Now, if I did want to go about justifying piracy, I would probably start by going after the current length of copyright, and claiming that I would refuse to recognise copyrights after 7 years. Which is really just a form of civil disobediance, and still of questionable justification. Afterall, who am I to set a time limit on copyrights? Though, I will say, that I don't think that 90 years is in keeping with the idea of what copyrights are supposed to do.
I never said the purchasing itself represented the parents' views. It can't. It only puts the decision to purchase directly into the hands of the parents.
As I attempted to point out, it still fails to do so. It will do so on those titles which the government has deemed "unsafe", but will not do so on other titles, which may be just as objectionable. The only way you're ever going to really get that type of control into the hand of parents, is to deny kids access to all video games, without parental consent. Which, if we're going to try and give the parents control, would probably be a better way to go, but then, that would, and should, be viewed as rather extreme. I still stand by my point, this is just another form of parents wanting to have the government watch over thier kids for them.
Yes, but that is not an argument. We have laws against killing, and people still kill! OMG!
Given, its part of a much larger one that I didn't feel like typing when I posted. Its meant to tie back into the idea of cost versus benefit. We have laws against killing, what is the benefit? We have a way to deal with killers, and hopefully, less killing going on. The cost? Well, enforcement, houseing of those that break the law, and a few others. Are the costs worth the benefit? This is a value decision that everyone has to make, but the majority of society has said yes. Now, what about a law keeping kids from getting a hold of 'M' games easily? Costs are basically enforcement, and dealing with offenders. What's the benefit? Well, kids won't get a hold of games that are deemed objectionable by the government, easily. So, now the value judgement, is it worth it? There is not a clear concensus on this (otherwise, why would we be having this discussion?) There are those who think that it is fitting for society, as a whole, to pay for watching over everyone's kids. Then there are those that think it should be the parents who should be watching over the kids. I guess the comprimise, that I would be happy with, would be some sort of child tax, if you have kids you have to pay an extra tax to cover the extra costs of the government playing nanny to your kids.
Spoken like someone who has no children. You can't control your kids, unless you abuse them to the point where they go Clockwork Orange. You can discipline them and train them, but no kid is expected to be well-trained or well-disciplined such that they will always do the right thing. That is why they are KIDS. If they could be fully trusted, or have full responsibility for themselves, we would call them ADULTS.
Ahh yes, the "You don't have kids, so you don't know argument". Ok, you got me, I don't have kids, this is a decision that I have made because I don't think I have the resources available to properly raise a child (that whole personal responsibility thing again). However, this does not disqualify me from having an opinion about the laws that are going to affect me, and how tax money is going to be spent. Sorry, if the law is going to affect me, I have every right to get involved. Now, I do understand that kids are not able to be controlled 24/7, they are going to go out and do things that you don't want them to do. Nor do I think its good to control them that tightly anyways. Just from antecdotal evidence, it seems to me that the tighter kids are controlled, the more wild they go when they do get some measure of freedom.
However, we are talking about video game sales. Its not that hard to occasionally look at the screen your kid is playing on, to figure out if they should be playing that game or not. Or, (insert diety here) forbid that you actually sit down and play some of those games with them from time to time. Its quite possible to monitor thier playtime, without being too intrusive. And if they are trying to put one past you, eventually, you'll catch them, and be able to punish them, and put that punishment in the right context.
You keep pretending that these kids are
Yes, it does. It disallows the child from purchasing it for himself. It gives the parents control over that purchase. How do you not get this? 20 points higher than me, and he thinks a big guy like that can wear his clothes?
No, it just gives either the government, or a private organization, control over what a child can purchase, but does nothing to represent the parent's views. Now, these views will often line up, as most people will agree that a child shouldn't be playing "Debbie does Dallas: The Video Game", but there will be more questionable titles that either will or won't be put on the restricted list, but this will not necessarilly represent the views of the parents. In fact, a child may still end up getting a hold of games that the parents find objectionable. In the end, the parent will have not gained anything other than a false sense of security. I stand by my original point, the parents need to do their job and control what thier children have access to.
As for how I don't "get this", its easy, I believe in personal responsibility. If you can't or won't control what your children are doing, what the hell are you doing having kids? Yes, some things are going to get by you, kids are ignorant, they aren't dumb. This is all part of the experience of growing up.
You are ignoring reality. Just flat-out living in fantasyland. We have had laws for hundreds of years in this country prohibiting minor access to what society deems is "adult" material. It's not that parents aren't able to do their job, but that kids are stupid and run out and do what they are disallowed anyway, regardless of what their parents say. We have laws against kids buying porn and alcohol, but in most cases, parents are allowed to provide those materials to their children. Only the most extreme people -- or kids -- think this is an example of a "nanny government."
So, if I get you right, you are basically saying that the fact that because kids can do things, ouside of parental supervision, we should allow the government to decide for everyone what is acceptable for thier kids, and what isn't? Basically, you want the government to watch what your kids are doing when you aren't. Sound's a lot like a nanny to me. I'm hardly an extreme person, I just have this deeply seated belief that raising children is the burden of the parents who decided to have them, not the rest of society. Have kids, teach them as you wish, and I will teach mine as I wish, but keep the damned government out of it, it tends to screw up everything else it does.
What really matters is there is hardly any loss of revenue due to stealing cars: It allows me to get cars that I wouldn't buy or rent anyway. There is simply no loss of money. If I don't have the garage, I just don't drive or park those cars I steal! How's that for an argument? Those Ford/GM/Honda/Toyota fools just don't get it, now do they?
I would have thought that, by now, people would stop trying to equate digital copyright infringment to physical theft. The analogies tend to have rather glaring holes in them. Let's look at this one...
Ok, first off, when a person downloads a copyrighted song, from an unauthorized source, they are infringing on a copyright, no arguments there. Now, the question is, what happens to the original? Nothing. Ok, so to try and correct this analogy it would have to run something like this:
Someone purchases a car. They then park it in the street with a sign on it saying, "copy me." Our nefarious "pirate" comes along, sees the car and whips out his Magic Car Copying Machine (patent pending) and makes an exact replica of the car in question. He then drives this replica off, leaving the original car none the worse for wear.
Alright, this analogy is obviously silly, as there is no such thing as a Magic Car Copying Machine (patent pending), but it is much closer to what is actually happening. Now, are people justified in violating copyrights? No. But let's not pretend that its even close to shop-lifting or grand theft auto. Further, if we did have a replicator (ala Star-Trek), would there be this much concern over its use? For example, if I could replicate food, would that be bad? What if I was replicating a BigMac, is it now bad because its recipe might be copy-righted? Part of the problem with this whole debate, is that we don't have a really good physical equivilent. Yes, unauthorized copying probably decreses the value of things. On the other hand, perhaps it is just a response to an item being percieved to be overpriced by an artificial monopoly on distribution. Remember, both sides of the equation are greedy. On one side, you have the consumer trying to get something for as cheep of price as possible, on the other side you have the seller trying to get as much money for an item as possible. The hope is, that somewhere in the middle, they will meet on a price agreeable to both. Now, when the seller is the only game in town, he tends to gouge the customer, but if the customer has another source, even a dubious one, they might just use it if the chance of getting caught is low enough. Such that, in the end, the seller is probably getting about what the product is worth, and the consumers (as a whole) are probably paying a fair price for it, the cost is just distributed differently.
It just kills me when people say the government shouldn't be involved, this is an issue for parents. Hello, brainiac: that is what the law DOES, it puts the parents in control.
It would seem that you are the one who is missing the point here. This law does not "put the parents in control", it does nothing of the sort. Currently the parents are in control, they are just failing to exercise that control in a responsible fashion. On the other hand, this law is just another example of parents who don't want to bother taking the time to raise thier children properly, and instead want a nanny government to do it for them. There is no reason for this law, if you don't want your kids playing 'M' rated or violent games, then don't let them; but let's not go and expect the government to play nanny for everyone.
Some of us actually like the NET SEND command. Moreover, its a damed useful tool, if used correctly. As an example, where I work we set up a number of databases (MS SQL), and one of the things we tend to include is a trigger that, if a backup job fails, the server is sent a NET SEND with a backup failed warning, and all of the applicable information, along with a message telling our customer to contact us, and how to do so, so that we can get thier backups working again, before the database crashes (ever seen an MSSQL DB transaction log fill the drive? Not pretty).
And all it takes is a simple firewall to stop this shit. For those that haven't figured it out yet, wake up, and protect your box, people! If you have broadband (DSL, Cable, etc.) get a cheap US$50 router with a built in firewall. For most people its going to be a plug and surf operation. For those that do anything else, it may take a bit more, but its still rather easy.
Other way round. If an ice cap melts, it will release water into the ocean. Generally speaking this is away from the axis of rotation (think: the geographical poles) Overall this should mean more mass further from the axis of rotation, hence slower rotation (conservation of momentum).
On the other hand, if we have the ice caps growing, there should be more mass closer to the axis of rotation, and through the same principal, the Earth should rotate faster.
Of course, I would tend to question how much of an affect the the melting or growth of ice caps has on the Earth. Consider that all of the ice in the world is a very small fraction of the total mass of the Earth. Technically, if all of it became concentrated at the poles or equator there may be a mesurable difference, but I seriously doubt it would amount to a 1 second difference in rotational speed throughout the year. But then, I've not bothered to do the math, so I could be wrong.
That way lies maddness... or at least crashes.
I rarely get a home-made system to work 'just right' there is always one (usually minor) problem somewhere that won't go away, or shows up every 10~15 reboots
I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that most people who build thier own machines tend to get junk parts. I have a friend who is forever trying to build and upgrade his machine with parts bought at Fry's. Now, not to knock Fry's, but if you walk in there, make sure you have a good clue about manufacturers and all the in's and out's of system building, 'cause while they have some low prices, its often on junk parts. This friend, unfortunatly, has really no clue about what parts are good and what parts are junk, nor does he take the time to research his purchases, so his computers are always running into trouble, and I am forever fielding questions from him. I, on the other hand, have built two computers for myself in the past several years, and both have run flawlessly (except for the one time the network driver blew out in WinXP, though that was a software issue, and right in the middle of a LAN party, too) (Oh, and that whole WinMe virus. I got a pre-release [legal] copy, installed it and now realize that it was basically a virus).
Ok, so to put a conclusion on this rambling post, if you're going to build your own computer, make sure you know what brands/parts to get, and research your choices. Yes, quality parts cost a bit more, but they tend to last longer and be more stable. And, for those that have bought Dell recently, Dell uses junk parts. At work I get the joy of pushing out several Dell machines a week, and its a damn good thing we have the Gold Service contract, or my job would be much harder.
You also sort of screwed the pooch on the card you picked. Take a read through the article, you'll notice that the higher end GF4 cards tend to beat the heck out of the FX5600 card. And the price difference is really minor. At home, I run a GForce4 Ti4600 at 4X AGP, and am very happy with it, granted my processor is a bit faster, but I think this has more to do with the video card. :-)
Unfortunatly, I have watched more people fall into this trap than I care to count, they buy into the latest cards when, in fact, a slightly older card runs better. Yes, I can't run the spiffy DX9 features, but consider that:
1. There are no games out there that require them, or even make that big of difference with them.
2. By the time I have to upgrade (e.g. full DX9 support required) the FX5900 or Radeon9800 Pro should be reasonable in price (for me sub-$200).
But, as long as your new card plays the games you want to play, and does so well enough for you, then I guess that's what counts. But to everyone, I would recommend staying one step behind the technology curve, you save money and still get good performance, unless, of course, you have the money to blow on the latest video card, then, um, could you buy me one too?
I don't know, having read through the article, I thought that the FBucks thing was pure shite. The problem is, that you can get some of the older cards for dirt cheap now, plus the bargin cards cost very little as well, so it tends to inflate thier numbers in that table quite a bit. Granted, anyone researching video cards is probably capable of looking at the data and realizing that the GF440MX card is junk for gaming.
Now, as you mentioned, the idea of picking a price point and buying the best card in that range is a great way to go, I wish that Tom's had just created a table based around that insted. It would have allowed someone with a budget to look at the cards in thier range and pick the best one. though even this can be misleading, depending upon the price range.
About the only interesting thing I did see in the FBucks thing, is that is backed up what I have been telling people for some time now, get a GForce4 and wait on the FX cards. Though, just looking at the raw data you can come up with this. The 4600 tends to beat the stuffing out of the FX5200 and FX5600 in most tests, and it really doesn't cost much more. Sure you don't get the DX9 features, but with the 5200 and 5600 your not going to have a fast enough card to appriciate those features anyway.