Sorry, I was joking. I have heard of them, but I don't order pizza that often. It's expensive compared to cooking the pizza yourself. If I do get pizza, I pick it up myself instead of getting it delivered. Poor college students can't afford to be waited on hand and foot by pizza delivery men.
No, an unlimited connection means unlimited bandwidth, not a mere 10,000,000,000 MB/sec, so why don't you call it a "high speed always-on" connection instead of unlimited.
Yes, and so is binary, but I'd rather shoot myself in the kneecap (ok, maybe not the kneecap, I heard that hurts a lot) before I'd write a program in 1s and 0s. I played with VB it once, and I hated it almost as much as clippy.
If someone died, it would be the fault of the virus writer. You are saying something similar to this: If people leave their doors unlocked and get robbed, it's their own fault. Sounds a little funny now that your logic has been applied to a real world situation. The last time I got robbed, the police didn't blame me, they blamed the robber, and rightfully so. Just because someone is stupid and doesn't patch their systems doesn't mean they are at fault if they get hacked. I'm not saying people should stop patching, not at all, but they shouldn't be blamed just because they are asking to be hacked. Whoever writes the virus is responsible.
So I should be able to place one of my handguns out on my front screen porch and if I child picks it up, kills someone, then I am not responsible?
Did you not read my post? I said "no amount of commercial loss compares with murder." The consequences of negligent gun ownership are infinitely worse than simply leaving your computer online without patching it. If you think outlawing vulnerable computers is going to stop all hacks, you are either stupid or naive. Many people don't own guns because they fear the consequences of owning one. I don't want to see that happen with computers, where it shouldn't. Guns are dangerous if used negligently, but computers, even when used maliciously, are merely annoyances.
Should we fine and arrest people who keep vulnerable systems on the web? I think not. If your computer gets infected with a virus or worm, no one dies. Sure, damages may be done, but no amount of commercial loss compares with murder. Also, your idea would kill the Internet. The Internet is about freedom. Overall, it is the least regulated, most anonymous medium accesible to Joe Sixpack. If people fear getting arrested for merely being online, they will find something else to do.
Sorry, it was a joke about when you said "I only drive there for snowboarding..." The "there" could have meant Austria or Australia. BTW, I hosted an exchange student from Germany (Grafenhausen, actually) and while visiting his family this summer, we saw Bowling for Columbine. It was interesting how diffently we saw guns. He thought they were deadly weapons, while I thought they were useful at defense and hunting.
Glaser ammo is made to cause as much damage to the victim as possible, not to stop from depressurizing the plane. (A 747 can keep cabin pressure with up to 5 windows blown out.) The bullet fragments transfer all of their energy to the victim, facilitating rapid incapacitaition. Normal 9mm FMJ is much less lethal than 9mm glaser because it goes through the person without transfering all of its energy to them. Kind of OT, but interesting: the Fabrique Nationale company has built a weapon and ammo system with the sole purpose of putting the biggest percentage of the bullet's energy into the victim, while still being able to penetrate kevlar vests. They came up with the 5.7x28mm bullet, the FN90 sub-machine gun and the Five-seveN pistol. Special police teams thoughout the world are very happy that 80% of the energy expelled by each cartridge goes into the victim. Just FYI.
But you can't allow responsible citizens to carry weapons without having irresponsible citizens carrying weapons.
Very true, but I think the number of responsible citizens is greater than the number of irresponsible citizens. Also, if you ban guns, only outlaws will own them. Responsible, law abiding citizens who never use their weapons for evil will be the ones without guns. At the same time, the only people with guns will be criminals.
If someone wants to kill you they can use a car or a bat or whatever, but at least these objects have a useful purpose.
Guns have a useful purpose too: Hunting, sport, and self defense. Also, guns are fun to shoot. Have you ever shot a firearm? It can be quite exhilirating. I don't mean shooting at animals or people, just simple target practise.
I would rather take all the guns away rather than let anyone have a gun, and you have to start somewhere!
That is a little harder than you might think. If you don't have a gun, and you want me to get rid of my gun, I will tell you in the most polite way possible to go fuck yourself. The only way for you to get my gun is to use a gun. That's the problem with pro gun-control people, they use guns (in the form of police/military) to take guns away from responsible citizens.
But how often do you hear of a robber breaking into a house with an AK-47?
Well, there was an incident two days ago here. And that, sir is why I would like to allow responsible citizens the right to bear arms. If someone wants to kill you, they dont need on AK47. To quote Michael Corleone: If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it is that you can kill anyone.
Please show me the people who log over 50k miles per year and aren't making over $50k per year.
Athletic coaches and athletes. My high school XC coach logged over 100,000 miles last year, all paid for by the school. He got a free week in Hawaii with all his frequent flyer miles.
Companies aren't just selling mice and keyboards as USB 2 when they aren't, they are doing the same thing for storage, scanners, cameras, everything.
If a consumer just looks at boxes and buys it because "2.0 is higher than 1.1: it must be newer/better," then they deserve what they get. All they have to do is look at the box or ask someone in the department to explain the difference and they'll realize there's no benefit.
I'm sure the salesman would be happy to convince the customer to buy the less expensive USB1 mouse, instead of the USB2 mouse that is exactly the same except for the price. Also, if you put a USB1 device on a hub with USB2 devices, ALL of them will run at USB1 speeds.
I do think it's amoral of companies to do this, the customer isn't losing anything. If it were an external hard drive, they would have a case.
Companies are starting to market USB1 drives as USB2. They are effectively lying to consumers to increase thier profits, and it looks like you are fine with it. Have fun with your new USB2 hard drive enclosure!
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I was joking. I have heard of them, but I don't order pizza that often. It's expensive compared to cooking the pizza yourself. If I do get pizza, I pick it up myself instead of getting it delivered. Poor college students can't afford to be waited on hand and foot by pizza delivery men.
Hell, the pizza delivery market was saturated about 10,15 years ago, but Papa John's came right in and kicked ass.
Who?
You forgot steps 5 & 6:
5. ???
6. Profit!
is there a non rotary drill ?
Yes, it's called a chisel.
No, an unlimited connection means unlimited bandwidth, not a mere 10,000,000,000 MB/sec, so why don't you call it a "high speed always-on" connection instead of unlimited.
Yes, those are called limits and I believe an unlimited connection doesn't have them.
Well, first of all, I was joking. Secondly, by binary I mean the actual 1s and 0s, not assembly. Assembly is hard, but useful. Binary is just hard.
Yet VB is a real, Turing-complete language.
Yes, and so is binary, but I'd rather shoot myself in the kneecap (ok, maybe not the kneecap, I heard that hurts a lot) before I'd write a program in 1s and 0s. I played with VB it once, and I hated it almost as much as clippy.
Why the hell don't floppy drive manufacturers install a coupla diodes so power isn't supplied or shorted if the connection is bad?
Because then you wouldn't buy their product as often, silly!
If someone died, it would be the fault of the virus writer. You are saying something similar to this: If people leave their doors unlocked and get robbed, it's their own fault. Sounds a little funny now that your logic has been applied to a real world situation. The last time I got robbed, the police didn't blame me, they blamed the robber, and rightfully so. Just because someone is stupid and doesn't patch their systems doesn't mean they are at fault if they get hacked. I'm not saying people should stop patching, not at all, but they shouldn't be blamed just because they are asking to be hacked. Whoever writes the virus is responsible.
So I should be able to place one of my handguns out on my front screen porch and if I child picks it up, kills someone, then I am not responsible?
Did you not read my post? I said "no amount of commercial loss compares with murder." The consequences of negligent gun ownership are infinitely worse than simply leaving your computer online without patching it. If you think outlawing vulnerable computers is going to stop all hacks, you are either stupid or naive. Many people don't own guns because they fear the consequences of owning one. I don't want to see that happen with computers, where it shouldn't. Guns are dangerous if used negligently, but computers, even when used maliciously, are merely annoyances.
Should we fine and arrest people who keep vulnerable systems on the web? I think not. If your computer gets infected with a virus or worm, no one dies. Sure, damages may be done, but no amount of commercial loss compares with murder. Also, your idea would kill the Internet. The Internet is about freedom. Overall, it is the least regulated, most anonymous medium accesible to Joe Sixpack. If people fear getting arrested for merely being online, they will find something else to do.
Where do I sign up?
Sorry, it was a joke about when you said "I only drive there for snowboarding..." The "there" could have meant Austria or Australia. BTW, I hosted an exchange student from Germany (Grafenhausen, actually) and while visiting his family this summer, we saw Bowling for Columbine. It was interesting how diffently we saw guns. He thought they were deadly weapons, while I thought they were useful at defense and hunting.
Wow, thats a pretty long drive, what bridge do you take to get to Australia?
Glaser ammo is made to cause as much damage to the victim as possible, not to stop from depressurizing the plane. (A 747 can keep cabin pressure with up to 5 windows blown out.) The bullet fragments transfer all of their energy to the victim, facilitating rapid incapacitaition. Normal 9mm FMJ is much less lethal than 9mm glaser because it goes through the person without transfering all of its energy to them. Kind of OT, but interesting: the Fabrique Nationale company has built a weapon and ammo system with the sole purpose of putting the biggest percentage of the bullet's energy into the victim, while still being able to penetrate kevlar vests. They came up with the 5.7x28mm bullet, the FN90 sub-machine gun and the Five-seveN pistol. Special police teams thoughout the world are very happy that 80% of the energy expelled by each cartridge goes into the victim. Just FYI.
But you can't allow responsible citizens to carry weapons without having irresponsible citizens carrying weapons.
Very true, but I think the number of responsible citizens is greater than the number of irresponsible citizens. Also, if you ban guns, only outlaws will own them. Responsible, law abiding citizens who never use their weapons for evil will be the ones without guns. At the same time, the only people with guns will be criminals.
If someone wants to kill you they can use a car or a bat or whatever, but at least these objects have a useful purpose.
Guns have a useful purpose too: Hunting, sport, and self defense. Also, guns are fun to shoot. Have you ever shot a firearm? It can be quite exhilirating. I don't mean shooting at animals or people, just simple target practise.
I would rather take all the guns away rather than let anyone have a gun, and you have to start somewhere!
That is a little harder than you might think. If you don't have a gun, and you want me to get rid of my gun, I will tell you in the most polite way possible to go fuck yourself. The only way for you to get my gun is to use a gun. That's the problem with pro gun-control people, they use guns (in the form of police/military) to take guns away from responsible citizens.
But how often do you hear of a robber breaking into a house with an AK-47?
Well, there was an incident two days ago here. And that, sir is why I would like to allow responsible citizens the right to bear arms. If someone wants to kill you, they dont need on AK47. To quote Michael Corleone: If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it is that you can kill anyone.
I'm sorry, but could you elaborate on that? What did the guy do to become a sex offender? Sexual harrasment covers a lot these days.
Please show me the people who log over 50k miles per year and aren't making over $50k per year.
Athletic coaches and athletes. My high school XC coach logged over 100,000 miles last year, all paid for by the school. He got a free week in Hawaii with all his frequent flyer miles.
If Darl McBride were head of ING, he'd be suing half the world's English speakers every time they used a verb with his company's name at the end.
Meh, we'd just switch to French.
Uh, unless something happened recently that I'm not aware of, the United States has yet to annex our neighbors to the north.
54'40" or fight!
I think your link is wrong. Is http://www.zebrapen.com/ the site you were looking for?
They even have photographic emulsion in a spray can so that you can expose images on 3d objects. It's way cool.
Ooh! now I can take pictures of four-dimensional objects and they will be projected properly!
Companies aren't just selling mice and keyboards as USB 2 when they aren't, they are doing the same thing for storage, scanners, cameras, everything.
If a consumer just looks at boxes and buys it because "2.0 is higher than 1.1: it must be newer/better," then they deserve what they get. All they have to do is look at the box or ask someone in the department to explain the difference and they'll realize there's no benefit.
I'm sure the salesman would be happy to convince the customer to buy the less expensive USB1 mouse, instead of the USB2 mouse that is exactly the same except for the price. Also, if you put a USB1 device on a hub with USB2 devices, ALL of them will run at USB1 speeds.
I do think it's amoral of companies to do this, the customer isn't losing anything. If it were an external hard drive, they would have a case.
Companies are starting to market USB1 drives as USB2. They are effectively lying to consumers to increase thier profits, and it looks like you are fine with it. Have fun with your new USB2 hard drive enclosure!