The asteroid should have been named AIMB, with no explanation of what the letters stood for. Real asteroid watchers will either guess what it means from the context or remember that it was once explained in passing three books ago.
If that doesn't make sense, please report to your local library and check out just about anything by Iain-with-an-M Banks. Even if it doesn't help you get the joke at least you will have read something amazing.
It's not that common for people to start chatting up other people in airports, so if it happens, it's good to know it's likely a profiler.
Or their rich uncle has just died while on vacation in Nigeria and they are about to ask you for a small loan to cover the expense of getting his vast fortune out of the country.
As an online discussion of different legal definitions of illicit human behavior grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and the definition of "sex" approaches 1. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Clinton's Law has effectively forfieted the argument.
And thus, by your own argument, your argument is invalid. This is an example of "Captain Kirk's Law of Computer Systems Management", and it typically involves a lot of smoke and the use of phrases like "Does not compute!" and "Prime directive!"
weapon of mass destruction to me is exactly what it sounds like. does it cause "mass destruction" if the answer is yes [...]
...Then you're violating the law of conservation of matter, and going to be in a whole lot of trouble once the universe figures out what you have done and catches up with you.
You might weasel out of it by invoking E=mc^2, but the former residents of what used to be the city you tried it in would be justifiably pissed off about it.
It has very little, if anything to do with it being the best language for the job.
That depends on what "the job" is. If the job is to implement a completely new, problem-free and infinitely maintainable system for managing financial transactions with no budget or time constraints, then the answer is "No". Actually, it's a much longer answer that starts with "HELL NO" and includes phrases like "If I ever catch", "Then I'm going to" and "With a frikkin' caber, that's what", but the general sense of it is "No".
If the job is to keep the horrific monstrosity which runs the entire bank lumbering along for another few months while still complying with the latest round of new regulations before it drives you irredeemably mad then the absolute best language for the job is COBOL, because that's what code-thulhu is already written in.
I'm not often in mood for the chug'em ice cold US lagers like these, but they do have their place (on extremely hot days here in NOLA), and I'd just as soon grab a PBR as a Bud or Bud Light, especially since the price is much lower.
Let me introduce you to something called "water". Based on your beer drinking history it looks like you're already familiar with the taste, but you may find the low price to your liking.
Did you even think before you commented about the gas cap? Picture your local gas station and imagine why having all the caps on the same side might be a bad idea.
At my local gas station, and in fact at just about every gas station I have seen, half of the cars are facing one way and half the other. The alternating sides strategy is only optimal in cases where the number of cars being serviced is less than the number of pumps available. Once that condition is no longer met it becomes a 50-50 chance that the next open space is going to be of the same sidedness as the next car in the queue and drivers are forced to find their own solution.
I was always under the impression that an eye for an eye implied some sort of responsibility on the perpetrator, not everyone else.
It's more of a statement of limited liability. A longer version of it would be "Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. So if someone poketh thee in thine eye, thou don't get to kill every member of their family. Just poke them back and then knocketh it off. They didn't expect this kind of Spanish Inquisition, thou doth know."
Why? Not because of any failed cowboy analogy, or belief in how the wonderful rule of law will solve all of our problems for us, but for this one simple reason:
I don't trust you, or anybody, to be able to identify who is attacking you, or even to correctly determine if you are even being attacked at all. Do you need a car analogy? Giving people blanket authorization to strike back at their virtual attackers is like handing Dilbert's boss a rocket launcher and asking him to do something about the lack of available spaces in the office parking lot. If you believe that your network is being attacked and feel the need to strike back at the perpetrators, then please:
1) Keep it in your pants. Nobody is really impressed by that, and
2) Collect evidence, read your logs, make an actual effort to figure out what is going on, and then forward that information to the appropriate responsible parties, and finally,
3) Let them investigate and deal with it.
I can't promise you that this will _solve_ your problem, but it will give you some time to cool down, realize that your original reaction was based on faulty and incomplete evidence, and keep you busy for a few hours doing something useful instead of being part of the problem.
Snowden's actions seem pretty well justified. After all, didn't he swear an oath before he started his job which went something like this:
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
Oh, wait. That's the oath that Congressmen have been taking for the past 130 years, but apparently ignore whenever it gets to be inconvenient. Never mind.
Slashdot Mirror
The asteroid should have been named AIMB, with no explanation of what the letters stood for. Real asteroid watchers will either guess what it means from the context or remember that it was once explained in passing three books ago.
If that doesn't make sense, please report to your local library and check out just about anything by Iain-with-an-M Banks. Even if it doesn't help you get the joke at least you will have read something amazing.
Next time, try wearing a black and white keffiyeh and an "Arafat for President" button.
It's not that common for people to start chatting up other people in airports, so if it happens, it's good to know it's likely a profiler.
Or their rich uncle has just died while on vacation in Nigeria and they are about to ask you for a small loan to cover the expense of getting his vast fortune out of the country.
It's a good thing that no other country has tried anything similar with their health care. The costs would be astronomical.
Right?
No, but they would sure fork that guy's repo, if you know what I mean.
As an online discussion of different legal definitions of illicit human behavior grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and the definition of "sex" approaches 1. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Clinton's Law has effectively forfieted the argument.
And thus, by your own argument, your argument is invalid. This is an example of "Captain Kirk's Law of Computer Systems Management", and it typically involves a lot of smoke and the use of phrases like "Does not compute!" and "Prime directive!"
weapon of mass destruction to me is exactly what it sounds like. does it cause "mass destruction" if the answer is yes [...]
...Then you're violating the law of conservation of matter, and going to be in a whole lot of trouble once the universe figures out what you have done and catches up with you.
You might weasel out of it by invoking E=mc^2, but the former residents of what used to be the city you tried it in would be justifiably pissed off about it.
Wrong [dailymail.co.uk]
Yes, they are. On just about everything. What's your point?
The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offence. -- Dijkstra
So I say any company that wants to send their employees to a COBOL class should be sent to jail for torture and reckless endangerment.
By that logic, as a result of off-shoring initiatives, several major US corporations have technically declared war on the nation of India.
It has very little, if anything to do with it being the best language for the job.
That depends on what "the job" is. If the job is to implement a completely new, problem-free and infinitely maintainable system for managing financial transactions with no budget or time constraints, then the answer is "No". Actually, it's a much longer answer that starts with "HELL NO" and includes phrases like "If I ever catch", "Then I'm going to" and "With a frikkin' caber, that's what", but the general sense of it is "No".
If the job is to keep the horrific monstrosity which runs the entire bank lumbering along for another few months while still complying with the latest round of new regulations before it drives you irredeemably mad then the absolute best language for the job is COBOL, because that's what code-thulhu is already written in.
I'm not often in mood for the chug'em ice cold US lagers like these, but they do have their place (on extremely hot days here in NOLA), and I'd just as soon grab a PBR as a Bud or Bud Light, especially since the price is much lower.
Let me introduce you to something called "water". Based on your beer drinking history it looks like you're already familiar with the taste, but you may find the low price to your liking.
Good social relationships open the doors that make good professor's famous.
The good professor's famous what?
Did you even think before you commented about the gas cap? Picture your local gas station and imagine why having all the caps on the same side might be a bad idea.
At my local gas station, and in fact at just about every gas station I have seen, half of the cars are facing one way and half the other. The alternating sides strategy is only optimal in cases where the number of cars being serviced is less than the number of pumps available. Once that condition is no longer met it becomes a 50-50 chance that the next open space is going to be of the same sidedness as the next car in the queue and drivers are forced to find their own solution.
"The final step is going to be to have all car manufacturers agree on a certain standard, "
Hell will freeze first. we cant eve get the Gas cap on the same side of the car.
No problem. We'll just develop a new standard that covers everything.
Care to name them?
I call dibs on MagSafe.
Unfortunately, you're still going to get arrested for breaking into houses and smashing all of the jars.
On the other hand, Peter Jackson spends a lot of time working out -- It's hobbit-firming.
And he can't stop taking bubble baths -- They're hobbit-foaming.
Did I mention that he's always out planting crops? It's hobbit-farming.
And that Chinese vase in his dining room? A fake. It's hobbit faux-ming.
(Blame David Morgan-Mar for these. I would throw a fireball at him, but that would be hobbit-fooming.)
They do, but that stuff's made in New York City.
I was always under the impression that an eye for an eye implied some sort of responsibility on the perpetrator, not everyone else.
It's more of a statement of limited liability. A longer version of it would be "Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. So if someone poketh thee in thine eye, thou don't get to kill every member of their family. Just poke them back and then knocketh it off. They didn't expect this kind of Spanish Inquisition, thou doth know."
Cyber-Impossible! I was behind cyber-seven cyber-proxies!
Why? Not because of any failed cowboy analogy, or belief in how the wonderful rule of law will solve all of our problems for us, but for this one simple reason:
I don't trust you, or anybody, to be able to identify who is attacking you, or even to correctly determine if you are even being attacked at all. Do you need a car analogy? Giving people blanket authorization to strike back at their virtual attackers is like handing Dilbert's boss a rocket launcher and asking him to do something about the lack of available spaces in the office parking lot. If you believe that your network is being attacked and feel the need to strike back at the perpetrators, then please:
I can't promise you that this will _solve_ your problem, but it will give you some time to cool down, realize that your original reaction was based on faulty and incomplete evidence, and keep you busy for a few hours doing something useful instead of being part of the problem.
Don't forget Texas' proud addition to that list:
- It's totally okay to shoot and kill someone as long as it's after dark and she refuses to have sex with you first.
Well, yes, Uranium _is_ a silver bullet. But that's not what we're talking about here.
Because yelling a passphrase is easier than yelling out 1.7TB of data on the spot?
They're trashing our rights, man! They're trashing the flow of data! Hack the planet!
Snowden's actions seem pretty well justified. After all, didn't he swear an oath before he started his job which went something like this:
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
Oh, wait. That's the oath that Congressmen have been taking for the past 130 years, but apparently ignore whenever it gets to be inconvenient. Never mind.