<p>I've been thinking about that for years, but never said anything because I didn't want to give anyone any ideas.</p> </quote>
I've been -saying- that for years and it still hasn't happened. I figured that if I saw the possibility within five minutes of seeing the line, anyone else would be able to see it without too much trouble. I've been suspecting that either the so-called 'threat' is far, far overblown or these terrorists are complete and total idiots.
Another of the obvious plots: shoot up (or toss bombs, or suicide-bomb, or carbomb, or...well, you get the point) a Black Friday opening line or three on the east coast at a big box store.
Suddenly, everyone stays home rather than shopping; the economy is ruined for at least the last quarter. Much easier than trying to hijack a plane.
The only measure which has successfully prevented a terrorist attack since the '01 hijackings is the increased vigilance and response of the flying public.
The TSA's measures are worse than useless: they actually create a hazard, with long, slow-moving, densely-packed lines full of by-definition unscreened persons--lines that are about the ripest target for a bomb that you can find.
Go back to pre-'01 screening procedures, and empower passengers with good-samaritan style legislation that exempts persons from prosecution for acts they genuinely believe to be in prevention of a terrorist incident.
...from the bottom up. Simply put, the extant laws and the interpretations thereof are no longer valid for the changes that digitization have brought on. This revision has been needed for many years now, and the record industry's insistence on maintaining outmoded and obselete restrictions is a direct result of their inability to innovate a way to make a profit outside of their old model.
I see no reason why the *AA should stifle creative expression because they're unable to continue making a profit on buggy whips.
...why would you use your own resources to access company resources?
If the company intends for you to be accessible via email remotely, then they can damn well supply you with the means to be accessible via email when out of the office.
Unless you get paid for the use of your own resources (and reimbursed for the cost of obtaining them) then there is no sane reason why you would use them.
They're made of nice thick iron, so they're going to block those nasty high-frequency rays that would otherwise scramble your chromosones in your junk. No worries of vacation nookie leading to mutant flipper babies!
Additionally, with the use of a nice thick lock, your junk remains safe from the molestation of nasty TSA agents.
For the ladies, a Leia-style bra may be in order. Hot grits optional.
Apple didn't originate the lock-in with exclusive hardware and upgrade path business model. You can probably blame IBM for that one, though goodness knows enough computer manufacturers have used variations on that theme in the past...
(Hell, I'm sure it goes back to the Jacquard loom)
It is a little on the suspicious side for anyone paying attention to see this sort of thing--essentially, they're saying that nobody uses their engine voluntarily so they have to pay to force people to use it. Kinda makes me wonder what's -wrong- with it.
I've used Bing a couple times, mostly by accident because the corporate image only has IE available and forgetting to complete an address in the search bar brings you there. I didn't really like the 'feel' of it, but that could possibly be because of my not being used to its foibles. Certainly I'm not likely to go spontaneously switching to it, given that I've spent a lot of time learning exactly what search terms to use in other places to get the result I'm looking for.
Absolutely. The IRS ones, especially, are bound to be extremely successful this year, as everyone knows about the little bonus coming sometime in May, so a little phishing trip to "confirm your details" on an official-looking website will likely take in a few hundred folks...
Because I don't think you have anything--elsewise you would name the study, tell what journal it was published in and what year, and discuss the methodology.
Right now, I can only assume you're talking through your hat--especially as you're too much of a coward to post other than anonymously, though doubtless you have some "excuse" as to why you can't put even a pseudonym to your claims.
More trustworthy than results put forth by a group sponsored by a video game producer or one sponsored by an anti-video-game group.
So more trustworthy for you to consider.
It's one of the things you really want to look for when folks start flinging studies around: who do they work for? Would you trust as accurate a study funded my Microsoft that says that 5 of 6 dentists prefer to use Windows, or would you be more likely to trust as accurate a study funded by some independent group?
Yes, but that's a good thing--because if they don't have a stake in the results, they don't have a conflict of interest, and thus their results will be more trustworthy.
Science is also aware of the limitations of the assumptions that it is based on, and at any point, if proof can be found that these assumptions are incorrect, then the science that depends upon that assumption will be revised as well: consider the shift from Newtonian gravitation to Einsteinian gravitation.
You are asserting that the physical properties (e.g. gravitation and atomic spin) are not reliable because they may have changed in the past. If you want to be taken seriously, you will have to provide evidence that these properties are variant over the time period that you specify.
They put some cameras in the boy's room (Yes indeed, they) Put some cameras in the boy's room They say that they're just to enforce the rules, Everybody knows that smokin ain't allowed in school.
There's been some funny modding lately. I think there's some grumpy people with no sense of humour hanging around.
And yes, I dare say that some clever kids will have the fields of view of all the cameras mapped out within the week. Or someone will bring in a paintball gun. Or any other of the various and sundry methods capable of disarming cameras.
Either that, or they'll grab their nightvision goggles, their vests with the cellphone rig on the back, the fatigues, and just wait around for Jack Thompson to show up to blame the video game...
It's just a FUD tactic, much like "You have no guarantee that open source software is 'safe'" and "Nobody ever got fired for buying $RESPECTED_MANUFACTURER"
I'm merely going by the current standards that it appears the majority of people accept today as being tangibly harmful in my examples; my apologies if the examples aren't optimal.
Yes, but keep in mind that wiretapping and suchlike is actually anti-business: by eavesdropping, you leave open an avenue for proprietary business secrets to be exposed to the world--entirely legitimate business secrets, such as manufacturing processes, projects in development, etc.
Why do you hate businesses? Why are you trying to kill capitalism? Are you some kind of communist mutant?
Friend Computer has a few questions for you....;-P
Slashdot Mirror
<p>I've been thinking about that for years, but never said anything because I didn't want to give anyone any ideas.</p>
</quote>
I've been -saying- that for years and it still hasn't happened. I figured that if I saw the possibility within five minutes of seeing the line, anyone else would be able to see it without too much trouble. I've been suspecting that either the so-called 'threat' is far, far overblown or these terrorists are complete and total idiots.
Another of the obvious plots: shoot up (or toss bombs, or suicide-bomb, or carbomb, or...well, you get the point) a Black Friday opening line or three on the east coast at a big box store.
Suddenly, everyone stays home rather than shopping; the economy is ruined for at least the last quarter. Much easier than trying to hijack a plane.
The only measure which has successfully prevented a terrorist attack since the '01 hijackings is the increased vigilance and response of the flying public.
The TSA's measures are worse than useless: they actually create a hazard, with long, slow-moving, densely-packed lines full of by-definition unscreened persons--lines that are about the ripest target for a bomb that you can find.
Go back to pre-'01 screening procedures, and empower passengers with good-samaritan style legislation that exempts persons from prosecution for acts they genuinely believe to be in prevention of a terrorist incident.
Well, then, we should build our ships out of churches!
Or maybe witches.
...from the bottom up. Simply put, the extant laws and the interpretations thereof are no longer valid for the changes that digitization have brought on. This revision has been needed for many years now, and the record industry's insistence on maintaining outmoded and obselete restrictions is a direct result of their inability to innovate a way to make a profit outside of their old model.
I see no reason why the *AA should stifle creative expression because they're unable to continue making a profit on buggy whips.
...why would you use your own resources to access company resources?
If the company intends for you to be accessible via email remotely, then they can damn well supply you with the means to be accessible via email when out of the office.
Unless you get paid for the use of your own resources (and reimbursed for the cost of obtaining them) then there is no sane reason why you would use them.
I have a solution! Old-school chastity belts!
They're made of nice thick iron, so they're going to block those nasty high-frequency rays that would otherwise scramble your chromosones in your junk. No worries of vacation nookie leading to mutant flipper babies!
Additionally, with the use of a nice thick lock, your junk remains safe from the molestation of nasty TSA agents.
For the ladies, a Leia-style bra may be in order. Hot grits optional.
Apple didn't originate the lock-in with exclusive hardware and upgrade path business model. You can probably blame IBM for that one, though goodness knows enough computer manufacturers have used variations on that theme in the past...
(Hell, I'm sure it goes back to the Jacquard loom)
It is a little on the suspicious side for anyone paying attention to see this sort of thing--essentially, they're saying that nobody uses their engine voluntarily so they have to pay to force people to use it. Kinda makes me wonder what's -wrong- with it.
I've used Bing a couple times, mostly by accident because the corporate image only has IE available and forgetting to complete an address in the search bar brings you there. I didn't really like the 'feel' of it, but that could possibly be because of my not being used to its foibles. Certainly I'm not likely to go spontaneously switching to it, given that I've spent a lot of time learning exactly what search terms to use in other places to get the result I'm looking for.
You'd need a bit more than SPF-50 to deal with that one, though...
Absolutely. The IRS ones, especially, are bound to be extremely successful this year, as everyone knows about the little bonus coming sometime in May, so a little phishing trip to "confirm your details" on an official-looking website will likely take in a few hundred folks...
Because I don't think you have anything--elsewise you would name the study, tell what journal it was published in and what year, and discuss the methodology.
Right now, I can only assume you're talking through your hat--especially as you're too much of a coward to post other than anonymously, though doubtless you have some "excuse" as to why you can't put even a pseudonym to your claims.
Put up or shut up.
"Trust me" says the Anonymous Coward pointing to hypothetical results of an unnamed study that may or may not even exist.
"Sure," says I, "When I get bacon delivered through my second-story window fresh off the flying pig."
More trustworthy than results put forth by a group sponsored by a video game producer or one sponsored by an anti-video-game group.
So more trustworthy for you to consider.
It's one of the things you really want to look for when folks start flinging studies around: who do they work for? Would you trust as accurate a study funded my Microsoft that says that 5 of 6 dentists prefer to use Windows, or would you be more likely to trust as accurate a study funded by some independent group?
Yes, but that's a good thing--because if they don't have a stake in the results, they don't have a conflict of interest, and thus their results will be more trustworthy.
Science is also aware of the limitations of the assumptions that it is based on, and at any point, if proof can be found that these assumptions are incorrect, then the science that depends upon that assumption will be revised as well: consider the shift from Newtonian gravitation to Einsteinian gravitation.
You are asserting that the physical properties (e.g. gravitation and atomic spin) are not reliable because they may have changed in the past. If you want to be taken seriously, you will have to provide evidence that these properties are variant over the time period that you specify.
Put up or shut up.
Nice link, but I was thinking something more along these lines ;-p
They put some cameras in the boy's room
(Yes indeed, they)
Put some cameras in the boy's room
They say that they're just to enforce the rules,
Everybody knows that smokin ain't allowed in school.
There's been some funny modding lately. I think there's some grumpy people with no sense of humour hanging around.
And yes, I dare say that some clever kids will have the fields of view of all the cameras mapped out within the week. Or someone will bring in a paintball gun. Or any other of the various and sundry methods capable of disarming cameras.
Either that, or they'll grab their nightvision goggles, their vests with the cellphone rig on the back, the fatigues, and just wait around for Jack Thompson to show up to blame the video game...
Technically, yes, it is assault--as is spitting in someone's face, or any other sort of unsolicited touching.
Whether it'd be prosecuted is open to question.
But you know someone's just going to shoot it one of these days.
Yes, it's called the "voting box". If you don't like 'em, then vote 'em out.
It's just a FUD tactic, much like "You have no guarantee that open source software is 'safe'" and "Nobody ever got fired for buying $RESPECTED_MANUFACTURER"
I'm merely going by the current standards that it appears the majority of people accept today as being tangibly harmful in my examples; my apologies if the examples aren't optimal.
But there's no such thing as a 'secure' place--now, *how* many times did the Chinese break into the Pentagon's systems last year again?
Yes, but keep in mind that wiretapping and suchlike is actually anti-business: by eavesdropping, you leave open an avenue for proprietary business secrets to be exposed to the world--entirely legitimate business secrets, such as manufacturing processes, projects in development, etc.
;-P
Why do you hate businesses? Why are you trying to kill capitalism? Are you some kind of communist mutant?
Friend Computer has a few questions for you....