NOTE: American-centricity follows... nothing huge, just roll with it.
Completely disagree. The issue is that the parents / children will drop their guard when it comes to the cyberworld. In real life, everyone by now, knows to stay away from the man looking for the puppy or giving away candy. On the net the man is actually a 12 year old girl who wants to exchange pics, and talk and hang out later. People have just not adapted to deal with online predators it's as simple as that.
Right, and your solution to this is to get rid of the cyberworld? Or just wall it off?
The others poster's point remains. This is not a new situation. This happens all the time when new technologies break onto the world. Historically, technology changes faster than people do. In truth, people can change much faster, but they rarely have any need to. During the industrial revolution, factories changed life in astounding ways. It took decades for people to catch up. The first mass-produced food had a tendency to be of lower quality, some of it bordering on dangerous (sawdust in the sausages, anyone?). The number of problems and dangers people faced because of factories has been the subject of thousands of doctoral papers. Do you really think we should have outlawed them back then? Or maybe we'll just prevent our children from ever going near them or using anything that came from one. While it might have been good advice to keep your kids from working in one, segregating them from the segment of society best suited to adapt to the changes produced by them is a pretty horrible idea.
Let's take a situation that's easier to understand. Did you ever learn how to drive? No matter how great you thought you were at it, you were unsafe. Even for the first year or more after getting a driver's license, your chances of being in a fatal accident on the interstate vastly exceed a child's chances of meeting a predator online. So how should we solve this problem? I know: Since people are dangerous drivers when they are learning to drive, let's forbid people from ever learning how to drive.
Stupid, isn't it? You have to learn sometime. Maybe we should just make them wait until they're older... because that's one sure way to completely avoid solving the real problem. We could dissolve the interstate system. Or drop the speed limit to 30 mph. These are all great ideas that are doomed to completely fail.
People have to learn. People need to learn. The world needs them to learn. This is how things change and get better. Wall your kids off from the Internet and you'll have kids who aren't adapting to the world as quickly as they should. Yes, I know the same old If you had kids... idiocy is on its way. The problem isn't with the internet. The problem is with the kids. If they are doing something unsafe, teach them. They'll learn. They'll learn faster than you will. They'll adapt with frightening efficiency if you help them.
It's very simple really. I don't put up a billboard showing the world my life in the real world, but I'm not a hermit either. My friends know more about me than the rest of the world. I feel safe talking to them because I know who they are and I recognize them. I don't go sharing details about myself with strangers. The Internet is no different. I have friends and I talk with them openly because I know who they are. If all they are to me is an alias, then that's all I am to them. It's really very simple.
In real life, everyone by now, knows to stay away from the man looking for the puppy or giving away candy.
This illustrates my point exactly. By now everyone knows to avoid the guy giving out candy. If we teach children how to be safe, in five or ten years everyone will know to avoid the guy who goes around asking people what their address or real name are. Of course, the more people we have who choose to (cowardly, in my opinion) hide their children instead of actually teaching them how to be safe, the longer this will take.
I didn't mean to blame the teachers, although re-reading what I wrote it might sound like that. The last line I mention "educators" which (to me) includes not just teachers but everyone at all levels of the educational system....[snip]... I certainly don't want to place the blame on teachers when it is often times higher-ups or disruptive students causing problems. Sorry for the confusion^^
No problem. I just wanted to be clear. I used to blame higher-ups for such things and then I started taking a closer look. It seems that stupid parents cause many more problems than administrators. The use of appeasement in these cases is only partly the fault of the administrator. I place more blame on the part of the parent who puts a figurative gun to the head of the school (in the form of lawsuits, firings, or forced "transfers") just because they don't want their child to be exposed to any ideas that might cause them to think differently from their annointed-by-god parents.
Let's be fair about this. I haven't met a science teacher who actually believed in ID-anti-science. I guess I assume they have to exist. Similarly, I haven't met any history teacher who actually doubts the Holocaust occurred. That said, I do know of schools where Evolution is not taught (neither is ID) and where the Holocaust is mentioned but not really focussed on.
In neither case is it the teacher who made that decision. I know of science teachers who hate ID, but cannot teach Evolution because if they do, their children's Right-Wing-Nutjob parents will complain to the school board and have the teacher fired. That is the source of the problem. The ignorance and dogma comes from parents. Don't blame the teachers for doing what administrators and school boards order them to do. Do you honestly expect them to stick their necks out when they are being paid crap wages already? Do you have any idea what happens when a teacher gets fired for something like this? There are two options: Go back to school and get a new career or move to a school so crappy that they are willing to explain to the parents why they hired a teacher who was fired. No one cares that they were fired for having principles and fighting a war that you should have been fighting for them.
If you want to fix this problem, don't blame teachers. They're already on your side. Blame yourself. What have you done to stop the nutjob parents of the other children from robbing your child of the good education the teacher wants to give them?
How long ago did you go to school? It's been about ten years for me, but this is not at all what I experienced. Now, my US History book didn't talk about the Mayans or the Aztecs, but it did spend quite a bit of time talking about Native Americans. We spent a week or so learning about them (Contrast/Compare: We also spent a week or so talking about the Civil War). In high school, my History teacher was very blunt about what happened. The US government executed a series of policies to systematically remove Native Americans from the continent. In 9th grade, I learned that the Mayans were a scientifically advanced culture with complex math and astronomy. We spent two weeks talking about Meso-American and Incan cultures (Contrast/Compare: We spent about two weeks talking about Chinese culture). There was quite a bit of talk about how they got worked over by Europeans.
Just like everything else in the world, you shouldn't judge the whole based on a sample set of one. Sorry, but it sounds like you were either taught a) a while ago (pre-1980) or b) in a crappy school. One of the biggest problems with people's view of schools is that they stupidly assume that nothing ever changes. Granted, the schools in this area are known to be exceptional, however, I know for a fact that students here are taught about the atrocities committed against the Native Americans. History beyond elementary school is not about feeling good, its about learning lessons.
Just because you were taught poorly doesn't mean that is the norm. Teaching methods and materials have progressed quite a bit. I guess the most telling thing is that you're talking about a textbook. Most good history or geography teachers don't use a textbook. Regardless, every history class in this area talks about the US policies against Native Americans. Of course, being the on the East Coast, classes don't spend much more than four days or so teaching it, but that's much better than what you got. Lots of teachers wish they could spend more time on it, but it was one of the first things to be cut in order to make time for the weeks of testing for the "No Rich Child Left Behind Act". Giving politicians meaningless numbers is apparently more important than having children actually learn.
It's sorta like the philosophy that the human brain can never fully comprehend itself. Science driven by men cannot progress to the point where they stop being fascinated by a pretty girl.
Unless, of course, we're all gay by then. In which case... I guess it would be possible... and we'd all be better dressed.
But then, I'm a product of public school. Instead of mommy and daddy paying for me to party and buy my homework off the Internet, I paid my own way, working 20-30 hours a week to pay the bills. I worked hard because I actually wanted to learn and improve myself. I wrote my own papers. I wrote my own code. I came up with my own ideas and studied for tests off the texts and my notes, not someone's collection of the professor's previous tests.
I don't know you and you don't know me, but I am disgusted by the fact that you even find this tempting. Why are you even in college? The whole purpose of college is to do those 30 hours of research because it gives you experience and knowledge. The moment you look at something like that and say... "Hey, I could pay someone $20 and skip the 30 hours of research I'm actually here to do" you're really just one step away from: "Hey, I could pay someone $100 for a fake diploma and skip the 3 more years it will take me to finish my degree."
This comes off rather goody-two-shoes of me, but I find this terribly annoying. You do this in college and it's called "cheating" and people joke about it and pass it off as being a grey area. Once you get a job, having someone else write a report or copying your code from the internet and passing it off as your own is illegal.
I'll freely accept some education, but I'll admit I'm confused about what you're saying here. Everything I've ever read or heard has said that 'Little Boy' was the first atomic bomb ever detonated. They were so certain that the mechanism would work, they didn't even have a prototype. "Gadget" was the first atomic explosion triggered (aka: The Trinity Test), but it wasn't really a bomb. 'Fat Man' was the second.
There was no testing. No demonstrations that I've ever heard of. Isn't Bimini in the Caribbean? Why would Japan be paying attention to that? Everything I've ever heard said that Japan had no idea the bombs existed. The Germans didn't even really know about it. Only the Russians were aware of the existence of the working weapons. That was (I've been told) the major reason why the second bomb was dropped. The destruction was so shocking and unbelievable that the Japanese leaders were only coming to terms with the horror of the things when Nagasaki was bombed.
I'll admit I'm curious to see if I've been confused all this time, but I'm finding this a little hard to believe.
It's probably important to note that you're perceiving them through a filter (though, admittedly, a stupidness filter). A quick survey here revealed no one who actually thought the royals had any power at all. I can only think of a couple (frighteningly stupid) people who I've met who believe otherwise. I've met more people who think that onions grow on bushes than think that British royalty has any real power.
For comparison: I've been asked "regularly" by Brits why we all dress our pets in sweaters (jumpers?) and little shoes (They saw it on a TV show), or why the apartments in New York are so huge (They saw it on 'Friends'), or why we all talk like surfers (They probably saw that on TV, too).
I live in Washington, DC. I've seen loads of British tourists. I've probably talked to less than 1% of the ones I've noticed. Of that 1%, I've had two stand outs: "Which stop should we get off [the Metro] for White House? (Answer: Federal Triangle) Can you see any of the actors from that TV show, West Wing?" and (a father to his daughter) "Just look at the floor, the Americans don't like it when you look them in the eyes."
So, should I judge all Brits by the actions of a few people who anyone would immediately recognize as morons? The other 99% of the British tourists didn't say anything stupid because they weren't stupid. They just went on about their business like ordinary people. All the Americans who know that Brits don't take mandates from the Royals anymore don't go around talking to you about it. You only get to deal with the idiots.
If you promise not to judge Americans by the idiots who talk to you, I won't judge the British by the idiots who talk to me.
No matter. The first 15 characters are enough for me to prove that you thought about circumventing DRM and if the last six years are any guide, then within two years simply thinking about how to circumvent DRM will be a crime.
Clinton was impeached. He was charged with a crime by the House of Representatives. That is all impeachment is: The charge, the allegation, the call for a trial.
Clinton was not convicted or removed from office. In order to be removed from office, the Senate would have to vote that the charges were true and that removal was warranted.
Clinton was impeached by the House.
He was acquitted by the Senate.
The Senate does not vote on the impeachment. They do not decide on the impeachment. They don't vote for impeachement, or from the impeachment, or to an impeachment. The Senate is, in this instance, a jury. A jury does not and cannot charge a defendant. They don't vote on the charges, they vote on the defendants guilt of those charges.
How about this: I went to school and actually took it seriously. It took me only 4 years, and I took more than I was required. I didn't waste $40K a year on some private school, but went to a well respected state school for ~$8K/year.
While this may be shocking to many of you, I actually worked while I studied. I got a job as a workstation network manager (no, I was not one of the silly helper monkeys, I was the one making the workstations act as a group). At about $10k/year, it mostly paid for school. I only had about 15k of loans (plus a car, plus a move across the country, plus paying for my sister to move). And no, I did it all by myself. I didn't have mommy and daddy's money to help me.
Oh, and by the way, I spent my spare time the last 3 years of school teaching myself Java, straight C, Perl, bash scripting, SQL, PHP, how to build PCs from bits and pieces, how to build networks from bits and pieces, and the administration of a large number of network services.
Somehow I doubt that me taking some crap tech job working as some tech who won't be required to even have a brain for the next 2 years and eventually clawing my way to a position where I could actually do any thinking on my own would have prepared me better for the education I got in 4 years.
Sure, if you just go to a private school, take your minimum for the degree and drink on your free time, your degree doesn't mean much. But that would be your fault. You actually have to care about your education to make it matter. If you don't care, then its pretty pointless. If you do care, there is nothing else that will provide you with the amount of knowledge you'll gain in those 4 (or even 5) years.
I dont know the number of times I've talked to other programmers and had their eyes glaze over as I talked about why their code was wasteful, or slow, or horribly written because they had no idea what I was talking about. They had plenty of experience, but they didn't understand the theory behind it, so they were simply unable to see the problem in any other way.
Sorry, but I just dont respect your complaints. If perhaps you understood the books more, I might.
Some are just petty. You are annoyed that Glamdring, a sword which has no real importance, other than being Gandalf's sword, didn't exhibit an ability which has absolutely no effect on the plot of either the book or the movie? Why? Would that glow effect in one scene have made that much of a difference? And the fact that you only saw five eagles is the movie's mistake? Because you are an omniscient man-creature who's perception is the full truth, and anything not seen by you doesn't exist. We only see a small segment of the battle, and you assume that every last eagle must have been prominently portrayed. Interesting.
Then it seems you wanted innaccuracies put into the film. Helms deep did not last more than a night. It started in the evening (the orcs brought torches, the defenders shot them with arrows until the torches were gone). And it ended with the rising of the sun the next day. Clearly you weren't able to actually comprehend what was in the book, or your memory is flawed enough that you can't sort out what really happened.
On a similar note, the siege of Minas Tirith did last a little more than a day, but not a number of days. Furthermore, anyone who actually read the book would know that there was no fighting daylight fighting during the battle (up until Aragorn and Eomer broke the siege) since the sky was covered in a black curtain of smoke. To the fighters, it seemed that the night before the attack just continued until the wind changed and Aragorn showed up. This wasn't done in the movie because, well, its harder to be dramatic in the dark. But most certainly there was not multiple days of fighting. A significant amount of non-comprehenshion is required to believe that.
And finally, the incinerating Gollum. I challenge you to time how long it takes for Gollum to sink beneath the lava. I'd guess it would be 5 seconds. Perhaps less. Certainly not 10 or 15 seconds. But then, accuracy isn't your strong point. You do know that scientists get quite close to lava without being incinerated right? Even those people who are killed by contact or proximity to lava are hardly ever incinerated. It takes quite a bit of energy to instantly incinerate a human body (we're talking about close proximity to nuclear blasts). Now, add to that the fact that Gollum fell from a decent height, so his exposure to the intense surface heat of the lava would not be nearly enough time to even light his few remaining hairs on his head.
So yeah... Ignoring all of your points that were meaningless or wrong, I suppose it is terribly important that they skipped the act of Sam using an object that was difficult to explain in a movie to get past the even more difficult to explain Watchers to capture an event that had absolutely no impact on the rest of the plot. It really is a tragedy.
As someone else said, sell your palace and you're done.
Your palace acts as a corruption reducer. If you do it while still a despotism, then not only will you not grow beyond the first 8 squares, but when you try to build that Temple, it will be excuciatingly slow, due to a strangling corruption problem. You basically wont produce anything, and other civs will run over you without noticing.
Its a different game. You need vastly different strategies.
Just wait. As soon as the next terrorists get upset, we'll find out that walking isnt safe.
I am waiting for the day when I terrorist hi-jacks a pedestrian and walks him into the Washington Monument, or Sears Tower, or perhaps the Sydney Opera House.
The only safe way to travel is Amtrak. Well. You're safe from terrorists. Because if an Amtrak train crashes, everyone just assumes it was just another Amtrak train crashing. They do it all the time.
I mean... you can hijack a train and crash it (somehow), but there is a good chance it would have crashed anyways, so...
I'm sure that you realize this more than other people. Thats why you quit your job the 12th. Because now your job is just petty and its a disgrace to go on coding, or being a banker, or serving burgers, or whatever it is you do.
I mean. 7000+ people died. How insensitive is it to try and make money after that. Their souls are watching in disgust. They can no longer make money. But you do. You sick person you.
And you should dump your girlfriend/boyfriend or divorce your wife/husband. 8000+ people died. They are no longer happy, and they would be upset if you were happy.
Of course you upset the souls of the people who died just by living. I bet most of those people who died are upset that so few people died. They probably wish that people would just give up their lives and mourn for them until they die themselves. They probably scorn every minute we spend enjoying ourselves. They must be disgusted with the number of people who still watch sitcoms on TV. Or people who kiss their significant others.
We should all just wallow in sorrow and pain for the rest of our lives.
[end sarcasm]
While I cannot say that I watch Coyboy Bebob (I dont get the Cartoon Network in here in Arlington, can anyone tell me why?), but I enjoy my job, we have a few Nerf guns, and I was playing Diablo II last nite. Do you mean to say that I shouldn't enjoy myself?
If I would have been one of those who did die, I would be compeletely enraged by your attitude. When I die, I want people to be happy. Not because I died, but because I lived a happy life. They should go and try to do the same.
I'm sorry that you work at some boring job and have to try and be what you feel an adult is. But dont try to say that anyone is dishonoring the memory of those who died because they are happy. It is you who are dishonoring them, and the people who live on and have fun, they are doing exactly what every living human being should do.
I'm not a fan of the whole key rhythm thing as far as passwords go. It seems tremendously weak once you figure out what the "password" part is (the fact that its rhythm not keys), and humans would pick this up after watching only a few times.
And that SSH thing... like I dont slam the password into the keyboard in a blinding flurry of keys and fingers anyways.
I can now sleep happy knowning that I have educated at least one person. It seems that explaining convinces people better than saying they're dumb.
Sorry for the insulting remarks. When I said you were dumb, it was more "acting dumb", as I am often known to do. I was getting annoyed by lots of people spouting crap which was simply their guesses and claiming them as fact.
You have to put your finger on the scanner with the same pressure in the same orientation and the same position. These are things someone else simply wont know. Beyond normal false acceptance rates, its very difficult for one person to even get another persons finger to scan right, when they are conscious. The normal weight of the human arm is too much, and gives a poor quality print. The weight of the finger is too little, and gives too light of a print. The arm must be supported as if the person was supporting it. If you've recently washed your hands with soap that was a bit harsh, your finger will be drier than normal and it may take a few minutes before your print will return to normal. If your palms are sweaty (as mine might be if someone had a gun to my head), then the print might be too dark. Two fingerprints taken from the same scanner when it was at two different positions on the same desk might not match. Altering the height of the chair you are sitting in, or the desk you're sitting at can be enough of a difference to have the print rejected. This list keeps going. An unconcious person will not apply pressure in the right pattern since someone will force the entire print down, instead of applying the most force on tip as if tendons were pulling on the bone. A person with a gun to their head will be trembling. A person who's drunk or spiked with sodium pentathol will be sloppy and skew their print.
And dont be fooled. Its not because the scanners are high tech. Its because they arent. Image recognition isn't involved. Mathematical pattern matching is. Its much easier to foul up the latter of the two. So, as a result, false reject rates can get annoying, but false accepts are generally very low
Also note that it implies that someone actually set the scanner up to provide this security, which Acer is not known for. But this is a theoretical discussion on the security of a fingerprint scanner.
In short, name one instance where fingerprints are less secure than passwords and/or do not provide safety to the person who has them.
Everyone seems to think these can take exact fingerprints. Use one. You'll see why no one has come up with a scheme to "steal" your fingerprint yet.
Sodium Pentathol (especially industrial strength) wont work. Hell. A couple of shots of vodka would make it impossible for you to get into your laptop. Try again.
Face it. Its simpler to just wait till someone is logged in and take the data then. But the print is much more secure than a password and involves completely insane (sodium pentathol?, why not just ask about what is on the drive then) measures to bypass.
But thanks for continuing the pattern of Slashdot posters who pretend they know what they are talking about, and pass off their guesses as fact.
If you were unconcious, your fingerprint would not work. If someone forced your finger onto the scanner it would not work. If someone got a copy of your fingerprint off a glass, it would not help them. You need to be present, alive, conscious and willing to supply your print.
Someone can hold a gun to your head and demand your password too.
If you are dead, the fingerprint wont work. If you'd do any research and actually think you'd realize this. Using a fingerprint actually requires that the pirate keep you alive.
In conclusion, you're dumb, and fingerprints are an order of magnitude more secure and safe for people to use.
However, I'm not nearly as experienced as you, since I have only been using Linux since '97. Perhaps if I had more experience I would have trouble with:
If you did individual package selection, how could you miss telnet and ftp? I've installed several Mandrake/Redhat boxes and never missed the BSD tools. Even things like sed/awk have always made it. Perhaps you need to pay more attention during the install?
I would say that you screwed up the installation by not selecting the tools and options you wanted.
Or maybe Mandrake has created the first sentient graphical install, and it just decided that it didnt like you.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, and your solution to this is to get rid of the cyberworld? Or just wall it off?
The others poster's point remains. This is not a new situation. This happens all the time when new technologies break onto the world. Historically, technology changes faster than people do. In truth, people can change much faster, but they rarely have any need to. During the industrial revolution, factories changed life in astounding ways. It took decades for people to catch up. The first mass-produced food had a tendency to be of lower quality, some of it bordering on dangerous (sawdust in the sausages, anyone?). The number of problems and dangers people faced because of factories has been the subject of thousands of doctoral papers. Do you really think we should have outlawed them back then? Or maybe we'll just prevent our children from ever going near them or using anything that came from one. While it might have been good advice to keep your kids from working in one, segregating them from the segment of society best suited to adapt to the changes produced by them is a pretty horrible idea.
Let's take a situation that's easier to understand. Did you ever learn how to drive? No matter how great you thought you were at it, you were unsafe. Even for the first year or more after getting a driver's license, your chances of being in a fatal accident on the interstate vastly exceed a child's chances of meeting a predator online. So how should we solve this problem? I know: Since people are dangerous drivers when they are learning to drive, let's forbid people from ever learning how to drive.
Stupid, isn't it? You have to learn sometime. Maybe we should just make them wait until they're older... because that's one sure way to completely avoid solving the real problem. We could dissolve the interstate system. Or drop the speed limit to 30 mph. These are all great ideas that are doomed to completely fail.
People have to learn. People need to learn. The world needs them to learn. This is how things change and get better. Wall your kids off from the Internet and you'll have kids who aren't adapting to the world as quickly as they should. Yes, I know the same old If you had kids... idiocy is on its way. The problem isn't with the internet. The problem is with the kids. If they are doing something unsafe, teach them. They'll learn. They'll learn faster than you will. They'll adapt with frightening efficiency if you help them.
It's very simple really. I don't put up a billboard showing the world my life in the real world, but I'm not a hermit either. My friends know more about me than the rest of the world. I feel safe talking to them because I know who they are and I recognize them. I don't go sharing details about myself with strangers. The Internet is no different. I have friends and I talk with them openly because I know who they are. If all they are to me is an alias, then that's all I am to them. It's really very simple.
This illustrates my point exactly. By now everyone knows to avoid the guy giving out candy. If we teach children how to be safe, in five or ten years everyone will know to avoid the guy who goes around asking people what their address or real name are. Of course, the more people we have who choose to (cowardly, in my opinion) hide their children instead of actually teaching them how to be safe, the longer this will take.
No problem. I just wanted to be clear. I used to blame higher-ups for such things and then I started taking a closer look. It seems that stupid parents cause many more problems than administrators. The use of appeasement in these cases is only partly the fault of the administrator. I place more blame on the part of the parent who puts a figurative gun to the head of the school (in the form of lawsuits, firings, or forced "transfers") just because they don't want their child to be exposed to any ideas that might cause them to think differently from their annointed-by-god parents.
Let's be fair about this. I haven't met a science teacher who actually believed in ID-anti-science. I guess I assume they have to exist. Similarly, I haven't met any history teacher who actually doubts the Holocaust occurred. That said, I do know of schools where Evolution is not taught (neither is ID) and where the Holocaust is mentioned but not really focussed on.
In neither case is it the teacher who made that decision. I know of science teachers who hate ID, but cannot teach Evolution because if they do, their children's Right-Wing-Nutjob parents will complain to the school board and have the teacher fired. That is the source of the problem. The ignorance and dogma comes from parents. Don't blame the teachers for doing what administrators and school boards order them to do. Do you honestly expect them to stick their necks out when they are being paid crap wages already? Do you have any idea what happens when a teacher gets fired for something like this? There are two options: Go back to school and get a new career or move to a school so crappy that they are willing to explain to the parents why they hired a teacher who was fired. No one cares that they were fired for having principles and fighting a war that you should have been fighting for them.
If you want to fix this problem, don't blame teachers. They're already on your side. Blame yourself. What have you done to stop the nutjob parents of the other children from robbing your child of the good education the teacher wants to give them?
How long ago did you go to school? It's been about ten years for me, but this is not at all what I experienced. Now, my US History book didn't talk about the Mayans or the Aztecs, but it did spend quite a bit of time talking about Native Americans. We spent a week or so learning about them (Contrast/Compare: We also spent a week or so talking about the Civil War). In high school, my History teacher was very blunt about what happened. The US government executed a series of policies to systematically remove Native Americans from the continent. In 9th grade, I learned that the Mayans were a scientifically advanced culture with complex math and astronomy. We spent two weeks talking about Meso-American and Incan cultures (Contrast/Compare: We spent about two weeks talking about Chinese culture). There was quite a bit of talk about how they got worked over by Europeans.
Just like everything else in the world, you shouldn't judge the whole based on a sample set of one. Sorry, but it sounds like you were either taught a) a while ago (pre-1980) or b) in a crappy school. One of the biggest problems with people's view of schools is that they stupidly assume that nothing ever changes. Granted, the schools in this area are known to be exceptional, however, I know for a fact that students here are taught about the atrocities committed against the Native Americans. History beyond elementary school is not about feeling good, its about learning lessons.
Just because you were taught poorly doesn't mean that is the norm. Teaching methods and materials have progressed quite a bit. I guess the most telling thing is that you're talking about a textbook. Most good history or geography teachers don't use a textbook. Regardless, every history class in this area talks about the US policies against Native Americans. Of course, being the on the East Coast, classes don't spend much more than four days or so teaching it, but that's much better than what you got. Lots of teachers wish they could spend more time on it, but it was one of the first things to be cut in order to make time for the weeks of testing for the "No Rich Child Left Behind Act". Giving politicians meaningless numbers is apparently more important than having children actually learn.
Answer: Men.
It's sorta like the philosophy that the human brain can never fully comprehend itself. Science driven by men cannot progress to the point where they stop being fascinated by a pretty girl.
Unless, of course, we're all gay by then. In which case... I guess it would be possible... and we'd all be better dressed.
Hmm.
I had no problem at all.
But then, I'm a product of public school. Instead of mommy and daddy paying for me to party and buy my homework off the Internet, I paid my own way, working 20-30 hours a week to pay the bills. I worked hard because I actually wanted to learn and improve myself. I wrote my own papers. I wrote my own code. I came up with my own ideas and studied for tests off the texts and my notes, not someone's collection of the professor's previous tests.
I don't know you and you don't know me, but I am disgusted by the fact that you even find this tempting. Why are you even in college? The whole purpose of college is to do those 30 hours of research because it gives you experience and knowledge. The moment you look at something like that and say... "Hey, I could pay someone $20 and skip the 30 hours of research I'm actually here to do" you're really just one step away from: "Hey, I could pay someone $100 for a fake diploma and skip the 3 more years it will take me to finish my degree."
This comes off rather goody-two-shoes of me, but I find this terribly annoying. You do this in college and it's called "cheating" and people joke about it and pass it off as being a grey area. Once you get a job, having someone else write a report or copying your code from the internet and passing it off as your own is illegal.
I'll freely accept some education, but I'll admit I'm confused about what you're saying here. Everything I've ever read or heard has said that 'Little Boy' was the first atomic bomb ever detonated. They were so certain that the mechanism would work, they didn't even have a prototype. "Gadget" was the first atomic explosion triggered (aka: The Trinity Test), but it wasn't really a bomb. 'Fat Man' was the second.
There was no testing. No demonstrations that I've ever heard of. Isn't Bimini in the Caribbean? Why would Japan be paying attention to that? Everything I've ever heard said that Japan had no idea the bombs existed. The Germans didn't even really know about it. Only the Russians were aware of the existence of the working weapons. That was (I've been told) the major reason why the second bomb was dropped. The destruction was so shocking and unbelievable that the Japanese leaders were only coming to terms with the horror of the things when Nagasaki was bombed.
I'll admit I'm curious to see if I've been confused all this time, but I'm finding this a little hard to believe.
It's probably important to note that you're perceiving them through a filter (though, admittedly, a stupidness filter). A quick survey here revealed no one who actually thought the royals had any power at all. I can only think of a couple (frighteningly stupid) people who I've met who believe otherwise. I've met more people who think that onions grow on bushes than think that British royalty has any real power.
For comparison: I've been asked "regularly" by Brits why we all dress our pets in sweaters (jumpers?) and little shoes (They saw it on a TV show), or why the apartments in New York are so huge (They saw it on 'Friends'), or why we all talk like surfers (They probably saw that on TV, too).
I live in Washington, DC. I've seen loads of British tourists. I've probably talked to less than 1% of the ones I've noticed. Of that 1%, I've had two stand outs: "Which stop should we get off [the Metro] for White House? (Answer: Federal Triangle) Can you see any of the actors from that TV show, West Wing?" and (a father to his daughter) "Just look at the floor, the Americans don't like it when you look them in the eyes."
So, should I judge all Brits by the actions of a few people who anyone would immediately recognize as morons? The other 99% of the British tourists didn't say anything stupid because they weren't stupid. They just went on about their business like ordinary people. All the Americans who know that Brits don't take mandates from the Royals anymore don't go around talking to you about it. You only get to deal with the idiots.
If you promise not to judge Americans by the idiots who talk to you, I won't judge the British by the idiots who talk to me.
D'oh!
No matter. The first 15 characters are enough for me to prove that you thought about circumventing DRM and if the last six years are any guide, then within two years simply thinking about how to circumvent DRM will be a crime.
It's mine! Stay away!
Microsoft is Good!
NetBSD is slow!
OpenSource licensing is for idealistic hippies!
Hmm... Let's see now:
It seems like the infamous "Step 2" is "Trick slashdotters into including a DMCA DRM Circumvention Scheme in the Subject of their replies.
Excellent...
Oh dear god.
Clinton was impeached. He was charged with a crime by the House of Representatives. That is all impeachment is: The charge, the allegation, the call for a trial.
Clinton was not convicted or removed from office. In order to be removed from office, the Senate would have to vote that the charges were true and that removal was warranted.
Clinton was impeached by the House.
He was acquitted by the Senate.
The Senate does not vote on the impeachment. They do not decide on the impeachment. They don't vote for impeachement, or from the impeachment, or to an impeachment. The Senate is, in this instance, a jury. A jury does not and cannot charge a defendant. They don't vote on the charges, they vote on the defendants guilt of those charges.
Come on, this isn't rocket science.
Nice math.
How about this: I went to school and actually took it seriously. It took me only 4 years, and I took more than I was required. I didn't waste $40K a year on some private school, but went to a well respected state school for ~$8K/year.
While this may be shocking to many of you, I actually worked while I studied. I got a job as a workstation network manager (no, I was not one of the silly helper monkeys, I was the one making the workstations act as a group). At about $10k/year, it mostly paid for school. I only had about 15k of loans (plus a car, plus a move across the country, plus paying for my sister to move). And no, I did it all by myself. I didn't have mommy and daddy's money to help me.
Oh, and by the way, I spent my spare time the last 3 years of school teaching myself Java, straight C, Perl, bash scripting, SQL, PHP, how to build PCs from bits and pieces, how to build networks from bits and pieces, and the administration of a large number of network services.
Somehow I doubt that me taking some crap tech job working as some tech who won't be required to even have a brain for the next 2 years and eventually clawing my way to a position where I could actually do any thinking on my own would have prepared me better for the education I got in 4 years.
Sure, if you just go to a private school, take your minimum for the degree and drink on your free time, your degree doesn't mean much. But that would be your fault. You actually have to care about your education to make it matter. If you don't care, then its pretty pointless. If you do care, there is nothing else that will provide you with the amount of knowledge you'll gain in those 4 (or even 5) years.
I dont know the number of times I've talked to other programmers and had their eyes glaze over as I talked about why their code was wasteful, or slow, or horribly written because they had no idea what I was talking about. They had plenty of experience, but they didn't understand the theory behind it, so they were simply unable to see the problem in any other way.
Sorry, but I just dont respect your complaints. If perhaps you understood the books more, I might.
Some are just petty. You are annoyed that Glamdring, a sword which has no real importance, other than being Gandalf's sword, didn't exhibit an ability which has absolutely no effect on the plot of either the book or the movie? Why? Would that glow effect in one scene have made that much of a difference? And the fact that you only saw five eagles is the movie's mistake? Because you are an omniscient man-creature who's perception is the full truth, and anything not seen by you doesn't exist. We only see a small segment of the battle, and you assume that every last eagle must have been prominently portrayed. Interesting.
Then it seems you wanted innaccuracies put into the film. Helms deep did not last more than a night. It started in the evening (the orcs brought torches, the defenders shot them with arrows until the torches were gone). And it ended with the rising of the sun the next day. Clearly you weren't able to actually comprehend what was in the book, or your memory is flawed enough that you can't sort out what really happened.
On a similar note, the siege of Minas Tirith did last a little more than a day, but not a number of days. Furthermore, anyone who actually read the book would know that there was no fighting daylight fighting during the battle (up until Aragorn and Eomer broke the siege) since the sky was covered in a black curtain of smoke. To the fighters, it seemed that the night before the attack just continued until the wind changed and Aragorn showed up. This wasn't done in the movie because, well, its harder to be dramatic in the dark. But most certainly there was not multiple days of fighting. A significant amount of non-comprehenshion is required to believe that.
And finally, the incinerating Gollum. I challenge you to time how long it takes for Gollum to sink beneath the lava. I'd guess it would be 5 seconds. Perhaps less. Certainly not 10 or 15 seconds. But then, accuracy isn't your strong point. You do know that scientists get quite close to lava without being incinerated right? Even those people who are killed by contact or proximity to lava are hardly ever incinerated. It takes quite a bit of energy to instantly incinerate a human body (we're talking about close proximity to nuclear blasts). Now, add to that the fact that Gollum fell from a decent height, so his exposure to the intense surface heat of the lava would not be nearly enough time to even light his few remaining hairs on his head.
So yeah... Ignoring all of your points that were meaningless or wrong, I suppose it is terribly important that they skipped the act of Sam using an object that was difficult to explain in a movie to get past the even more difficult to explain Watchers to capture an event that had absolutely no impact on the rest of the plot. It really is a tragedy.
[Feel free to insert your own joke about "rifling through drawers" here]
tid!
Long time no see... I'll be looking for that email address of yours soon...
Ha.
As someone else said, sell your palace and you're done.
Your palace acts as a corruption reducer. If you do it while still a despotism, then not only will you not grow beyond the first 8 squares, but when you try to build that Temple, it will be excuciatingly slow, due to a strangling corruption problem. You basically wont produce anything, and other civs will run over you without noticing.
Its a different game. You need vastly different strategies.
They should block mozilla because you had trouble using Mozilla?
Apparently you dont use Windows then. I've had many more problems with Windows than I've had with Mozilla.
Wow. I'm just shocked you actually said that.
It kinda makes me sick to my stomach.
Just wait. As soon as the next terrorists get upset, we'll find out that walking isnt safe.
I am waiting for the day when I terrorist hi-jacks a pedestrian and walks him into the Washington Monument, or Sears Tower, or perhaps the Sydney Opera House.
The only safe way to travel is Amtrak. Well. You're safe from terrorists. Because if an Amtrak train crashes, everyone just assumes it was just another Amtrak train crashing. They do it all the time.
I mean... you can hijack a train and crash it (somehow), but there is a good chance it would have crashed anyways, so...
Yes. Many people died. Yes it was a tragedy.
I'm sure that you realize this more than other people. Thats why you quit your job the 12th. Because now your job is just petty and its a disgrace to go on coding, or being a banker, or serving burgers, or whatever it is you do.
I mean. 7000+ people died. How insensitive is it to try and make money after that. Their souls are watching in disgust. They can no longer make money. But you do. You sick person you.
And you should dump your girlfriend/boyfriend or divorce your wife/husband. 8000+ people died. They are no longer happy, and they would be upset if you were happy.
Of course you upset the souls of the people who died just by living. I bet most of those people who died are upset that so few people died. They probably wish that people would just give up their lives and mourn for them until they die themselves. They probably scorn every minute we spend enjoying ourselves. They must be disgusted with the number of people who still watch sitcoms on TV. Or people who kiss their significant others.
We should all just wallow in sorrow and pain for the rest of our lives.
[end sarcasm]
While I cannot say that I watch Coyboy Bebob (I dont get the Cartoon Network in here in Arlington, can anyone tell me why?), but I enjoy my job, we have a few Nerf guns, and I was playing Diablo II last nite. Do you mean to say that I shouldn't enjoy myself?
If I would have been one of those who did die, I would be compeletely enraged by your attitude. When I die, I want people to be happy. Not because I died, but because I lived a happy life. They should go and try to do the same.
I'm sorry that you work at some boring job and have to try and be what you feel an adult is. But dont try to say that anyone is dishonoring the memory of those who died because they are happy. It is you who are dishonoring them, and the people who live on and have fun, they are doing exactly what every living human being should do.
I'm not a fan of the whole key rhythm thing as far as passwords go. It seems tremendously weak once you figure out what the "password" part is (the fact that its rhythm not keys), and humans would pick this up after watching only a few times.
And that SSH thing... like I dont slam the password into the keyboard in a blinding flurry of keys and fingers anyways.
I can now sleep happy knowning that I have educated at least one person. It seems that explaining convinces people better than saying they're dumb.
Because these things arent accurate.
Sorry for the insulting remarks. When I said you were dumb, it was more "acting dumb", as I am often known to do. I was getting annoyed by lots of people spouting crap which was simply their guesses and claiming them as fact.
You have to put your finger on the scanner with the same pressure in the same orientation and the same position. These are things someone else simply wont know. Beyond normal false acceptance rates, its very difficult for one person to even get another persons finger to scan right, when they are conscious. The normal weight of the human arm is too much, and gives a poor quality print. The weight of the finger is too little, and gives too light of a print. The arm must be supported as if the person was supporting it. If you've recently washed your hands with soap that was a bit harsh, your finger will be drier than normal and it may take a few minutes before your print will return to normal. If your palms are sweaty (as mine might be if someone had a gun to my head), then the print might be too dark. Two fingerprints taken from the same scanner when it was at two different positions on the same desk might not match. Altering the height of the chair you are sitting in, or the desk you're sitting at can be enough of a difference to have the print rejected. This list keeps going. An unconcious person will not apply pressure in the right pattern since someone will force the entire print down, instead of applying the most force on tip as if tendons were pulling on the bone. A person with a gun to their head will be trembling. A person who's drunk or spiked with sodium pentathol will be sloppy and skew their print.
And dont be fooled. Its not because the scanners are high tech. Its because they arent. Image recognition isn't involved. Mathematical pattern matching is. Its much easier to foul up the latter of the two. So, as a result, false reject rates can get annoying, but false accepts are generally very low
Also note that it implies that someone actually set the scanner up to provide this security, which Acer is not known for. But this is a theoretical discussion on the security of a fingerprint scanner.
In short, name one instance where fingerprints are less secure than passwords and/or do not provide safety to the person who has them.
See my response to mirko's response to me.
Everyone seems to think these can take exact fingerprints. Use one. You'll see why no one has come up with a scheme to "steal" your fingerprint yet.
Sodium Pentathol (especially industrial strength) wont work. Hell. A couple of shots of vodka would make it impossible for you to get into your laptop. Try again.
Face it. Its simpler to just wait till someone is logged in and take the data then. But the print is much more secure than a password and involves completely insane (sodium pentathol?, why not just ask about what is on the drive then) measures to bypass.
You've never used a fingerprint scanner.
But thanks for continuing the pattern of Slashdot posters who pretend they know what they are talking about, and pass off their guesses as fact.
If you were unconcious, your fingerprint would not work. If someone forced your finger onto the scanner it would not work. If someone got a copy of your fingerprint off a glass, it would not help them. You need to be present, alive, conscious and willing to supply your print.
Come back when you have actually used one.
Risking getting modded down for flaming...
You're dumb.
Someone can hold a gun to your head and demand your password too.
If you are dead, the fingerprint wont work. If you'd do any research and actually think you'd realize this. Using a fingerprint actually requires that the pirate keep you alive.
In conclusion, you're dumb, and fingerprints are an order of magnitude more secure and safe for people to use.
I've never had any of the problems you mentioned.
However, I'm not nearly as experienced as you, since I have only been using Linux since '97. Perhaps if I had more experience I would have trouble with:
If you did individual package selection, how could you miss telnet and ftp? I've installed several Mandrake/Redhat boxes and never missed the BSD tools. Even things like sed/awk have always made it. Perhaps you need to pay more attention during the install?
I would say that you screwed up the installation by not selecting the tools and options you wanted.
Or maybe Mandrake has created the first sentient graphical install, and it just decided that it didnt like you.