People are running servers with Via C3 processors?
My desktop machine is powered by a C3/866 but it is a cheap low power (in all senses) processor.
You're missing what's going on there:
Many server tasks can be easily parallelized. When this happens the issue is no longer:
"What's the fastest computer I can buy?"
The issue is:
"What's the most effective use of my money in terms of computing power per dollar, watt of heat disspation and cubic foot of rack space."
If the C3 even makes it onto the radar then it sounds like the statistics are by volume rather than by price.
You'd think in this day and age we'd have some idea of how to create a secure voting system.
It's called paper ballots.
Electronic voting machines simply can't be trusted. It's possible for me to create a custom ship that looks and behaves EXACTLY the same as the normal chip except under very specfic circumstances. It's effectively impossible to detect without depacking the chip.
Trust an electical engineer here:
Why the hell would you hand to use eletricity?
You can't see it. You can't hear it. It's a black box. It'll cost you six figures to verify a SINGLE voting machine to the level of detail necessary.
I can make this restriction without any loss of generality,
Actually, your whole analogy goes right out the window when you do this.
You were tring to make the argument that:
our society provides special consideration for the handicapped
that this is generally considered fair
that being a woman is similar to being handicapped
But now you're changing the definition of "handicapped" when you go to step three. It's called a bait-and-switch. Wheelchair ramps are not used solely by people who don't "need" them and your argument requires this to be true in order for the steps to connect properly.
The subtext, which I'm sure you already understand, is that black schools never ACTUALLY would have been equal, so ending the seperation was actually the only way to ensure equal treatment. Or close to it.
The decision was actually bigger than that. It was a decision that institutionalized discrimination inherently leads to unequal treatment. Seperate can't be equal.
"In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms." -Earl Warren
"Segregation was not unconstitutional because it might have caused psychological feelings of inferiority. Public school systems that separated blacks and provided them with superior educational resources making blacks "feel" superior to whites sent to lesser schools - would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, whether or not the white students felt stigmatized, just as do school systems in which the positions of the races are reversed. Psychological injury or benefit is irrelevant..." -Clarence Thomas
And as a side note, your wheel-chair ramp example is broken on many other levels. One of the more obvious ones being that normal people use these ramps all the time. The ramps do not discriminate.
However, resorting to name-calling isn't any way to win an argument, or even present your side of an argument.
The name-calling is nothing but admonishment for being so crass as to make an offensive and disrespectful generalization about handicapped people. It's not support for an argument, it's a rebuke. It's me saying, "Hey, it's really offensive to imply that the reason handicapped people need ramps is beacuse they don't *want* to climb up there."
Your statement was not just factually dead wrong, but ethically wrong as well.
No its not. It's flat-out stupid and you really should have just dropped it.
Someone in a wheelchair can drag themselves up the stairs. It's a hard climb, but physically possible.
Actually many of them CAN'T. Period. They physically do not have the stength and ability to do so. This statement is simply false. Try visiting a nursing home sometime jackass. (I know jackass is a harsh word, but your statement is both disrespectful and ignorant.)
THEY JUST CHOOSE NOT TO.
Nope, you just choose to be batty. A cripple, physically unable to perform a certain task is in a vastly different situation, than a women with all the abilities and opportunities necessary to perform a certain task.
And the Supreme Court of your country almost certainly agrees with me.
You obviously don't have a clue what you're taling about here. I get the distinct impression that you know very little about SCOTUS. The words "seperate but equal" were chosen very deliberately by myself as they refer to a very specfic supreme court case in which it was decided that "sperate but equal" treament of black and whites was unconstitutional.
Don't try and tell me that 'reverse discrimination' doesn't help the problem. Is it 'reverse discrimination' to put ramps in front of buildings because a portion of our population are confined to wheelchairs?
No, it's just a really stupid analogy. Everyone with a functioning brain will freely admit that there are some things handicapped people simply cannot do. This is the whole reason the are called handicapped. It's the meaning of the term, for fuck's sake! This is fundamentally difference that a male vs female situation, where females are fundmentally capable of performing the job, but choose not to.
There's a difference between equal treatment and identical treatment.
Myself and the supreme court disagree with you. Or would you mind if all female children were sent to "seperate but equal" schools? (Perhaps with the stated purpose of encouraging more of them to go into tech.)
But I am also aware that a 4-year-old can kill someone with a found handgun. Shocking, ain't it.
OMG! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!111!ONE
The argument that anthing that could be dangerous in the hands of a four year old should be withheld from adults is not a very good one, to say the least.
That might be common sense if I believed your 50% claim, but I'm not sure I do. Cite something, don't just assert it and call me nonsensical.
I had a source for that when I posted, but I'm too lazy to find it again. Inform yourself. I used google, so can you.
I might, if I'm a desperate junkie.
Are you a desperate junkie?
I also might if I think a sticker's cheaper than a gun to buy. But I really can't speculate - because its pointless to do so.
Speculation is only pointless if you're irrational. If you're willing to be honest with youself, reflection on a topic, can yield new insights.
Funny thing is, I'm waiting for a political party that would actually try to "take away our guns." Given that nobody has called for it, why do you keep fearing it? Ever heard of the psychological term, "castration fear"? It's an unreasonable fear.
You're putting forth a false argument. Certain lawmakers, particularly democrats such as Clinton certainly have "taken away" guns. They have passed legistlation to that effect.
So you're either:
a) lying about what has already happened
b) amazingly ignorant
c) refusing to acknowledge anything but a total ban on all fireams taking place in a single bill
Crime increases in the specific instance of outlawing handguns for private use. It would seem that when criminals feel emboldened, they are more aggresive in crimes like muggings. However this is the only circumstance where this holds up.
Bullshit, but it's nice that way you phrase it, because it only takes a single counterexample to disprove your broad generalization.
The chance of a burglar going to jail is EQUAL to the chance of a burglar getting shot if he breaks into an occupied home. You're suggesting that removing the more severe of the these two consquences is going to have no effect. Come on, use some common sense.
Are you going to bust into the home of someone with an NRA sticker on their door and a car in the driveway?
(People also seem to forget that no gun would leave people who live in the boonies with their ass hanging in the wind.)
Washington DC alone has the same number of gun deaths per year as all of Canada. Ponder that.
Gangs, duh. It's related to our stupid drug laws, in the way that Al Capone was related to prohibition. Note that Canada has saner laws on this issue.
It may come as a shock to you, but the primary cause of gun deaths is not that someone HAS a gun, but that they have a desire to use it.
No, they are more easily controlled by their gov't, because as long as you give them their precious little guns, they will vote for you and not complain about anything else (mentioning God doesn't hurt either). One good troll deserves another.
It's so frickin stupid how gun ownership is somehow NOT a civil liberty to "liberals".
* I'm an actual liberal, not a libertarian and not a democrat.
There are lots of guns in america. If you pass a law banning them, the MOST law-abiding segment of the population will give up their guns. Criminals, who by definition do not follow the law, will keep their guns.
Research proves this. Crime actually INCREASES when stricter gun laws are put into effect as the risk has now decreased for the criminals.
But even if the stats WEREN'T on my side I would still beleive in gun ownership by private citizens. The bill of rights is sort of a national philosophy. The first two things it says are:
I'm going to say what I want. I'm going to stick up for myself.
That's the country I was born in and the country I want to live in. I'm not willing to "give up liberty for security". (Or rather, a false sense of security.)
Since when should someone tell someone else what they should do with their money?
Ever since humans came together to form societies, that's when.
Or would you not mind if someone took a contract out on your life?
Let them piss it all away in one night if they want. It's their money and they can do what they want to with it, be it giving it all away, spending it on gambling, using it as a downpayment on a house, or putting it into their savings or an IRA.
Except that:
A) You should care about the welfare of your fellow man
B) If you're a lousy enough person not to care about his welfware, you still probably don't want that man to wind up ON welfare.
I mean in this day, is anyone really more than a few hours away from an Indian casino? Do you really need 24/7 access to gambling? It might be that the very few hours of distance is all that saves a lot of people from their self...
I'd say the problem isn't really gambling but the way our society allows gambling to be performed.
If you go into a bar and start slamming shots as fast as you can, the bartender has a responsibility to cut you off at some point. They say, "You've had enough, go home."
No such regulation exists for gambling. Sure whatever regulation you came up with might be inconvenient and imperfect, but at least someone wouldn't gamble away all their money in a single night.
Current policy of letting the indians do it and virtually no one else is just plain fucktarded.
Given how easy it is to change your mac address, (I can do this at will on my ethernet AND wireless) I would hope no serious security system relied entirely on that one factor. We have to assume the serious criminals have all the easy angles covered.
Let's go a little further than that: MAC addresses are not a secure authentication method. It's like asking someone's last name.
Let's say I'm joe blackhat with a laptop:
I unplug a PC
I plug that ethernet cable into my laptop.
It grabs the mac address of whatever was plugged in.
I plug in my laptop with that new mac address.
If you automate it, we're talking a matter of SECONDS here.
Security of this type is s total joke. There are right ways to protect a network and this is not one of them.
It would be interesting if one day, to get such an online account set up, they make you pass a short test, where they give you ten examples of people asking for your account information in various ways, and you have to answer "give them the information" or "report the incident to phishing.ebay.com". Anyone that answers "give them the information" on any of the questions doesn't get an account.
Why should ebay care? They don't bear the cost of phising, you do.
This is irrelevant to the subject. Even if the war is undeclared, we are fighting it without committing Acts of Terror.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Whether or not we are actually fighting a "war" is definately relevant to the subject at hand. The answer to this question might be inconvenient for you, but that does not make it irrelevant.
George W. Bush has neither committed, nor ordered to have committed a single Act of Terror. What you may be objecting to are his Acts of War, which are quite a different thing.
#1) Technically this isn't a war as congress has yet to declare war.
#2) Your unequivocal statement that Bush has done no wrong is, to put it simply: stupid. You are not in a position to know whether the president has done such things or not.
Its funny how eager everyone is to assume to worst of eBay,
There was no assumption being done here. Your statement was provably false and the term FUD is well defined.
But no, they didn't instantly approve a new payment system that's been around for a week... so we've all got to assume the worst.
Here's that word again. I defy you to point out this "assumption".
What it comes down to is that you for some reason are defending a policy allowing arbitrary discrimination on the part of ebay, a policy which is based in FUD. There is simply no defined set of criteria I can apply to determine if a given payment system meets this policy.
While google is a big name in other services, eBay has absolutely no way of verifying the security measures that Google Payments offer.
This is simply not true. Ebay has all sorts of means to verify this. For example, I'm sure Google would be more than happy to answer any questions that ebay has regarding their security polices. I'm sure the financial institutions that Google works with to provide this service would also be just as helpful.
The FUD is the whole "lack of a track record" claim. It's completely subjective. This isn't some fly-by-night operation without established credit or capital reserves, it's freakin Google. There's no credible evidence that there's a security issue here, there is only fear, uncertainty and doubt being spread on the part of ebay. It's the very definition of FUD.
Taking out a paypal account and then suing them in an attempt to remove their "not a bank status"
Putting up an ebay auction and then suing them to remove their "not an auction house" status
Starting an ad campaign pointing out that money in paypal accounts is NOT protected like a bank and highlighting the crappy customer service of both paypal and ebay. They could do it like an Apple commercial: "Here I was buying this stuff, then all of a suddent my account was locked and my money was gone! They wouldn't respond to my emails and I had to call my credit card company to fix it. It was really scary."
I think 1 and 2 most likely, but doing all these as soon as possible would be a real kick in the balls for ebay.
Slashdot Mirror
People are running servers with Via C3 processors? My desktop machine is powered by a C3/866 but it is a cheap low power (in all senses) processor.
You're missing what's going on there:
Many server tasks can be easily parallelized. When this happens the issue is no longer:
"What's the fastest computer I can buy?"
The issue is:
"What's the most effective use of my money in terms of computing power per dollar, watt of heat disspation and cubic foot of rack space."
If the C3 even makes it onto the radar then it sounds like the statistics are by volume rather than by price.
Which doesn't make it any less of a success.
You'd think in this day and age we'd have some idea of how to create a secure voting system.
It's called paper ballots.
Electronic voting machines simply can't be trusted. It's possible for me to create a custom ship that looks and behaves EXACTLY the same as the normal chip except under very specfic circumstances. It's effectively impossible to detect without depacking the chip.
Trust an electical engineer here:
Why the hell would you hand to use eletricity?
You can't see it. You can't hear it. It's a black box. It'll cost you six figures to verify a SINGLE voting machine to the level of detail necessary.
Actually, your whole analogy goes right out the window when you do this.
You were tring to make the argument that:
But now you're changing the definition of "handicapped" when you go to step three. It's called a bait-and-switch. Wheelchair ramps are not used solely by people who don't "need" them and your argument requires this to be true in order for the steps to connect properly.
The subtext, which I'm sure you already understand, is that black schools never ACTUALLY would have been equal, so ending the seperation was actually the only way to ensure equal treatment. Or close to it.
The decision was actually bigger than that. It was a decision that institutionalized discrimination inherently leads to unequal treatment. Seperate can't be equal.
"In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms." -Earl Warren
"Segregation was not unconstitutional because it might have caused psychological feelings of inferiority. Public school systems that separated blacks and provided them with superior educational resources making blacks "feel" superior to whites sent to lesser schools - would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, whether or not the white students felt stigmatized, just as do school systems in which the positions of the races are reversed. Psychological injury or benefit is irrelevant..." -Clarence Thomas
And as a side note, your wheel-chair ramp example is broken on many other levels. One of the more obvious ones being that normal people use these ramps all the time. The ramps do not discriminate.
However, resorting to name-calling isn't any way to win an argument, or even present your side of an argument.
The name-calling is nothing but admonishment for being so crass as to make an offensive and disrespectful generalization about handicapped people. It's not support for an argument, it's a rebuke. It's me saying, "Hey, it's really offensive to imply that the reason handicapped people need ramps is beacuse they don't *want* to climb up there."
Your statement was not just factually dead wrong, but ethically wrong as well.
It's a perfectly reasonable analogy.
No its not. It's flat-out stupid and you really should have just dropped it.
Someone in a wheelchair can drag themselves up the stairs. It's a hard climb, but physically possible.
Actually many of them CAN'T. Period. They physically do not have the stength and ability to do so. This statement is simply false. Try visiting a nursing home sometime jackass. (I know jackass is a harsh word, but your statement is both disrespectful and ignorant.)
THEY JUST CHOOSE NOT TO.
Nope, you just choose to be batty. A cripple, physically unable to perform a certain task is in a vastly different situation, than a women with all the abilities and opportunities necessary to perform a certain task.
And the Supreme Court of your country almost certainly agrees with me.
You obviously don't have a clue what you're taling about here. I get the distinct impression that you know very little about SCOTUS. The words "seperate but equal" were chosen very deliberately by myself as they refer to a very specfic supreme court case in which it was decided that "sperate but equal" treament of black and whites was unconstitutional.
Don't try and tell me that 'reverse discrimination' doesn't help the problem. Is it 'reverse discrimination' to put ramps in front of buildings because a portion of our population are confined to wheelchairs?
No, it's just a really stupid analogy. Everyone with a functioning brain will freely admit that there are some things handicapped people simply cannot do. This is the whole reason the are called handicapped. It's the meaning of the term, for fuck's sake! This is fundamentally difference that a male vs female situation, where females are fundmentally capable of performing the job, but choose not to.
There's a difference between equal treatment and identical treatment.
Myself and the supreme court disagree with you. Or would you mind if all female children were sent to "seperate but equal" schools? (Perhaps with the stated purpose of encouraging more of them to go into tech.)
It's certainly not a false argument.
It certainly is. Specfic guns have been taken away, therefore your statement was obviously incorrect.
You have your own feelings about how effective and sensible these bans have been but the FACT of the situation is that they have happened.
But I am also aware that a 4-year-old can kill someone with a found handgun. Shocking, ain't it.
OMG! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!111!ONE
The argument that anthing that could be dangerous in the hands of a four year old should be withheld from adults is not a very good one, to say the least.
That might be common sense if I believed your 50% claim, but I'm not sure I do. Cite something, don't just assert it and call me nonsensical.
I had a source for that when I posted, but I'm too lazy to find it again. Inform yourself. I used google, so can you.
I might, if I'm a desperate junkie.
Are you a desperate junkie?
I also might if I think a sticker's cheaper than a gun to buy. But I really can't speculate - because its pointless to do so.
Speculation is only pointless if you're irrational. If you're willing to be honest with youself, reflection on a topic, can yield new insights.
Funny thing is, I'm waiting for a political party that would actually try to "take away our guns." Given that nobody has called for it, why do you keep fearing it? Ever heard of the psychological term, "castration fear"? It's an unreasonable fear.
You're putting forth a false argument. Certain lawmakers, particularly democrats such as Clinton certainly have "taken away" guns. They have passed legistlation to that effect.
So you're either:
a) lying about what has already happened
b) amazingly ignorant
c) refusing to acknowledge anything but a total ban on all fireams taking place in a single bill
Crime increases in the specific instance of outlawing handguns for private use. It would seem that when criminals feel emboldened, they are more aggresive in crimes like muggings. However this is the only circumstance where this holds up.
Bullshit, but it's nice that way you phrase it, because it only takes a single counterexample to disprove your broad generalization.
The chance of a burglar going to jail is EQUAL to the chance of a burglar getting shot if he breaks into an occupied home. You're suggesting that removing the more severe of the these two consquences is going to have no effect. Come on, use some common sense.
Are you going to bust into the home of someone with an NRA sticker on their door and a car in the driveway?
(People also seem to forget that no gun would leave people who live in the boonies with their ass hanging in the wind.)
Washington DC alone has the same number of gun deaths per year as all of Canada. Ponder that.
Gangs, duh. It's related to our stupid drug laws, in the way that Al Capone was related to prohibition. Note that Canada has saner laws on this issue.
It may come as a shock to you, but the primary cause of gun deaths is not that someone HAS a gun, but that they have a desire to use it.
No, they are more easily controlled by their gov't, because as long as you give them their precious little guns, they will vote for you and not complain about anything else (mentioning God doesn't hurt either). One good troll deserves another.
It's so frickin stupid how gun ownership is somehow NOT a civil liberty to "liberals".
* I'm an actual liberal, not a libertarian and not a democrat.
There are lots of guns in america. If you pass a law banning them, the MOST law-abiding segment of the population will give up their guns. Criminals, who by definition do not follow the law, will keep their guns.
Research proves this. Crime actually INCREASES when stricter gun laws are put into effect as the risk has now decreased for the criminals.
But even if the stats WEREN'T on my side I would still beleive in gun ownership by private citizens. The bill of rights is sort of a national philosophy. The first two things it says are:
I'm going to say what I want. I'm going to stick up for myself.
That's the country I was born in and the country I want to live in. I'm not willing to "give up liberty for security". (Or rather, a false sense of security.)
If I have a host named "porn" on my network, and I type "porn" into the address bar, I better damn well get the host I want and not some search.
That's not a problem with the concept it's a problem with the implementation.
Konqueror does this right:
just type in something => url
type "gg:something" and you get a google seach for something
It's both unambiguous, and not wasteful of screen real estate.
I believe that no invention is complete until it's capable of its own starring role in a nightmare.
:)
So why does it need to run? All it needs to do is be at least as fast a zombie! That's not very fast. (As long as you don't trip, it can't catch you
Since when should someone tell someone else what they should do with their money?
Ever since humans came together to form societies, that's when.
Or would you not mind if someone took a contract out on your life?
Let them piss it all away in one night if they want. It's their money and they can do what they want to with it, be it giving it all away, spending it on gambling, using it as a downpayment on a house, or putting it into their savings or an IRA.
Except that:
A) You should care about the welfare of your fellow man
B) If you're a lousy enough person not to care about his welfware, you still probably don't want that man to wind up ON welfare.
I mean in this day, is anyone really more than a few hours away from an Indian casino? Do you really need 24/7 access to gambling? It might be that the very few hours of distance is all that saves a lot of people from their self...
I'd say the problem isn't really gambling but the way our society allows gambling to be performed.
If you go into a bar and start slamming shots as fast as you can, the bartender has a responsibility to cut you off at some point. They say, "You've had enough, go home."
No such regulation exists for gambling. Sure whatever regulation you came up with might be inconvenient and imperfect, but at least someone wouldn't gamble away all their money in a single night.
Current policy of letting the indians do it and virtually no one else is just plain fucktarded.
Let's go a little further than that:
MAC addresses are not a secure authentication method. It's like asking someone's last name.
Let's say I'm joe blackhat with a laptop:
If you automate it, we're talking a matter of SECONDS here.
Security of this type is s total joke. There are right ways to protect a network and this is not one of them.
I'm a firm believer that Microsoft has its monopoly because Microsoft Office has consistently been the most robust office package on the market.
You can be a firm beleiver that pigs can fly, but MS had their monopoloy before Office even existed.
I will give you a personal reason, if not for believing in god I would be a violent criminal.
Then you are an unstable, dangerous person and need help.
Your mentality sounds just like that of a suicide bomber.
You have no honest commitment to you fellow man, only to a particular set of fairy tales.
Increased demand for Linux on the desktop? Highly unlikely. The machines still running Win98/ME are probably all older machines that keep on chugging.
Unless they get connected to the internet.
Then they get 0wned, and something must be done.
Nonsense. I've had someone attempt to take advantage of me through PayPal, and PayPal ate the cost.
Could you be a little more vague?
Know why? Because I actually read their instructions and followed the steps I'm required to follow in order to protect myself.
Which makes it sound like your incident was NOT phishing.
The only people who bear the cost of phishing are the people who refuse to follow PayPal's protection rules.
Characterizing victims of phising as people who deliberately refused to follow Paypal's rules is quite dishonest.
It would be interesting if one day, to get such an online account set up, they make you pass a short test, where they give you ten examples of people asking for your account information in various ways, and you have to answer "give them the information" or "report the incident to phishing.ebay.com". Anyone that answers "give them the information" on any of the questions doesn't get an account.
Why should ebay care? They don't bear the cost of phising, you do.
This is irrelevant to the subject. Even if the war is undeclared, we are fighting it without committing Acts of Terror.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Whether or not we are actually fighting a "war" is definately relevant to the subject at hand. The answer to this question might be inconvenient for you, but that does not make it irrelevant.
George W. Bush has neither committed, nor ordered to have committed a single Act of Terror. What you may be objecting to are his Acts of War, which are quite a different thing.
#1) Technically this isn't a war as congress has yet to declare war.
#2) Your unequivocal statement that Bush has done no wrong is, to put it simply: stupid. You are not in a position to know whether the president has done such things or not.
Next time stick to FACTS.
Its funny how eager everyone is to assume to worst of eBay,
There was no assumption being done here. Your statement was provably false and the term FUD is well defined.
But no, they didn't instantly approve a new payment system that's been around for a week... so we've all got to assume the worst.
Here's that word again. I defy you to point out this "assumption".
What it comes down to is that you for some reason are defending a policy allowing arbitrary discrimination on the part of ebay, a policy which is based in FUD. There is simply no defined set of criteria I can apply to determine if a given payment system meets this policy.
While google is a big name in other services, eBay has absolutely no way of verifying the security measures that Google Payments offer.
This is simply not true. Ebay has all sorts of means to verify this. For example, I'm sure Google would be more than happy to answer any questions that ebay has regarding their security polices. I'm sure the financial institutions that Google works with to provide this service would also be just as helpful.
The FUD is the whole "lack of a track record" claim. It's completely subjective. This isn't some fly-by-night operation without established credit or capital reserves, it's freakin Google. There's no credible evidence that there's a security issue here, there is only fear, uncertainty and doubt being spread on the part of ebay. It's the very definition of FUD.
I think 1 and 2 most likely, but doing all these as soon as possible would be a real kick in the balls for ebay.