It's implied. The immigrants at Ellis island weren't an army, and the current crop (legal and otherwise) are mostly peaceful people who want to live their lives. The tools that fly mexican flags in California schools are an exception. It's William the Conqueror, not Bill the Immigrant.
Nope. We showed up and 90% of the people dies from the diseases we brought. We then slaughtered the ones who didn't have backing from the british until you get what we have today. We weren't illegal aliens (no nation, anyway), we were conquerers.
My guess is this: split into two groups. The first group drives the target towards the second group, who lie in wait. While the target is engaged with group 1, group 2 ambushes it.
For example: before you deployed your wiki (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it was the first thing deployed) what was the risk to your organisation of an apache vulnerability being discovered (assuming that it is not used by your IT department as you implied)? The answer is none, now the risk is that the sensitive information may be disclosed. You may even be managing the risk by patching it quickly and segmenting the network, but the risk is not eliminated.
This is countered by the fact that the wiki isn't hosted on an IIS server maintained by muppets. Sounds like a fair trade to me.
My real issue however is that the owners of your company (either directly or through shareholders' abilities around appointing executive officers) have given a mandate to the IT department to manage IT assets and normally this includes management of IT risks.
Well, if you can't fire the IT department (and really, why not?), then avoid them.
Either intuitively or through formal assessment the IT department has a view that the risk profile is based around their infrastructure, while you and your department are deploying technology outside of that. How are the owner's, investors and customers supposed get comfort that as an organisation risks are being managed appropriately?
If they're muppets, what makes you think they did any of that? They installed Billware because that's what their biz school had. Seeing as how they can't keep it going, why should you expect that it's up to date, patch wise? You're presuming competence on the part of the IT department, even though it's clearly absent.
Evidence? How does more kinetic energy, and greater stopping distance, equal greater safety? Again, you are forgetting your physics.
Fuck physics - lok at accident rates. They went down when states raised their maximum speed limits.
The speed of the traffic should be the posted limit. So, are you saying that speed limigts should be 85% of the speed limit? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
Moron. the speed of what people are doing, not what you think they should do.
No, I don't see any.
Then go have a look. Or google New Rome, Ohio for a particularly egregious example.
You claimed you could handle ANYTHING that was thrown at you
Hyperbole. Look it up.
the attitude behind your speeding is the kind of thing that leads to the drug war and worse
No, my atitude is that I'm doing fine, leave me be. That's counter to the whole drug war thing. If you have a problem with leaving people alone, then go to hell.
In fact, speeding and impatience even gets you to work slower, because it is one of the major causes of congestion and accidents. If everybody slowed down, you'd actually get through traffic quicker.
I just leave later. Taht gets me there in less time.
But bad weather is far from the only problem that can arise. A pedestrian could suddenly run out onto the road.
Not on the interstate. Too much shoulder.
And 30 minutes is a totally insignificant time saving on a 150 mile journey.
Dude, that's 20%.
Pretty much. Because people know that murder and assault are wrong, and they will be punished.
So we only have the speed law to tell us when we're wrong? since when does the law say what's right?
People need to be told that speeding is dangerous
Why is that? Do you have any evidence that it is?
Also, murder is less of a problem for society than traffic safety violations.
No it isn't, because murder involves someone deliberately killing another without justification - much worse than a traffic fatality.
Do you not realize that speeding causes more problems on the roads?
No it doesn't. It causes less problems.
The 85th percentile of what about free-flowing traffic?
I dunno, maybe speed?
Yet you don't provide any evidence. Interesting. Or not.
why should I? Even in this thread there are multiple examples.
That's where youy are wrong. You are taking a significant risk
That's an asssertion, not substantiation.
The time savings, if they exist are extremely minimal.
Another assertion. Refutation: Roadtrip of 150 miles at ave. speed of 60 mph: 2.5 hrs. At ave. speed of 80 mph, just under 2 hr.
And you are reneging on the agreement you made to get your license. So, why should you be allowed to drive?
No tickets in the past 2-3 years, no points on my license.
But you njever know when "the shit" might arise. Are you psychic, or is this more of the superhuman ability thing?
Sure I do. Bad weather doesn't sneak up on you.
But you were chained to the track in my scenario. Are you Houdini now?
Then how is reflexes and training relevant?
The drug war is pretty bad, but I don't think it compares to the selfishness and arrogance of people, and their lack of concern for safety.
Fuck you. I don't go shooting up houses in the name of my right to speed (like the DEA does) or taking somebody's land because somebody speeds on it (local PD, this time). Speeding pales in comparison.
Road laws are the most important laws of all, because they don't infringe on rights, and they are there to actually protect people.
More than murder and assault laws? Get a grip, sparky.
Yeah, but what I'm looking for is someone who can relate to normal people. If your stepdad owns a car dealership in Arkansas, you probably party with the kids from the local HS, while BushCo is living it up in some prep school and getting their dad to make their draft notice disappear.
Speeding is causing a problem - that's why they bother.
What problem? Speeding is not a problem of itself.
The 85th percentile of what?
Dear god, you're arguing about speed limits and you don't even know. The 85th percentile of free flowing traffic.
What makes them unreasonable, and why can't this be debated?
Because it's been demonstrated time and time again. May as well stop believing in dogs.
You're a moron, because you undertake a large risk, and disobey the law, for basically no significant benefit.
You can't substantiate your objection to speeding on any other grounds, so you fall back on the legal one. No benefit? I get where I'm going faster, and for no signifigant risk.
And how do you know you can do it safely under all circumstances?
I slow down when I get in the shit, then go fast when it's nice.
Driving faster is inherently more risky than driving slower.
Until you get to 100, no it isn't. 60-90 is about the same; the only real factor is how fast the flow of traffic is. Vary from it at your peril.
You're obviously full of shit and reckless.
And you're incapable of spotting hyperbole.
Do you think you're superhuman or something? How about I throw a speeding train at you - I guess your superior ability would prevent you from being crushed to death.
Sure would. I'd use my superior intellect to get off the damn track.
the roads are full of jerks who think they can do whatever they want. It's probably the biggest social problem we have today
No, that'd be the drug war and the whole 'tough on crime BS' that's infested politics for 20 years.
Everybody get out of my way because I own the road! You motherfuckers who obey the speed limit are going TOO SLOW. I
Right. It's about enforcing the law. Which is what is happening. How else do you think they should be punished?
No, it's about keeping the peace. Speed laws are just a tool towards that end. If they aren't causing a problem, why bother them at all?
How are speeding laws unreasonable? IMO, they are the most reasonable and just laws in existence.
They aren't set at the 85th percentile, and they are frequently set at unreasonably low limits specifically to drive ticket revenue. This isn't something that's really up for debate.
Speeding laws were around a long time before speed cameras, and were enacted in response to dangerous accidents and fatalaties.
Moron. Speed laws were enacted in the 70s to conserve gas. It's things like safety glass and seatbelts that cut down on fatalities. When the limits were raised 10 years back, the fatalities went down.
See how that demonstrates that you're a moron? Even if you can drive fast safely, what reason do you have to do it? Why would you risk beoing fined and losing your license, just for a bit of extra speed?
Nope. You can't use the penalties for breaking a law when arguing for their reasonableness. To answer your question, i'm not risking much of anything. I go fast because I prefer to and I can do it safely.
Anyway - you only think you can drive fast without endangering others. The faster you go, the more dangerous you are, regardless of how good a driver you are
You haven't seen me drive, so kindly keep your mouth shut regarding my skill.
Anyway - you only think you can drive fast without endangering others. The faster you go, the more dangerous you are, regardless of how good a driver you are
Pop quiz: you're driving in traffic when you see a rash of brakelights ahead. At that moment, you hit a big puddle, so braking won't save you. Do you know which lane you can get into? Been there, done that, no repair bill, TYVM. Before you whinge about me being a bad boy for being in the situation at all, drive the DC beltway for a year or two in rush hour and see how you do.
My skills were forged by the most aggressive, nasty, and dense drivers in the country. I can damn well handle anything you throw at me.
The fact that some people have accidents while driving slowly is not a defense for you going fast.
The fact that those people have trouble maintaining a lane whilst going slowly points to them being worse drivers than me. I pay attention and keep my car in excellent condition, so I can go fast.
How many recent senators, representatives, or presidents can you name that ever in their life worked at a resteraunt or doing manual labor to put themselves through college?
Bill clinton comes to mind. Of course, everybody seems to hate him - son of a travelling salesman who died before his birth, born to no legacy in particular.
I think this is the geekish desire to win an argument by (supposedly) logical means, regardless of whether this logic is meaningful to the original intent and context of the point being discussed
Nah, it's a normal desire to win arguments by whatever means possible. Some people lie and misdirect, while others distort the argument beyond recognition, possibly to maintain some veneer of integrity.
What's wrong with fining people who are breaking the law?
Read what I wrote: law enforcement is not about making money.
If so many people weren't breaking the law, how would they be able to "raise revenue"?
Or perhaps the law is an ass and was set the way it is to make money.
Huh? If you're breaking the posted speed limit, you are a moron. See how they're directly related?
No I don't. I can drive fast without endangering others, while some soccer mom toddles along doing 45 in a 55 talking on her phone and (woops) runs over some guy on a bike.
Most state governments have huge deficits because of health care costs these days. Extra revenue from speeding with the added benefit as a deterrent seems like a win-win to me.
If you need more money, cut services or raise taxes. Using the legal system to get revenue perverts the purpose and leads to things like raiding a company and taking their computers for the police department's use.
Drive safe, and you get more money to spend, drive like a moron, give up some cash.
Driving fasat has little to do with driving like a moron.
Slashdot Mirror
It's implied. The immigrants at Ellis island weren't an army, and the current crop (legal and otherwise) are mostly peaceful people who want to live their lives. The tools that fly mexican flags in California schools are an exception. It's William the Conqueror, not Bill the Immigrant.
immigrant implies that the destination has a unified government and peaceful migration. We weren't immigrants - we were conquerers.
Nah, Microsoft actually gets things done.
which would then precipitate a bunch of dead corporate officers.
Nope. We showed up and 90% of the people dies from the diseases we brought. We then slaughtered the ones who didn't have backing from the british until you get what we have today. We weren't illegal aliens (no nation, anyway), we were conquerers.
By the way, isn't it better that they're putting their money into the bank system, where it can be reinvested back into the economy?
That'd be nice, but they're sending it to Mexico, where money from illegal workers abroad is the number one income source for the country.
I see your lips move, but you aren't saying anything...
My guess is this: split into two groups. The first group drives the target towards the second group, who lie in wait. While the target is engaged with group 1, group 2 ambushes it.
Yes, you surely know every app they are going to need and have pre-installed it for them.
For the most part, yes. If not, then it must be approved for consumption and licensed.
And every application you haven't heard of is probably a virus.
More than you want to consider.
Of course, if you had setup their permissions properly then they couldn't install applications anyway.
This proves you've never had to try this. MS Engineers can't do it half the time - what makes you think you can?
If you don't let people visit web sites, can they bring in books and newspapers?
If I can't go to bangbros.com, can I bring in some amateur porn?
Then you are a jerk.
Or just tired of rereading the manual to yet another cretin
I'm glad I got to find you and finally say it.
"I'm a myopic cretin, and I'm not going to take it any more!"
If they're using classified data, they aren't internet connected. If they aren't classified, who cares about the security? Just sweet talk a worker.
For example: before you deployed your wiki (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it was the first thing deployed) what was the risk to your organisation of an apache vulnerability being discovered (assuming that it is not used by your IT department as you implied)? The answer is none, now the risk is that the sensitive information may be disclosed. You may even be managing the risk by patching it quickly and segmenting the network, but the risk is not eliminated.
This is countered by the fact that the wiki isn't hosted on an IIS server maintained by muppets. Sounds like a fair trade to me.
My real issue however is that the owners of your company (either directly or through shareholders' abilities around appointing executive officers) have given a mandate to the IT department to manage IT assets and normally this includes management of IT risks.
Well, if you can't fire the IT department (and really, why not?), then avoid them.
Either intuitively or through formal assessment the IT department has a view that the risk profile is based around their infrastructure, while you and your department are deploying technology outside of that. How are the owner's, investors and customers supposed get comfort that as an organisation risks are being managed appropriately?
If they're muppets, what makes you think they did any of that? They installed Billware because that's what their biz school had. Seeing as how they can't keep it going, why should you expect that it's up to date, patch wise? You're presuming competence on the part of the IT department, even though it's clearly absent.
Evidence? How does more kinetic energy, and greater stopping distance, equal greater safety? Again, you are forgetting your physics.
Fuck physics - lok at accident rates. They went down when states raised their maximum speed limits.
The speed of the traffic should be the posted limit. So, are you saying that speed limigts should be 85% of the speed limit? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
Moron. the speed of what people are doing, not what you think they should do.
No, I don't see any.
Then go have a look. Or google New Rome, Ohio for a particularly egregious example.
You claimed you could handle ANYTHING that was thrown at you
Hyperbole. Look it up.
the attitude behind your speeding is the kind of thing that leads to the drug war and worse
No, my atitude is that I'm doing fine, leave me be. That's counter to the whole drug war thing. If you have a problem with leaving people alone, then go to hell.
In fact, speeding and impatience even gets you to work slower, because it is one of the major causes of congestion and accidents. If everybody slowed down, you'd actually get through traffic quicker.
I just leave later. Taht gets me there in less time.
But bad weather is far from the only problem that can arise. A pedestrian could suddenly run out onto the road.
Not on the interstate. Too much shoulder.
And 30 minutes is a totally insignificant time saving on a 150 mile journey.
Dude, that's 20%.
Pretty much. Because people know that murder and assault are wrong, and they will be punished.
So we only have the speed law to tell us when we're wrong? since when does the law say what's right?
People need to be told that speeding is dangerous
Why is that? Do you have any evidence that it is?
Also, murder is less of a problem for society than traffic safety violations.
No it isn't, because murder involves someone deliberately killing another without justification - much worse than a traffic fatality.
Sorry bud, but it's not worth it - there are plenty of leggy blondes with a brain to match, so why bother with ditzes?
Be sure to let Jimbo Wales know he's an idiot for doing it that way.
Yeah, because the consequences of a random edit living for an hour are so dire compared to leaving credit card numbers on a public server.
Do you not realize that speeding causes more problems on the roads?
No it doesn't. It causes less problems.
The 85th percentile of what about free-flowing traffic?
I dunno, maybe speed?
Yet you don't provide any evidence. Interesting. Or not.
why should I? Even in this thread there are multiple examples.
That's where youy are wrong. You are taking a significant risk
That's an asssertion, not substantiation.
The time savings, if they exist are extremely minimal.
Another assertion. Refutation: Roadtrip of 150 miles at ave. speed of 60 mph: 2.5 hrs. At ave. speed of 80 mph, just under 2 hr.
And you are reneging on the agreement you made to get your license. So, why should you be allowed to drive?
No tickets in the past 2-3 years, no points on my license.
But you njever know when "the shit" might arise. Are you psychic, or is this more of the superhuman ability thing?
Sure I do. Bad weather doesn't sneak up on you.
But you were chained to the track in my scenario. Are you Houdini now?
Then how is reflexes and training relevant?
The drug war is pretty bad, but I don't think it compares to the selfishness and arrogance of people, and their lack of concern for safety.
Fuck you. I don't go shooting up houses in the name of my right to speed (like the DEA does) or taking somebody's land because somebody speeds on it (local PD, this time). Speeding pales in comparison.
Road laws are the most important laws of all, because they don't infringe on rights, and they are there to actually protect people.
More than murder and assault laws? Get a grip, sparky.
Yeah, but what I'm looking for is someone who can relate to normal people. If your stepdad owns a car dealership in Arkansas, you probably party with the kids from the local HS, while BushCo is living it up in some prep school and getting their dad to make their draft notice disappear.
Speeding is causing a problem - that's why they bother.
What problem? Speeding is not a problem of itself.
The 85th percentile of what?
Dear god, you're arguing about speed limits and you don't even know. The 85th percentile of free flowing traffic.
What makes them unreasonable, and why can't this be debated?
Because it's been demonstrated time and time again. May as well stop believing in dogs.
You're a moron, because you undertake a large risk, and disobey the law, for basically no significant benefit.
You can't substantiate your objection to speeding on any other grounds, so you fall back on the legal one. No benefit? I get where I'm going faster, and for no signifigant risk.
And how do you know you can do it safely under all circumstances?
I slow down when I get in the shit, then go fast when it's nice.
Driving faster is inherently more risky than driving slower.
Until you get to 100, no it isn't. 60-90 is about the same; the only real factor is how fast the flow of traffic is. Vary from it at your peril.
You're obviously full of shit and reckless.
And you're incapable of spotting hyperbole.
Do you think you're superhuman or something? How about I throw a speeding train at you - I guess your superior ability would prevent you from being crushed to death.
Sure would. I'd use my superior intellect to get off the damn track.
the roads are full of jerks who think they can do whatever they want. It's probably the biggest social problem we have today
No, that'd be the drug war and the whole 'tough on crime BS' that's infested politics for 20 years.
Everybody get out of my way because I own the road! You motherfuckers who obey the speed limit are going TOO SLOW. I
Slower traffic keep right :)
I don't really care about the physical labor part - who cares if you work a crap job washing dishes or get a scholarship? The point is common roots.
Right. It's about enforcing the law. Which is what is happening. How else do you think they should be punished?
No, it's about keeping the peace. Speed laws are just a tool towards that end. If they aren't causing a problem, why bother them at all?
How are speeding laws unreasonable? IMO, they are the most reasonable and just laws in existence.
They aren't set at the 85th percentile, and they are frequently set at unreasonably low limits specifically to drive ticket revenue. This isn't something that's really up for debate.
Speeding laws were around a long time before speed cameras, and were enacted in response to dangerous accidents and fatalaties.
Moron. Speed laws were enacted in the 70s to conserve gas. It's things like safety glass and seatbelts that cut down on fatalities. When the limits were raised 10 years back, the fatalities went down.
See how that demonstrates that you're a moron? Even if you can drive fast safely, what reason do you have to do it? Why would you risk beoing fined and losing your license, just for a bit of extra speed?
Nope. You can't use the penalties for breaking a law when arguing for their reasonableness. To answer your question, i'm not risking much of anything. I go fast because I prefer to and I can do it safely.
Anyway - you only think you can drive fast without endangering others. The faster you go, the more dangerous you are, regardless of how good a driver you are
You haven't seen me drive, so kindly keep your mouth shut regarding my skill.
Anyway - you only think you can drive fast without endangering others. The faster you go, the more dangerous you are, regardless of how good a driver you are
Pop quiz: you're driving in traffic when you see a rash of brakelights ahead. At that moment, you hit a big puddle, so braking won't save you. Do you know which lane you can get into? Been there, done that, no repair bill, TYVM. Before you whinge about me being a bad boy for being in the situation at all, drive the DC beltway for a year or two in rush hour and see how you do.
My skills were forged by the most aggressive, nasty, and dense drivers in the country. I can damn well handle anything you throw at me.
The fact that some people have accidents while driving slowly is not a defense for you going fast.
The fact that those people have trouble maintaining a lane whilst going slowly points to them being worse drivers than me. I pay attention and keep my car in excellent condition, so I can go fast.
How many recent senators, representatives, or presidents can you name that ever in their life worked at a resteraunt or doing manual labor to put themselves through college?
Bill clinton comes to mind. Of course, everybody seems to hate him - son of a travelling salesman who died before his birth, born to no legacy in particular.
I think this is the geekish desire to win an argument by (supposedly) logical means, regardless of whether this logic is meaningful to the original intent and context of the point being discussed
Nah, it's a normal desire to win arguments by whatever means possible. Some people lie and misdirect, while others distort the argument beyond recognition, possibly to maintain some veneer of integrity.
And why exactly does that justify breaking the law while not on duty?
He didn't break any laws - the ambulance had its lights on, there was nowhere to turn out of the way, and so the safest thing to do was drive fast.
Power corrupts. It has already started working its magic on your buddy, who thinks nothing of breaking one of the laws he is sworn to uphold
Yeah, like speed laws get respect from other people.
What's wrong with fining people who are breaking the law?
Read what I wrote: law enforcement is not about making money.
If so many people weren't breaking the law, how would they be able to "raise revenue"?
Or perhaps the law is an ass and was set the way it is to make money.
Huh? If you're breaking the posted speed limit, you are a moron. See how they're directly related?
No I don't. I can drive fast without endangering others, while some soccer mom toddles along doing 45 in a 55 talking on her phone and (woops) runs over some guy on a bike.
Most state governments have huge deficits because of health care costs these days. Extra revenue from speeding with the added benefit as a deterrent seems like a win-win to me.
If you need more money, cut services or raise taxes. Using the legal system to get revenue perverts the purpose and leads to things like raiding a company and taking their computers for the police department's use.
Drive safe, and you get more money to spend, drive like a moron, give up some cash.
Driving fasat has little to do with driving like a moron.