If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
It should be obvious that if nobody was allowed to have a gun, then gun packing criminals would be able to target anyone who doesn't look like an undercover police officer. Just the possibility of someone having a gun probably makes them more cautious. I might not have a gun, but I would not like to advertise to the world that I do not have a gun. I might have one, or maybe not. If someone stops by your house and asks you to sign a petition against gun ownership, you might not want to sign it.
If you go to a hospital in an economically depressed area, you have a lot of people coming in with trivial issues that have no place in an ER. They're not paying for it, why should they care? And they have nothing else to do, so waiting in ER for a runny nose isn't a problem for them. This is our future with universal health care.
Instead, go to one in an affluent community and you will see lower wait times and people coming in with more serious health problems.
I'm assuming he didn't just hook it up raw, and that there was some sort of protection hardware/software you couldn't easily see that Silva's computer was able to get around. I think the incident was supposed to be more indicative of Silva's competence than Q's.
What I found far less believable was that the key for this brilliant hacker's "polymorphic encryption" (the tangled web of lines, shapes, and scrolling hex code) had the cipher key stored in plaintext, which was also easily visible to a virtually computer-illiterate old man in a stream of hex values.
Why hook it up? You would think they would disassemble the disk, then scan the platters for old and new data.
Skyfall spoiler!!!!
stop
reading
you
have
not
seen
the
movie
yet
!
They referenced Q on Skyfall as an example. Idiot hooked up Silva's laptop to the MI6 network and then powered it up. An experienced IT person would know that would be a very stupid thing to do.
If you work in IT, learning new technology is part of your career, it never stops, you're doing it all the time.We know the old tech and the new tech. Anyone who states otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.
Also, if you have one of their older routers, your wifi speed will suck at 802.11g speeds(~28Mbps). You might have to get tech support to ship you a newer router that supports 802.11n to get faster speeds over wifi.
Now, the major problem with things like soda isn't that it is soda, it's that it is a high calorie beverage that gives you zero nutritional value. That means to get proteins and nutrients, you have to eat other things which also have calories and you will become hungry for those things because your body won't allow you to fall over dead without letting you know something is missing. You get fat from soda because you have to eat other things with it. That goes even for diet soda (to a lesser extent). It also goes for anything that is high density fat/carbs, but lacks nutrition you need.
So, if BPA has made an epidemic of anything, I'd say it was more like an epidemic of being "slightly chubby", but not one of obesity.
I agree that non-diet soda is very bad for you. But the real problem is that sugar drinks allow you to induce ridiculous amounts of sugar into your system at a very fast rate and unless you have an urgent need for it, it's probably going to fat, not to mention the insulin issues afterwards. Non-sugar soda doesn't have this problem.
Fruit juice is bad for the same reason. If you ate the fruit instead of extracting the sweet juice directly from it and drinking it, your body would process it over a longer period of time instead of giving you a quick sugar rush.
When I was a kid, the McDonald's large was the size of their smallest adult cup today, and the largest sandwich you could buy was a single quarter pound of meat.
At least as far back as 1982 you could get a double quarter pounder with cheese, you just had to ask for it and they would make it for you. You would be surprised at how flexable they can be.
I never said that -- for example, Dale's Pale Ale comes in a can and is one of the best IPAs that I have ever had. My point was only that very few good beers come in both. Some that are have no comparison -- Guinness in a bottle is Extra Stout, not the same stuff that gets canned.
The Guinness in a bottle with the rocket widget is not the Extra Stout.
It was over 16 years ago and I bought a quarter pound at a time, $400-$500 a qp. Divide it into multiple bags, put them in the freezer. You build up a tolerance and it takes more and more to get high. I didn't have to smoke all the time, I used a rolling machine and made huge joints. Must be a lot stronger than it used to be if you can't smoke an ounce a week.
The wager was regarding my knowledge and experience regarding marijuana. Obviously you were way too stoned to remember. I'm impressed. Smoke another one.
Hypothetically because smaller cars are less safe. Not that I subscribe to that theory.
I think it might be "lighter cars" are less safe. Usually, it's the same, but hybrid cars do better in crashes with their higher weight compared to non-hybrid versions. And I'm assuming some of these cars are going to be hybrids.
Of course "smart cars" are both small and light! A perfect choice over a certain age.
I'll bet $100 all you know is what you've uncritically read in the sensationalist media. For instance, you seem to think marijuana addiction exists. There is no scientific basis for this idea, as you should know if you want to engage in a serious discussion with your teenager about what you believe the risks to be. Talking about marijuana addicts just makes you look ridiculous, I'm afraid, and that is why you fail.
I'll take that bet.
I used to smoke an ounce a week for ~12 years. A lot of my peers also smoked a lot, some more than me. Eventually my job became too mentally demanding to keep that up, so I quit smoking pot. It was really tough, especially when trying to sleep, I ended up drinking at night to help sleep, but I eventually was able to stop that as well. Even when you're not high, there's still an impact to your abilities that seem to last a couple of days. It's also nice to not have to stress about your supply running out, and it saves a lot of money. My ex-wife had a seriously strong psychological dependence on it. Eventually it was causing financial issues and if we had just enough for the mortgage, she would still take out money for her fix and cause the mortgage check to bounce. The number one priority in her life was pot! Eventually that and other issues ended the marriage.
Propaganda; n. Any material which proposes to sway a reader to form a conclusion that conflicts with your own.
Not the best definition. Ironically, it's bad enough to resemble propaganda, since propaganda usually involves "lying by omission".
Are medical experts who warn of the dangers of tobacco use to tobacco addicts spreading propaganda or is it anti-propaganda? I'm sure there are plenty of tobacco addicts who think that medical experts are wrong. And they'll explain why with their rasping smoker's voice coming out of their wrinkly leather-like face.
Are math teachers using propaganda when they teach?
And cue the queue of stoners attempting to defend their addiction.
Desperate attempts to rationalize the use of marijuana is one of the signs of addiction. They're big on pointing out some benefits, but ignore all of the mental and physical problems associated with it.
Teenagers who are in the "I know everything" stage can be very frustrating when you try to explain the dangers.
Small-pox was only eradicated because of the vaccine. If people were opting out of the vaccine, it would still be around today and we would still need the vaccine. But because of aggressive world-wide vaccination programs, it was eradicated and now we do not need the vaccine any more. Eventually, measles will also be eradicated the same way, and then we can cross another vaccine off the required list.
If we can eradicate other less harmful diseases the same way, then why not? Chicken-pox might not cause as many deaths, but it is still painfully fatal to some. Why would you want to play that lottery? Why not eliminate chicken pox the same way? Even if you survive it, there's a one in three chance of developing shingles when you get older, and that's going to suck, you'll wish you never got it in the first place.
For those thinking the pharmaceutical companies would love the increased profits of everyone being forced to be vaccinated, think about this. Until a disease is eradicated, they will make a continuous profit from the never-ending vaccinations needed because of those who insist on propagating the disease.
Malaria caused a selection for sickle-cell anemia. The ability to survive does not have to mean survival of the fittest.
One of our strongest attributes is supposed to be our brains and the ability to work out solutions and/or create tools to help us survive adversity. It should be clear by now that if we were to try and survive in the wild without using even the most primitive of tools or our capacity to reason, most of us would fail. Though eventually selection of the physically stronger, faster, tougher and more vicious would probably make us more like our primitive ancestors.
Another consideration is that the children who "SURVIVED" grew up with immunity to diseases like chicken-pox. I chose the vaccine for my daughter because I did not want her to be one of the few who died. It's stupid lottery to play.
I am curious about what the real correlation would be, there are a lot of factors that make it seem like democrats prefer Apple, but I suspect they don't.
For example, the states employing the most IT employees are also states that are more strongly democratic. A lot of companies will subsidize cell phones for their IT employees to use instead of pagers. If the top choices are Apple and Blackberry, then they end up with those and the results are skewed.
If a study is done that looks at what choice is made when "they have a choice of any phone", then that might be a better indication. I suspect independents prefer android, because they don't like restrictions of choice.
The rest of the choices are obviously Republican!;)
Just look at the sales numbers for things like Galaxy Note, Galaxy S3, and HTC One X.
Huge screens = huge sales.
Personally, I'm salivating over the Galaxy Note 2, which should have an even bigger screen than the original.
And is that proof that people want big screens? No. The iPhone is much smaller than those but outsells them all put together. Is that proof people want smaller screens? No.
First, I think there's a case to be made around sales numbers not reflecting customer interest in individual features. Consumer electronics sales seem to be mostly driven by advertising, not utility.
I think you might be comparing Apple's against our ranges. If the same generation iphones came in two sizes, but were otherwise identical, and yet the smaller version was preferred, you might have a point.
But android phones can be different sizes and similar features. This allows those who prefer smaller phones to get what they want and those who prefer larger phones to get what they want.
Some of us are big and tall with big hands that tend to be a lot more comfortable with bigger screens. Because we are bigger and stronger, we can easily carry the bigger phones like they were small toys and we have bigger pockets to put them in. Don't try to tell us that we should prefer smallish screens that cause us to squint and accidentally finger the wrong hyperlink. Be happy that we have choices, unless you are an Apple iphone user that is worried that their "ONE CHOICE" will be too big.
Honestly, if I can casually use a larger phone and it feels more comfortable in my hand, then it makes more sense for me to use a larger phone since I use it a lot and I can make better use of a larger display. You don't see people(normal people) complaining about their monitor being too big. So obviously people like a larger display if they can comfortably handle them.
A man looks at a line on the map and thinks, "on this side, my children go to poor schools until 3rd grade and then start a lifetime of manual labor. They'll have no more than I. On that side of the invisible line, they go to good schools and maybe work hard to become a doctor." Then he steps over the line.
On this side of the door there's a street. On the other side of the door is a "stereo system", hdtv, home computer, maybe some jewelry.
They know they are crossing a boundary illegally. If they can't respect the boundaries of our country, state, city, then will they at least respect our own private property? That doesn't seem to be the case since they do a lot of trespassing on private property to get into the country. When does it stop? At our possessions, our bodies, our lives? There are a lot of invisible lines that our country is supposed to protect, physical or otherwise. There are laws dictating that it's supposed to protect those lines, and everyone knows that. I could cross those lines and rationalize that I'm doing it to improve the quality of life for my daughter. I could steal so that she has more money for a college education, but I don't. Instead I work hard and pay taxes and meanwhile there are millions crossing many invisible lines to get what they want. And then a portion of my taxes are being used to support those same people.
I don't think "fiscal conservative" means what you think it does. You might find anarchist a better fit.
So we have a few tens of millions of decent people who want to work hard at good jobs to send their kids to the schools they themselves didn't have.
Decent? They broke federal law by illegally entering our country. If they drive a car, then they are breaking more laws. If they are using falsified identification they are breaking another law. Are you naive enough to think that they only break three laws and that's it? Those are some pretty serious laws. I don't know of any "decent" people who would consider doing any of those actions. If you can break all of those laws, then drug dealing, theft, joining a gang, etc. are very easy to do. They have already displayed a blatant disrespect for some our laws, don't expect them to respect our remaining laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple:
A cool turban logo with the words "I hack you!"
Do they make turbans in the shape of a dunce cap?
Maybe we should make dunce caps in the shape of turbans?
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
It should be obvious that if nobody was allowed to have a gun, then gun packing criminals would be able to target anyone who doesn't look like an undercover police officer. Just the possibility of someone having a gun probably makes them more cautious. I might not have a gun, but I would not like to advertise to the world that I do not have a gun. I might have one, or maybe not. If someone stops by your house and asks you to sign a petition against gun ownership, you might not want to sign it.
So when the invader comes you have to go get the gun out of the safe before he shoots you? I hope you remember the code under that kind of pressure!
By the same logic, a panic room would be much more effective.
You don't put guns in the gun safe. You booby trap the gun safe for when they beat the code out of you.
If you go to a hospital in an economically depressed area, you have a lot of people coming in with trivial issues that have no place in an ER. They're not paying for it, why should they care? And they have nothing else to do, so waiting in ER for a runny nose isn't a problem for them. This is our future with universal health care.
Instead, go to one in an affluent community and you will see lower wait times and people coming in with more serious health problems.
I'm assuming he didn't just hook it up raw, and that there was some sort of protection hardware/software you couldn't easily see that Silva's computer was able to get around. I think the incident was supposed to be more indicative of Silva's competence than Q's.
What I found far less believable was that the key for this brilliant hacker's "polymorphic encryption" (the tangled web of lines, shapes, and scrolling hex code) had the cipher key stored in plaintext, which was also easily visible to a virtually computer-illiterate old man in a stream of hex values.
Why hook it up? You would think they would disassemble the disk, then scan the platters for old and new data.
The plain text password was funny.
They referenced Q on Skyfall as an example. Idiot hooked up Silva's laptop to the MI6 network and then powered it up. An experienced IT person would know that would be a very stupid thing to do.
If you work in IT, learning new technology is part of your career, it never stops, you're doing it all the time.We know the old tech and the new tech. Anyone who states otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.
Also, if you have one of their older routers, your wifi speed will suck at 802.11g speeds(~28Mbps). You might have to get tech support to ship you a newer router that supports 802.11n to get faster speeds over wifi.
Now, the major problem with things like soda isn't that it is soda, it's that it is a high calorie beverage that gives you zero nutritional value. That means to get proteins and nutrients, you have to eat other things which also have calories and you will become hungry for those things because your body won't allow you to fall over dead without letting you know something is missing. You get fat from soda because you have to eat other things with it. That goes even for diet soda (to a lesser extent). It also goes for anything that is high density fat/carbs, but lacks nutrition you need.
So, if BPA has made an epidemic of anything, I'd say it was more like an epidemic of being "slightly chubby", but not one of obesity.
I agree that non-diet soda is very bad for you. But the real problem is that sugar drinks allow you to induce ridiculous amounts of sugar into your system at a very fast rate and unless you have an urgent need for it, it's probably going to fat, not to mention the insulin issues afterwards. Non-sugar soda doesn't have this problem.
Fruit juice is bad for the same reason. If you ate the fruit instead of extracting the sweet juice directly from it and drinking it, your body would process it over a longer period of time instead of giving you a quick sugar rush.
Looks like you were modded down for telling the truth. Makes you wonder how many "fat asses" are on /.
Maybe sending BPA supplements to places suffering from famine would help?
Does a "Hormonal Imbalance" allow one to defy the first law of thermodynamics?
When I was a kid, the McDonald's large was the size of their smallest adult cup today, and the largest sandwich you could buy was a single quarter pound of meat.
At least as far back as 1982 you could get a double quarter pounder with cheese, you just had to ask for it and they would make it for you. You would be surprised at how flexable they can be.
I never said that -- for example, Dale's Pale Ale comes in a can and is one of the best IPAs that I have ever had. My point was only that very few good beers come in both. Some that are have no comparison -- Guinness in a bottle is Extra Stout, not the same stuff that gets canned.
The Guinness in a bottle with the rocket widget is not the Extra Stout.
It was over 16 years ago and I bought a quarter pound at a time, $400-$500 a qp. Divide it into multiple bags, put them in the freezer. You build up a tolerance and it takes more and more to get high. I didn't have to smoke all the time, I used a rolling machine and made huge joints. Must be a lot stronger than it used to be if you can't smoke an ounce a week.
The wager was regarding my knowledge and experience regarding marijuana. Obviously you were way too stoned to remember. I'm impressed. Smoke another one.
Hypothetically because smaller cars are less safe. Not that I subscribe to that theory.
I think it might be "lighter cars" are less safe. Usually, it's the same, but hybrid cars do better in crashes with their higher weight compared to non-hybrid versions. And I'm assuming some of these cars are going to be hybrids.
Of course "smart cars" are both small and light! A perfect choice over a certain age.
I'll bet $100 all you know is what you've uncritically read in the sensationalist media. For instance, you seem to think marijuana addiction exists. There is no scientific basis for this idea, as you should know if you want to engage in a serious discussion with your teenager about what you believe the risks to be. Talking about marijuana addicts just makes you look ridiculous, I'm afraid, and that is why you fail.
I'll take that bet.
I used to smoke an ounce a week for ~12 years. A lot of my peers also smoked a lot, some more than me. Eventually my job became too mentally demanding to keep that up, so I quit smoking pot. It was really tough, especially when trying to sleep, I ended up drinking at night to help sleep, but I eventually was able to stop that as well. Even when you're not high, there's still an impact to your abilities that seem to last a couple of days. It's also nice to not have to stress about your supply running out, and it saves a lot of money. My ex-wife had a seriously strong psychological dependence on it. Eventually it was causing financial issues and if we had just enough for the mortgage, she would still take out money for her fix and cause the mortgage check to bounce. The number one priority in her life was pot! Eventually that and other issues ended the marriage.
I'll take that $100 now, please.
Propaganda; n. Any material which proposes to sway a reader to form a conclusion that conflicts with your own.
Not the best definition. Ironically, it's bad enough to resemble propaganda, since propaganda usually involves "lying by omission".
Are medical experts who warn of the dangers of tobacco use to tobacco addicts spreading propaganda or is it anti-propaganda? I'm sure there are plenty of tobacco addicts who think that medical experts are wrong. And they'll explain why with their rasping smoker's voice coming out of their wrinkly leather-like face.
Are math teachers using propaganda when they teach?
And cue the queue of stoners attempting to defend their addiction.
Desperate attempts to rationalize the use of marijuana is one of the signs of addiction. They're big on pointing out some benefits, but ignore all of the mental and physical problems associated with it.
Teenagers who are in the "I know everything" stage can be very frustrating when you try to explain the dangers.
You are absolutely correct. I should have said something like "survival of the healthiest".
Small-pox was only eradicated because of the vaccine. If people were opting out of the vaccine, it would still be around today and we would still need the vaccine. But because of aggressive world-wide vaccination programs, it was eradicated and now we do not need the vaccine any more. Eventually, measles will also be eradicated the same way, and then we can cross another vaccine off the required list.
If we can eradicate other less harmful diseases the same way, then why not? Chicken-pox might not cause as many deaths, but it is still painfully fatal to some. Why would you want to play that lottery? Why not eliminate chicken pox the same way? Even if you survive it, there's a one in three chance of developing shingles when you get older, and that's going to suck, you'll wish you never got it in the first place.
For those thinking the pharmaceutical companies would love the increased profits of everyone being forced to be vaccinated, think about this. Until a disease is eradicated, they will make a continuous profit from the never-ending vaccinations needed because of those who insist on propagating the disease.
Interesting how "my body, my choice" has such limited applicability.
Typhoid Mary would agree you if she were alive today.
Malaria caused a selection for sickle-cell anemia. The ability to survive does not have to mean survival of the fittest.
One of our strongest attributes is supposed to be our brains and the ability to work out solutions and/or create tools to help us survive adversity. It should be clear by now that if we were to try and survive in the wild without using even the most primitive of tools or our capacity to reason, most of us would fail. Though eventually selection of the physically stronger, faster, tougher and more vicious would probably make us more like our primitive ancestors.
Another consideration is that the children who "SURVIVED" grew up with immunity to diseases like chicken-pox. I chose the vaccine for my daughter because I did not want her to be one of the few who died. It's stupid lottery to play.
Nice try!
I am curious about what the real correlation would be, there are a lot of factors that make it seem like democrats prefer Apple, but I suspect they don't.
For example, the states employing the most IT employees are also states that are more strongly democratic. A lot of companies will subsidize cell phones for their IT employees to use instead of pagers. If the top choices are Apple and Blackberry, then they end up with those and the results are skewed.
If a study is done that looks at what choice is made when "they have a choice of any phone", then that might be a better indication. I suspect independents prefer android, because they don't like restrictions of choice.
The rest of the choices are obviously Republican! ;)
Just look at the sales numbers for things like Galaxy Note, Galaxy S3, and HTC One X.
Huge screens = huge sales.
Personally, I'm salivating over the Galaxy Note 2, which should have an even bigger screen than the original.
And is that proof that people want big screens? No. The iPhone is much smaller than those but outsells them all put together. Is that proof people want smaller screens? No.
First, I think there's a case to be made around sales numbers not reflecting customer interest in individual features. Consumer electronics sales seem to be mostly driven by advertising, not utility.
I think you might be comparing Apple's against our ranges. If the same generation iphones came in two sizes, but were otherwise identical, and yet the smaller version was preferred, you might have a point.
But android phones can be different sizes and similar features. This allows those who prefer smaller phones to get what they want and those who prefer larger phones to get what they want.
Some of us are big and tall with big hands that tend to be a lot more comfortable with bigger screens. Because we are bigger and stronger, we can easily carry the bigger phones like they were small toys and we have bigger pockets to put them in. Don't try to tell us that we should prefer smallish screens that cause us to squint and accidentally finger the wrong hyperlink. Be happy that we have choices, unless you are an Apple iphone user that is worried that their "ONE CHOICE" will be too big.
Honestly, if I can casually use a larger phone and it feels more comfortable in my hand, then it makes more sense for me to use a larger phone since I use it a lot and I can make better use of a larger display. You don't see people(normal people) complaining about their monitor being too big. So obviously people like a larger display if they can comfortably handle them.
A man looks at a line on the map and thinks, "on this side, my children go to poor schools until 3rd grade and then start a lifetime of manual labor. They'll have no more than I. On that side of the invisible line, they go to good schools and maybe work hard to become a doctor." Then he steps over the line.
On this side of the door there's a street. On the other side of the door is a "stereo system", hdtv, home computer, maybe some jewelry.
They know they are crossing a boundary illegally. If they can't respect the boundaries of our country, state, city, then will they at least respect our own private property? That doesn't seem to be the case since they do a lot of trespassing on private property to get into the country. When does it stop? At our possessions, our bodies, our lives? There are a lot of invisible lines that our country is supposed to protect, physical or otherwise. There are laws dictating that it's supposed to protect those lines, and everyone knows that. I could cross those lines and rationalize that I'm doing it to improve the quality of life for my daughter. I could steal so that she has more money for a college education, but I don't. Instead I work hard and pay taxes and meanwhile there are millions crossing many invisible lines to get what they want. And then a portion of my taxes are being used to support those same people.
I don't think "fiscal conservative" means what you think it does. You might find anarchist a better fit.
So we have a few tens of millions of decent people who want to work hard at good jobs to send their kids to the schools they themselves didn't have.
Decent? They broke federal law by illegally entering our country. If they drive a car, then they are breaking more laws. If they are using falsified identification they are breaking another law. Are you naive enough to think that they only break three laws and that's it? Those are some pretty serious laws. I don't know of any "decent" people who would consider doing any of those actions. If you can break all of those laws, then drug dealing, theft, joining a gang, etc. are very easy to do. They have already displayed a blatant disrespect for some our laws, don't expect them to respect our remaining laws.