...if you think it's not stopping you from doing your job.
That is the exact problem right there (emphasis mine). The whole point of vision tests and minimum requirements is to decide if an astronaut's vision would keep them from doing their job. And the people developing and administering the tests are far better qualified to determine that than an emotionally-biased astronaut who is directly and strongly affected by the outcome.
California can pass any law they want. It doesn't mean the law will be constitutional, but they can pass it nonetheless. Of course, they're only going to pass laws that they think would stand up in court. Otherwise it would be a waste of their time to even bother. But what they think will stand up and what will actually stand up can sometimes be different things.
If pictures of the topic offended them, why were they on the topic in the first place? If you don't want to see pictures of vaginas, maybe you shouldn't look up vaginas?
Indeed. Because clearly there is no better way of teaching someone biology* than to simply show them a bunch of pictures of different people's vaginas. </sarcasm>
The main problem is that even though medical illustrations are both prevalent and often better at highlighting small details (artists can control contrast of areas very easily to show off such details), there are many exhibitionists out there who add self-made images just because they can. Most people don't post these images for their encyclopaedic value, they post them so that there's a picture of their penis (etc.) on a popular public website. The end result is an article with 10-15 different photos of the same body part, when 1 is sufficient.
* Note: whether or not Wikipedia is the best place to learn about a subject such as biology is a different argument altogether. But as long as one is careful with references, there is no question Wikipedia offers a lot of useful, factual information.
Meanwhile, a terrorist can impersonate a pilot to get through security (or get licensed by a small airline) and move multiple bombs through security to hand off to other terrorists on other flights.
Hypothetically speaking, if the TSA can create a system to effectively screen out bombs, then they should also be competent enough to create a system to screen out impersonators. And if they can't effectively screen out bombs, then screening out impersonators becomes a moot point.
Personally I don't believe they can do either correctly.
I would say a law school's responsibility is solely to prepare a student for passing the bar exam. It is the responsibility of the bar association to ensure the bar exam will only allow qualified individuals through to practice law.
If idiots are being allowed to practice, don't blame the schools, blame the bar association.
I could very easily hire a spam group out of any one of these countries to push my malware out for profit but who is really "evil"? The companies in foreign countries that offer the service or the people who hire them?
Successful in terms of bringing in large amounts of cash - probably if Apple doesn't surpass them in the next couple of years. Successful in terms of bringing in talent, new ideas, worthwhile products... not so much. Microsoft made it big because others made big mistakes themselves marketing products that were very good, stable and ahead of the curve but for such an immature market (in the '90's) overpriced (WordPerfect, between-Jobs Apple, BeOS, OS/2, Sun, SGI)
So what you're saying is Microsoft made it big because they didn't make mistakes when others did. Sounds like a recipe for success to me.
Also, every for-profit company's goal is to bring in large amounts of cash. It really doesn't matter (to the company) if they do that by bringing in talent, new ideas, and worthwhile products, or if they do that by producing crap. All that matters is that they bring in cash.
That's terribly inefficient. Clearly the problems occur while driving, and your solution requires banning a lot of substances. Instead, let's just ban the automobile. It has the same effect, but only requires banning one item, thereby being much more efficient. No more cars == no more drunk driving.
But come to think of it, you'd still need to ban planes and other forms of transportation just to be safe. So instead, we should go to the source of the problem: ban people! No more people == no more drunk driving. Problem solved once and for all. Once and for all!
Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I expect Ecuador's offer is only so that they can lock him up themselves and see what additional information they can get out of him.
I assure you that this is definitely a way to up their ad revenue. Maybe not in the way you described, or maybe so. But either way, it is somehow meant to up their ad revenue. They wouldn't be doing it otherwise.
I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, since website security and the dog & pony shows performed at U.S. airports are not even remotely related.
I wouldn't call that a legitimate reason since that implies, well, legitimacy. Instead, it's simply a possible explanation for how they arrived at their poor choice.
A more secure solution to the problem you pose would be to clear the user name on the "failed login" screen in addition to the password, regardless of which is incorrect. And if anyone wants to argue that having to retype both would be inconvenient, I'll preemptively counter by saying security should not be sacrificed for the sake of convenience.
Slashdot Mirror
(and this is just the first link of a google search...)
That's the problem. They did a search on Bing and didn't find anything.
...if you think it's not stopping you from doing your job.
That is the exact problem right there (emphasis mine). The whole point of vision tests and minimum requirements is to decide if an astronaut's vision would keep them from doing their job. And the people developing and administering the tests are far better qualified to determine that than an emotionally-biased astronaut who is directly and strongly affected by the outcome.
California can pass any law they want. It doesn't mean the law will be constitutional, but they can pass it nonetheless. Of course, they're only going to pass laws that they think would stand up in court. Otherwise it would be a waste of their time to even bother. But what they think will stand up and what will actually stand up can sometimes be different things.
If pictures of the topic offended them, why were they on the topic in the first place? If you don't want to see pictures of vaginas, maybe you shouldn't look up vaginas?
Indeed. Because clearly there is no better way of teaching someone biology* than to simply show them a bunch of pictures of different people's vaginas. </sarcasm>
The main problem is that even though medical illustrations are both prevalent and often better at highlighting small details (artists can control contrast of areas very easily to show off such details), there are many exhibitionists out there who add self-made images just because they can. Most people don't post these images for their encyclopaedic value, they post them so that there's a picture of their penis (etc.) on a popular public website. The end result is an article with 10-15 different photos of the same body part, when 1 is sufficient.
* Note: whether or not Wikipedia is the best place to learn about a subject such as biology is a different argument altogether. But as long as one is careful with references, there is no question Wikipedia offers a lot of useful, factual information.
Meanwhile, a terrorist can impersonate a pilot to get through security (or get licensed by a small airline) and move multiple bombs through security to hand off to other terrorists on other flights.
Hypothetically speaking, if the TSA can create a system to effectively screen out bombs, then they should also be competent enough to create a system to screen out impersonators. And if they can't effectively screen out bombs, then screening out impersonators becomes a moot point.
Personally I don't believe they can do either correctly.
...considering there's certain elected people who'd rather let the US default than lose the next election.
Yes. They're called politicians. It's what they do.
I would say a law school's responsibility is solely to prepare a student for passing the bar exam. It is the responsibility of the bar association to ensure the bar exam will only allow qualified individuals through to practice law.
If idiots are being allowed to practice, don't blame the schools, blame the bar association.
I could very easily hire a spam group out of any one of these countries to push my malware out for profit but who is really "evil"? The companies in foreign countries that offer the service or the people who hire them?
Yes.
(hand written letter usually gets better result.)
Clearly, you've never seen my handwriting.
Successful in terms of bringing in large amounts of cash - probably if Apple doesn't surpass them in the next couple of years. Successful in terms of bringing in talent, new ideas, worthwhile products... not so much. Microsoft made it big because others made big mistakes themselves marketing products that were very good, stable and ahead of the curve but for such an immature market (in the '90's) overpriced (WordPerfect, between-Jobs Apple, BeOS, OS/2, Sun, SGI)
So what you're saying is Microsoft made it big because they didn't make mistakes when others did. Sounds like a recipe for success to me.
Also, every for-profit company's goal is to bring in large amounts of cash. It really doesn't matter (to the company) if they do that by bringing in talent, new ideas, and worthwhile products, or if they do that by producing crap. All that matters is that they bring in cash.
That's terribly inefficient. Clearly the problems occur while driving, and your solution requires banning a lot of substances. Instead, let's just ban the automobile. It has the same effect, but only requires banning one item, thereby being much more efficient. No more cars == no more drunk driving.
But come to think of it, you'd still need to ban planes and other forms of transportation just to be safe. So instead, we should go to the source of the problem: ban people! No more people == no more drunk driving. Problem solved once and for all. Once and for all!
If you can look at a Slashdot submission and say "didn't see it", then you just don't read Slashdot often enough. Kind of like the editors.
Does that make Microsoft the parent that leaves you with painful, mostly buried memories when the other parent isn't looking?
It better be, otherwise makubesu's gonna be in a world of trouble!
Let me guess, they are just as scared of you as you are of them?
Wait a second, how do you know my password?!
Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I expect Ecuador's offer is only so that they can lock him up themselves and see what additional information they can get out of him.
So far I have been able to resist grabbing them by their collars and screaming at them...
Then you, sir, are a better man than I.
...It sure was nice of them not to press charges that night, though.
Actually quite the contrary. That's the only good thing about it.
I assure you that this is definitely a way to up their ad revenue. Maybe not in the way you described, or maybe so. But either way, it is somehow meant to up their ad revenue. They wouldn't be doing it otherwise.
If only I could find a way to make money off other people's stupidity...
Go into politics.
I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, since website security and the dog & pony shows performed at U.S. airports are not even remotely related.
I wouldn't call that a legitimate reason since that implies, well, legitimacy. Instead, it's simply a possible explanation for how they arrived at their poor choice.
A more secure solution to the problem you pose would be to clear the user name on the "failed login" screen in addition to the password, regardless of which is incorrect. And if anyone wants to argue that having to retype both would be inconvenient, I'll preemptively counter by saying security should not be sacrificed for the sake of convenience.
I am going to make a big assumption here, so please excuse me if I am wrong. I assume that your wife was previously fat.
I see what you did there.
...and how in the hell do you OCR an audio sample???