How many pilots will get vertigo the first time they look down thru their seats at the ground zipping by a few thousand feet below?
I just did a jump from a blackhawk a few weeks ago. You sit with your legs dangling out and the ground beneath you. The vertigo's not that bad at all... the wind and the helicopter turning, that's another matter, but I think that's mostly a problem for passengers because they're not controlling it.
The supposed purpose of the police system is to ensure that people are free of fear and hate. That we are safe to live in peace. Prison is supposed to remove people from society as long as they pose a threat, and it is meant to rehabilitate people so that they can lead peaceful lives. That is the end purpose of the law. That is the way we protect ourselves.
No, it's not at all. Our system of law is mostly retributive. If you do good things, you (hopefully) get rewarded. If you do bad things, you (hopefully) get punished. Most importantly, once you've done your punishment, you're supposed to be square. That's the end purpose and everything else is a side effect. Rehabilitation is nice if it happens, but it's not an end goal. Human beings are always supposed to improve themselves, whether they've done something bad or not. And "removing people from society as long as they pose a threat" isn't the idea either, because otherwise white collar crimes wouldn't carry jail time. The only case where people are removed from society is in cases where there is a severe chance of recidivism or because society might try to kill them, such as sex offenders.
Revenge is about hate.
No, it's about respect for a morally culpable being. People have free will, and can choose to do good things and bad things. Animals don't and can't. I can train an animal to be friendly and nice, but it's only doing that because it's hungry for doggie biscuits or something. If a person does something nice to me, it's an act of compassion. If a kid steals from a store, he needs to make it right by paying it back and serving a punishment so he can learn and grow as a moral human being. If a man murders someone, I have to hold him accountable and take away his freedom or even his life. If I was just trying to protect society, I could just lobotomize him and we'd all be perfectly safe. But that's what you'd do to an animal.
Alright, most people use hypocritical when they mean "holding a double standard." The standard example is of Sen Craig who attacked gays while secretly soliciting sex from men in bathrooms.
But the simple meaning of it is when you say something without believing it, which is pretty clear in this case. They're bringing these charges without caring in the slightest whether or not they're true.
And this isn't just hypocrisy. It's also short-sightedness: they're sacrificing their long term credibility and that of an entire movement for some short term publicity.
That said, if anyone can show me exactly where Greenpeace stated or even implied that they would not selectively target companies for maximum publicity, I will retract my previous statement.
That's ridiculous. So I can't trust the NRA to wrongly harass someone and make me look like a fool for pledging to them just because they didn't explicitly say they aren't publicity whores?
It's implied that any organization has certain principles, Greenpeace states there's and they even have a mission statement on the Canuck site. Publicity whoring will generally destroy your credibility, thus it is implicit in the fact that they have a mission that they are not going to behave like imbeciles.
Reasonable people might disagree as to what constitutes publicity whoring, but Greenpeace is an example of an organization that has clearly crossed that line a long time ago. PETA is even worse... they're self-parodying.
Some might argue that Slashdot is just as guilty as Greenpeace of using Apple's success to grab headlines / make money.
But/. at least tries to be honest about it, and the editors seem sincerely interested in Apple and their customers. That lacks the element of rank hypocrisy that Greenpeace's actions have.
Why can't I login with a USB key that has some piece of information which is signed using my private key on it?
Better: a CAC reader (~ $25) and a smartcard. I can use my military ID to log into my AKO (an awful Army portal web site) account from Safari (on OS X 10.4) without installing any software on the client side. And, of course, if you install lots of crap and have an elaborate set up you can use it to log into Windows. Without much work, I can use it to sign code and emails and what not.
Why not use a USB key? Simple: the smart card takes a PIN. Get it wrong three times, and the card locks up. The USB stick can be brute forced.
It won't be immediate, or close to it... but a 25x increase in the speed of bruteforcing passwords will certaintly speed up the process by which passwords are obseleted.
It means the search space needs to be 25 times as big. That means the password needs one more letter.
It's rather funny to see how easily the MS-fed media is able to bullshit people, distracting them with talk of conversion and APIs.
The tech media, overwhelmingly, have no idea how anything works. The problem MS had with OOXML of a poorly implemented spec is obvious to anyone who's even written a toy word processor for a class. But if you don't know what's actually in a binary spec and what's similar and different between that and XML, you'd have no reason to doubt anything they say.
The "Wisdom Of Crowds" put George W Bush in power, twice.
Well, it only took 7 years, but you're finally past "denial." Good for you! With 6 more steps, you'll be cured of Bush Derangement Syndrome in about 42 years.
No, you can't say that a world of atheists would be a better or worse world, since a world of people who don't believe in God isn't really different from a world of people who don't believe in pink unicorns or celestial teapots.
The difference is that people derive an ethical framework from belief in God, but you were too busy responding with the knee-jerk pink unicorns line to acknowledge that.
It's "hackers" like this who give "hackers" a bad name! Not saying that hacker is the most glorious title to have, but it's douche bags like this one who thinks it funny to hack for this reason that makes serious security people, white and black hat alike, pissed.
Given the overwhelming trend of "hacker" being used in a pejorative sense in every part of media, including most technical publications, for the past 20 years, it's pretty clear that the word "hacker" is gone. Let it go.
Unfortunately, this gives me one more reason to be semi-disturbed by Google's obvious dominance in the web-o-sphere......as evidenced by my email address, for one.
Maybe it's just that I'm speaking from a post-pagerank W3, but it seems fairly inevitable that search engines were going to reward richly linked websites.
And here are some numbers that I find also help to put the whole terrorism thing in perspective:
Where is the war on cancer, or the war on drunk driving? You're more likely to die driving to the airport than on the plane.
Your perspective seems to be that we can blow off terrorism because not that many people died and that we routinely tolerate a lot of death. But if you're going to look for that kind of perspective, you need to compare homicides to homicides because "warmaking" isn't how you deal with natural deaths. (Although there is a metaphorical "war on poverty"...)
The best comparison would be the war on drugs. You could certainly argue that the war on drugs is self-perpetuating, but that's beside the point.
In fact, the largest reason I find the anti-Bush rhetoric so strange is that politicians from both sides have snatched up far more civil liberties from actual citizens under the rubric of the war on drugs. The rhetoric against the WOD is nothing like the fevered pitch of the anti-Bush stuff, but it ought to be the reverse. The war on drugs goes after a broad swath of society, everyone from a kid smoking pot to a kingpin, whereas the war on terror targets people associated with a short list of terror organizations. Police routinely seize people's livelihoods on suspicion in the war on drugs, bug them, conduct stings and paramilitary raids, and it happens all across the country. In the war on terror, the feds might look at what you read in the library... if you happen to be the subject of an Al Qaeda investigation. And innocent people (mostly not US citizens, but does that matter in a moral sense?) do get imprisoned or killed in the war on terror... because Al Qaeda is specifically using them as pawns and using our liberties and decency against us.
1. This is a study with participants highly linked to a firm that makes money off of adding NO to blood products. They have financial and other incentives to find a "lack" of NO in stored blood.
Or they found the lack of NO in stored blood and made the product to solve the problem. It's fine to look for corroborating evidence, but scientists at drug companies are just like scientists everywhere else and they really don't just make shit up for money. Kneejerk doubt isn't any more rational or wise than kneejerk faith.
Rule 12 just requires that they have a news article or published a book and that someone has witnessed their powers.
The rules are set up so that the test will never happen.
Obviously not, because plenty of tests have happened and continue to happen. The biggest problem is usually agreeing on the protocol, and then the applicant changes his or her mind during testing.
As long as you have Office installed on a machine you can download/edit/review documents from the server anywhere in the world. Not really comparable to Googles offerings.
Office has had the ability to be embedded in a web page as an ActiveX control for years now, and Word and Excel have had revision tracking for some time (maybe others, I'm not sure). And they have relatively mature HTML export functions. All MS really needs to do is add upload capabilities to the ActiveX control, which it may already have, and any computer running Office, meaning any work computer in corporate America, can run it.
Google's offerings are more accessible but have virtually no features. It's pretty comparable, from the user's POV.
Slashdot Mirror
So you could admire the cool helmets the Air Force, Navy, and Marine pilots have?
No, so you could become a warrant officer with MOS 153A, rotary-wing aviator.
How many pilots will get vertigo the first time they look down thru their seats at the ground zipping by a few thousand feet below?
I just did a jump from a blackhawk a few weeks ago. You sit with your legs dangling out and the ground beneath you. The vertigo's not that bad at all... the wind and the helicopter turning, that's another matter, but I think that's mostly a problem for passengers because they're not controlling it.
No, it's not at all. Our system of law is mostly retributive. If you do good things, you (hopefully) get rewarded. If you do bad things, you (hopefully) get punished. Most importantly, once you've done your punishment, you're supposed to be square. That's the end purpose and everything else is a side effect. Rehabilitation is nice if it happens, but it's not an end goal. Human beings are always supposed to improve themselves, whether they've done something bad or not. And "removing people from society as long as they pose a threat" isn't the idea either, because otherwise white collar crimes wouldn't carry jail time. The only case where people are removed from society is in cases where there is a severe chance of recidivism or because society might try to kill them, such as sex offenders.
Revenge is about hate.
No, it's about respect for a morally culpable being. People have free will, and can choose to do good things and bad things. Animals don't and can't. I can train an animal to be friendly and nice, but it's only doing that because it's hungry for doggie biscuits or something. If a person does something nice to me, it's an act of compassion. If a kid steals from a store, he needs to make it right by paying it back and serving a punishment so he can learn and grow as a moral human being. If a man murders someone, I have to hold him accountable and take away his freedom or even his life. If I was just trying to protect society, I could just lobotomize him and we'd all be perfectly safe. But that's what you'd do to an animal.
"...along with the other benefits to society brought about by decreased population growth..." of minorities and undesirables.
There, finished that for you.
Wait... a student of *the* Prof. Nate Lewis of *that* Caltech?
I feel obliged, I mean obligated, to ask, can I have your autograph?
but seriously... how exactly is it hypocritical?
Alright, most people use hypocritical when they mean "holding a double standard." The standard example is of Sen Craig who attacked gays while secretly soliciting sex from men in bathrooms.
But the simple meaning of it is when you say something without believing it, which is pretty clear in this case. They're bringing these charges without caring in the slightest whether or not they're true.
And this isn't just hypocrisy. It's also short-sightedness: they're sacrificing their long term credibility and that of an entire movement for some short term publicity.
That said, if anyone can show me exactly where Greenpeace stated or even implied that they would not selectively target companies for maximum publicity, I will retract my previous statement.
That's ridiculous. So I can't trust the NRA to wrongly harass someone and make me look like a fool for pledging to them just because they didn't explicitly say they aren't publicity whores?
It's implied that any organization has certain principles, Greenpeace states there's and they even have a mission statement on the Canuck site. Publicity whoring will generally destroy your credibility, thus it is implicit in the fact that they have a mission that they are not going to behave like imbeciles.
Reasonable people might disagree as to what constitutes publicity whoring, but Greenpeace is an example of an organization that has clearly crossed that line a long time ago. PETA is even worse... they're self-parodying.
Some might argue that Slashdot is just as guilty as Greenpeace of using Apple's success to grab headlines / make money.
/. at least tries to be honest about it, and the editors seem sincerely interested in Apple and their customers. That lacks the element of rank hypocrisy that Greenpeace's actions have.
But
Why can't I login with a USB key that has some piece of information which is signed using my private key on it?
Better: a CAC reader (~ $25) and a smartcard. I can use my military ID to log into my AKO (an awful Army portal web site) account from Safari (on OS X 10.4) without installing any software on the client side. And, of course, if you install lots of crap and have an elaborate set up you can use it to log into Windows. Without much work, I can use it to sign code and emails and what not.
Why not use a USB key? Simple: the smart card takes a PIN. Get it wrong three times, and the card locks up. The USB stick can be brute forced.
It won't be immediate, or close to it... but a 25x increase in the speed of bruteforcing passwords will certaintly speed up the process by which passwords are obseleted.
It means the search space needs to be 25 times as big. That means the password needs one more letter.
It's rather funny to see how easily the MS-fed media is able to bullshit people, distracting them with talk of conversion and APIs.
The tech media, overwhelmingly, have no idea how anything works. The problem MS had with OOXML of a poorly implemented spec is obvious to anyone who's even written a toy word processor for a class. But if you don't know what's actually in a binary spec and what's similar and different between that and XML, you'd have no reason to doubt anything they say.
The "Wisdom Of Crowds" put George W Bush in power, twice.
Well, it only took 7 years, but you're finally past "denial." Good for you! With 6 more steps, you'll be cured of Bush Derangement Syndrome in about 42 years.
No, you can't say that a world of atheists would be a better or worse world, since a world of people who don't believe in God isn't really different from a world of people who don't believe in pink unicorns or celestial teapots.
The difference is that people derive an ethical framework from belief in God, but you were too busy responding with the knee-jerk pink unicorns line to acknowledge that.
It's "hackers" like this who give "hackers" a bad name! Not saying that hacker is the most glorious title to have, but it's douche bags like this one who thinks it funny to hack for this reason that makes serious security people, white and black hat alike, pissed.
Given the overwhelming trend of "hacker" being used in a pejorative sense in every part of media, including most technical publications, for the past 20 years, it's pretty clear that the word "hacker" is gone. Let it go.
If MS published the specs for the old binary formats, we wouldn't ahve that problem either.
They tried to with OOXML, but in many cases large part of the specs are "make it work like this version of Word."
Unfortunately, this gives me one more reason to be semi-disturbed by Google's obvious dominance in the web-o-sphere... ...as evidenced by my email address, for one.
Maybe it's just that I'm speaking from a post-pagerank W3, but it seems fairly inevitable that search engines were going to reward richly linked websites.
If they include legal fees, and what they spend tracking down file sharers...
None of which is considered damages.
And here are some numbers that I find also help to put the whole terrorism thing in perspective:
Where is the war on cancer, or the war on drunk driving? You're more likely to die driving to the airport than on the plane.
Your perspective seems to be that we can blow off terrorism because not that many people died and that we routinely tolerate a lot of death. But if you're going to look for that kind of perspective, you need to compare homicides to homicides because "warmaking" isn't how you deal with natural deaths. (Although there is a metaphorical "war on poverty"...)
The best comparison would be the war on drugs. You could certainly argue that the war on drugs is self-perpetuating, but that's beside the point.
In fact, the largest reason I find the anti-Bush rhetoric so strange is that politicians from both sides have snatched up far more civil liberties from actual citizens under the rubric of the war on drugs. The rhetoric against the WOD is nothing like the fevered pitch of the anti-Bush stuff, but it ought to be the reverse. The war on drugs goes after a broad swath of society, everyone from a kid smoking pot to a kingpin, whereas the war on terror targets people associated with a short list of terror organizations. Police routinely seize people's livelihoods on suspicion in the war on drugs, bug them, conduct stings and paramilitary raids, and it happens all across the country. In the war on terror, the feds might look at what you read in the library... if you happen to be the subject of an Al Qaeda investigation. And innocent people (mostly not US citizens, but does that matter in a moral sense?) do get imprisoned or killed in the war on terror... because Al Qaeda is specifically using them as pawns and using our liberties and decency against us.
We are going to give you a tool. We are going to call it a "cyber sidearm". However, we don't know what it will be, or what it's purpose is, yet.
The Good Idea Fairy strikes again!
How can the Universe suddenly change like that? Change requires time.
It was always like that, so nothing really changes. Change is a perception.
You say that in the future, that time will become a fourth spacial dimension, but try writing up a timeline of the events:
The idea of a timeline falsely assumes extrinsic time.
1. This is a study with participants highly linked to a firm that makes money off of adding NO to blood products. They have financial and other incentives to find a "lack" of NO in stored blood.
Or they found the lack of NO in stored blood and made the product to solve the problem. It's fine to look for corroborating evidence, but scientists at drug companies are just like scientists everywhere else and they really don't just make shit up for money. Kneejerk doubt isn't any more rational or wise than kneejerk faith.
surely that classifes as hallucination
No, it doesn't, and don't call me Shirley.
Rule 12 just requires that they have a news article or published a book and that someone has witnessed their powers.
The rules are set up so that the test will never happen.
Obviously not, because plenty of tests have happened and continue to happen. The biggest problem is usually agreeing on the protocol, and then the applicant changes his or her mind during testing.
I think the correct syntax is:
DELETE FROM customer_data should work anywhere.
As long as you have Office installed on a machine you can download/edit/review documents from the server anywhere in the world. Not really comparable to Googles offerings.
Office has had the ability to be embedded in a web page as an ActiveX control for years now, and Word and Excel have had revision tracking for some time (maybe others, I'm not sure). And they have relatively mature HTML export functions. All MS really needs to do is add upload capabilities to the ActiveX control, which it may already have, and any computer running Office, meaning any work computer in corporate America, can run it.
Google's offerings are more accessible but have virtually no features. It's pretty comparable, from the user's POV.
Last time I checked you can disable Clippy in 10 seconds from the Office Options menu...
Or just close him several times and he offers to get rid of himself.