I dont know about whereve you're from... but here in Ontario (and I'm pretty sure at least the rest of Canada), skilled trade is very organized in that respect.
Well whoop dee fuckin' doo.
If not a garage then restaurants. You think if you go to the bar and buy a beer that you won't have to pay for it if they don't explicitly tell you how much it costs?
Re:Moshe Bar compares OS X to Linux
on
Is Mac OS X Slow?
·
· Score: 1
Jaguar gave the entire system a 10% performance boost because of compiler optimizations. (Basically a kluge to workaround the fact that the Mach-O executable format is optimized for CISC processors.)
And loading the GUI ties up plenty of memory, so it does affect performance. (Though to be honest, I simply bought more memory rather than have to log in and log out all the time. Also, the text mode is slow as a dog.)
"Security through obscurity", like having a non-linked but available resource, is self delusion.
That's one of those mantras that get repeated until people believe they're true.
Fact is, all security is obscurity. Security rests on the notion of a shared secret. Some key that both you and the other guy know.
In my opinion, any HTTP GET request is exactly that, a request. "May I have that resource, Server Sir?".
So if I add a login header, is that just another GET request? It's the difference between http://root:12345@www.0wn3d.com/ and http://www.0wn3d.com/.
Or what if I add an obscure folder name to the URL like sf908h234ff98hs9f?
You might argue that the actual crime was in obtaining the password, and I agree that (for example) fraudulently claiming to be an employee (psychological hacking) is criminal, but it's a seperate offense.
That's why breaking into someone's house is "breaking & entry." Even if you don't have to break in, entering is still criminal.
The problem with "ah well, these guys were just poking around, the publishers should have used proper security" is that it raises the bar of what security is to what we experts think it ought to be. Many people don't have the capability to employ such measures, so we're denying them legal recourse.
It would cause the same kind of division in society as if we had a law that said burglary doesn't count unless you have an expensive security system.
That's half the problem here; most people don't know there is a problem.
I've got to wonder: if they're completely unaware of it, is it a problem?
I write software (That other people use!) so I keep my machine free of wierd random crap.
But for most people, is there really any harm from all that spyware?
The ads are a PITA, but most people just tune them out. Their brains are better filters than anything we could cook up.
I agree that fraud is a problem, but I can put a price tag on fraud. We should be sure that we're not spending a whole lot of money educating people about spyware, only to find out it doesn't make a dent in the fraud.
Then they lost interest, it became no longer a "sexy" subject to the media and was forgotten.
Give people some credit: many of these problems lose their appeal because they either get solved or more important problems arise.
If you really do want to solve problems, you have to start with the assumption that people are capable problem-solvers and good at prioritizing.
Thats why the US sometimes comes off as hypocritical sometimes with respect to trading policies. They seem to be for free trade, so long as they are able to remain the leader in markets.
Hypocrisy isn't really the issue here. I mean, how can a whole country be "for" or "against" an issue? In our last election, when Gore had a When some of our own industries have all but caved to the American invasion (retail, in this case), American industries which feel the threat of international competition sometimes go running off to seek protection via duties.
The problem is that US protectionism is short-sighted. We're propping up our failing steel industries at the expense of consumers and high-tech. There are reasons why this happens: Bush has a tenuous mandate, so he wasn't about to piss the steelworkers off. That's politics.
I'm pretty comfortable with the US's overall record for free trade, but it could be a lot better.
I also brought up the hypocrisy issue because it's a bad way to think: if we're doing the wrong thing (propping up our weak industries) you should do the right thing. If your Canadian retail is dying, that's because it's uncompetitive. You should let it go and focus on something that will make money.
If you say "oh well, the Americans are being hypocrites so let's join the protectionists' club" that's just like a kid saying "well, my Dad smokes so I'm going to get emphysema (sp?!) too."
If you're really curious, I'd suggest a macroecon course. It's a controversial question, but there are several factors:
1. Outlays. If they don't have a lot of expenses, they don't need to have a lot of taxes. I lived in MD, and 99% of politics there is complaining about how the rest of the state is paying for Baltimore. You'll notice that many of these states don't have a big city in them, which tends to suck up huge amounts of money. That's because the cities have so many votes, so the governors and senators lavish them with handouts. To be fair to cities (except Baltimore, which just sucks) they also huge economic and cultural engines.
2. Federal money. Some states take in more federal money than others. For example, if you recall during the 2000 election that there were maps of the "blue" states (whose electors voted for Gore) and the "red" states (for Bush). Someone crunched the numbers (google Congressional Budget Office) and found that the "red" states are subsidized to the tune of $90 billion.
I'm leery of the argument that the "red" states are bludging off the "blue" states for a couple of reasons. One key problem with the argument is the implication that people are either "red" or "blue". Many people grow up in "blue" urban areas and then migrate to "red" rural areas when they want to raise a family. (Just as the best predictor of whether someone is one of "the rich" is their age.)
I should mention that I'm a conservative, so I'm not a big fan of subsidies, but at the same time I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with them. The reason I'd like to see much of this spending slashed is that private-sector solutions are more flexible and accountable.
The second key factor that the "red-blue" map leaves out is that many of those subsidies exist, in theory, to serve the nation as a whole. Defense subsidies obviously are a public benefit, but similar arguments can be made (and are when they're passed by the Senate and House) for education subsidies, farming, industry and oil.
While I may not believe subsidies are the best way to go about it, the idea that we're all in it together is morally sound.
3. Regulatory and tax burdens stifle economic activity.
This harks back to micro-econ: the law of diminishing marginal returns. There's a sweet spot where the gov't can get the maximum revenue, and it's generally not by taxing 100%. (Although there's no reason the state has to stop at 100%. I'm pretty sure Europeans pay 200% or more tax on gasoline.)
In addition, not collecting a tax gets you a big economic bonus: you don't need to enforce it.
I think the advantage of voice control is *not* for PC but for a special purpose system.
Voice control is advantageous when you don't have a desk to put the keyboard on and when the system needs to handle a few simple tasks. Using biometrics it can provide a modest amount of security. (Though I'd prefer to have a smartcard.)
The real reason it hasn't caught on is that there's still no good way of integrating these appliances with PCs. I'm pessimistic about that because XML is actually a step backwards.
It might be coincidence, but borking is also a term the Republicans made up, much like clymer.
Judge Robert Bork was a candidate for (I believe) the US Supreme Court, and was generally believed to be quite accomplished. The ABA rated him as unqualified in what the GOP claimed was a politically motivated character assassination.
So when someone is screwed over for political purposes, it's called being "borked."
(Adam (?) Clymer, incidentally, is a reporter for the NY Times. George W accidentally left his mike on while remarking "there's that Adam Clymer guy, he's a real asshole," to which Dick Cheney replied "major league.")
Actually, I've got my scoring so that anything marked troll, flamebait, or offtopic gets a +1, while Insightful, Interesting, and (perhaps the most consistently wrong) Funny gets marked -6.
Occasionally, the moderators are right, but typically intelligent comments generate intelligent replies, and so I'll read those instead.
But one thing I'm *guaranteed* is that I'll never have to read the tedious drivel from the karma whores.
Slashdot Mirror
but what about those of us who make our livings writing proprietary trojans for anti-virus companies?
Are you a US citizen? If so, you can get lucrative defense contracts protecting Homeland Security against cyber-terrorism.
Well whoop dee fuckin' doo.
If not a garage then restaurants. You think if you go to the bar and buy a beer that you won't have to pay for it if they don't explicitly tell you how much it costs?
Jaguar gave the entire system a 10% performance boost because of compiler optimizations. (Basically a kluge to workaround the fact that the Mach-O executable format is optimized for CISC processors.)
And loading the GUI ties up plenty of memory, so it does affect performance. (Though to be honest, I simply bought more memory rather than have to log in and log out all the time. Also, the text mode is slow as a dog.)
Where do you think all the freaky addicts come from? Over sheltered families natually.
Bullshit. Most of the freaky addicts popped up after Dr. Spock and the hippie movement.
Simple: All they'll need is to have their Fritos, Pepsi and socks delivered to their door and they never have leave the house again.
I really wonder sometimes if the male condition can ever be cured.
The creed of the feminazi.
There's nothing worse than a broccoli flavored cock up the ass. Except maybe a key-lime iBook.
Vono is right, and you're a fuckin' idiot.
There's a reason why: in this country, minorities (black and hispanic to be precise) are commit a disproportionately large number of crimes.
To avoid being accused of racism, the police have adopted the policy of drawing guns on everyone.
Whether or not it's worth it to avoid the appearance of racism is hard to say.
Excuse me sir, what is a stoot?
"Security through obscurity", like having a non-linked but available resource, is self delusion.
That's one of those mantras that get repeated until people believe they're true.
Fact is, all security is obscurity. Security rests on the notion of a shared secret. Some key that both you and the other guy know.
In my opinion, any HTTP GET request is exactly that, a request. "May I have that resource, Server Sir?".
So if I add a login header, is that just another GET request? It's the difference between http://root:12345@www.0wn3d.com/ and http://www.0wn3d.com/.
Or what if I add an obscure folder name to the URL like sf908h234ff98hs9f?
You might argue that the actual crime was in obtaining the password, and I agree that (for example) fraudulently claiming to be an employee (psychological hacking) is criminal, but it's a seperate offense.
That's why breaking into someone's house is "breaking & entry." Even if you don't have to break in, entering is still criminal.
The problem with "ah well, these guys were just poking around, the publishers should have used proper security" is that it raises the bar of what security is to what we experts think it ought to be. Many people don't have the capability to employ such measures, so we're denying them legal recourse.
It would cause the same kind of division in society as if we had a law that said burglary doesn't count unless you have an expensive security system.
Thanks!
That's half the problem here; most people don't know there is a problem.
I've got to wonder: if they're completely unaware of it, is it a problem?
I write software (That other people use!) so I keep my machine free of wierd random crap.
But for most people, is there really any harm from all that spyware?
The ads are a PITA, but most people just tune them out. Their brains are better filters than anything we could cook up.
I agree that fraud is a problem, but I can put a price tag on fraud. We should be sure that we're not spending a whole lot of money educating people about spyware, only to find out it doesn't make a dent in the fraud.
Then they lost interest, it became no longer a "sexy" subject to the media and was forgotten.
Give people some credit: many of these problems lose their appeal because they either get solved or more important problems arise.
If you really do want to solve problems, you have to start with the assumption that people are capable problem-solvers and good at prioritizing.
Thats why the US sometimes comes off as hypocritical sometimes with respect to trading policies. They seem to be for free trade, so long as they are able to remain the leader in markets.
Hypocrisy isn't really the issue here. I mean, how can a whole country be "for" or "against" an issue? In our last election, when Gore had a When some of our own industries have all but caved to the American invasion (retail, in this case), American industries which feel the threat of international competition sometimes go running off to seek protection via duties.
The problem is that US protectionism is short-sighted. We're propping up our failing steel industries at the expense of consumers and high-tech. There are reasons why this happens: Bush has a tenuous mandate, so he wasn't about to piss the steelworkers off. That's politics.
I'm pretty comfortable with the US's overall record for free trade, but it could be a lot better.
I also brought up the hypocrisy issue because it's a bad way to think: if we're doing the wrong thing (propping up our weak industries) you should do the right thing. If your Canadian retail is dying, that's because it's uncompetitive. You should let it go and focus on something that will make money.
If you say "oh well, the Americans are being hypocrites so let's join the protectionists' club" that's just like a kid saying "well, my Dad smokes so I'm going to get emphysema (sp?!) too."
Apple has a business presence in all 50 states. That's why it's good to buy Macs from smaller resellers.
Ah, if only it were so... Why'd those Saudis have to crash their planes into NY? Why not take out Hollywood?
...how do some states get away without it?
If you're really curious, I'd suggest a macroecon course. It's a controversial question, but there are several factors:
1. Outlays. If they don't have a lot of expenses, they don't need to have a lot of taxes. I lived in MD, and 99% of politics there is complaining about how the rest of the state is paying for Baltimore. You'll notice that many of these states don't have a big city in them, which tends to suck up huge amounts of money. That's because the cities have so many votes, so the governors and senators lavish them with handouts. To be fair to cities (except Baltimore, which just sucks) they also huge economic and cultural engines.
2. Federal money. Some states take in more federal money than others. For example, if you recall during the 2000 election that there were maps of the "blue" states (whose electors voted for Gore) and the "red" states (for Bush). Someone crunched the numbers (google Congressional Budget Office) and found that the "red" states are subsidized to the tune of $90 billion.
I'm leery of the argument that the "red" states are bludging off the "blue" states for a couple of reasons. One key problem with the argument is the implication that people are either "red" or "blue". Many people grow up in "blue" urban areas and then migrate to "red" rural areas when they want to raise a family. (Just as the best predictor of whether someone is one of "the rich" is their age.)
I should mention that I'm a conservative, so I'm not a big fan of subsidies, but at the same time I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with them. The reason I'd like to see much of this spending slashed is that private-sector solutions are more flexible and accountable.
The second key factor that the "red-blue" map leaves out is that many of those subsidies exist, in theory, to serve the nation as a whole. Defense subsidies obviously are a public benefit, but similar arguments can be made (and are when they're passed by the Senate and House) for education subsidies, farming, industry and oil.
While I may not believe subsidies are the best way to go about it, the idea that we're all in it together is morally sound.
3. Regulatory and tax burdens stifle economic activity.
This harks back to micro-econ: the law of diminishing marginal returns. There's a sweet spot where the gov't can get the maximum revenue, and it's generally not by taxing 100%. (Although there's no reason the state has to stop at 100%. I'm pretty sure Europeans pay 200% or more tax on gasoline.)
In addition, not collecting a tax gets you a big economic bonus: you don't need to enforce it.
I think the advantage of voice control is *not* for PC but for a special purpose system.
Voice control is advantageous when you don't have a desk to put the keyboard on and when the system needs to handle a few simple tasks. Using biometrics it can provide a modest amount of security. (Though I'd prefer to have a smartcard.)
The real reason it hasn't caught on is that there's still no good way of integrating these appliances with PCs. I'm pessimistic about that because XML is actually a step backwards.
It might be coincidence, but borking is also a term the Republicans made up, much like clymer.
Judge Robert Bork was a candidate for (I believe) the US Supreme Court, and was generally believed to be quite accomplished. The ABA rated him as unqualified in what the GOP claimed was a politically motivated character assassination.
So when someone is screwed over for political purposes, it's called being "borked."
(Adam (?) Clymer, incidentally, is a reporter for the NY Times. George W accidentally left his mike on while remarking "there's that Adam Clymer guy, he's a real asshole," to which Dick Cheney replied "major league.")
FYI: no it's not, it's "less." "lest" is spelled with a 't' at the end.
Have you no heart? Frogs don't have toenails.
Actually, I've got my scoring so that anything marked troll, flamebait, or offtopic gets a +1, while Insightful, Interesting, and (perhaps the most consistently wrong) Funny gets marked -6.
Occasionally, the moderators are right, but typically intelligent comments generate intelligent replies, and so I'll read those instead.
But one thing I'm *guaranteed* is that I'll never have to read the tedious drivel from the karma whores.
That's the kind of logic H.W. used when he ran with Quayle. (Or Clinton w/ Gore, for that matter...) You think it worked then?
Just keep telling yourself that.
Since cops also spend a good amount of time catching people getting a bit of nookie, couldn't it be "to collect and perv"?