That rat just ate it's own shit and fucked it's mother in the cage. I guess we aren't more intelligent and superior?
There are websites that you can find to show that some humans do exactly the same sort of thing. On the other hand, mice don't watch reality TV shows so that's a win for them!
If you are disabled enough to require voice control over your computer then you probably want to operate more than just Chrome and will have some more system-wide software in operation. It won't make much difference to them (in fact, it may be better as you don't have two different systems trying to listen to your voice).
Yeah, I've already heard from from my crunchy greenie friends about how this "proves" the value of traditional medicine. That one text mentions on herb that worked, and 1,999 texts listed herbs that didn't shows the exact opposite... completely escapes them.
To be fair, those traditional herbal medicines were not all supposed to be malaria cures specifically. In fact this particular herb was a general cure for fever.
From Artemisinin: Discovery from the Chinese Herbal Garden: During their search, Youyou Tu and colleagues investigated more than 2,000 recipes of Chinese traditional herbs, compiling 640 recipes that might have some antimalarial activity.
Of course, traditional techniques for extracting the compound to make the medicine were still wrong though, so your friends who you are denigrating still don't have cause to celebrate. But traditional medicine is just an early version of modern medicine with just as sloppy scientific rigor as the doctors in the 60s who used to prescribe smoking to their patients. So there is no point feeling all high and mighty as our modern medicine can trace its roots back to a lot of leach-loving doctors.
So she "discovers" something that was widely known for, what, 500 years? and she gets a nobel? WTF is this about?
It's about eliminating the other 1,999 herbs that were also "known" about. It's about applying the herb that had been traditionally used to treat generic fevers to now fight malaria. It's about isolating the compound in the herb (Artemisinin) and figuring the best way to extract it (which wasn't the method traditionally used).
All that tells me is that gun violence isn't a big problem when it is the people who are trained and vetted who have the guns. That says nothing about the general population packing heat. In fact, there are a lot of myths about both Israel and Switzerland regarding gun ownership. The situations there are not evidence that high levels of gun ownership in the civilian population doesn't lead to increased gun violence.
Its about FUD. From the Rockefeller foundation, the UN, the governments of the west, who all want in on this new bandwagon.
Which bit exactly is the FUD? That Exxon scientists went from publicly backing the rest of the scientific world's ideas of climate change to silence (and even championing the denier's cause) on the matter at the direction of their company masters? Which is more likely; that the entire scientific community, the UN, the governments of the world have all worked together to produce an enormous set of fake theories and data without a single whistle-blower or leak coming out to provide evidence of this monumentally huge conspiracy, or that the corporate interests have turned to the same right wing think thanks who attempted to debunk the link between smoking and cancer to spout exactly the same anti-science claims about global warming?
Where is your evidence then? Remember, without evidence your claims are just FUD. With all the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit the best "evidence" came down the some terminology (eg. the word "trick") and some out of context statements that the scientists didn't have all the answers yet. With the ability to accept such vague non-evidence as proof of nefarious activities, it is amazing how demanding the deniers are of the need for perfection and not a single amount of uncertainty from the scientific community.
Your appeal to authority only impresses those that have already bought into your ideology.
Incorrect. It only doesn't impress the people who are so anti-science that they have their head in the sand on this matter. Frankly, nothing is going to get through to people like you.
The sky is blue. The brown you are talking about is invisible and has no demonstrated any harm so far. But you and your "specialists" assure us we are doomed.
I know another body of people who assure us we are doomed, and they have a big report out called The Bible, its true, because all the Bible experts say its true.
Seriously? This is supposed to be your evidence that it all a lie? The entire scientific world has it wrong because the Bible got it wrong too? Is that supposed to be a better appeal to authority?
The UN and associated governments have been outspending 10 to 1 any moneys put forth by those "big oil" companies, in propaganda in the last few decades.
Do you any even a shred of proof of this statement? You assume that what the scientific world is saying is propaganda because you have presupposed that greenhouse gases do not linger in the atmosphere and that they don't result in a warming effect on the planet. Without that presupposition, all the scientific community is doing is their job. Coming up with theories and looking at the data to see if it is true - just like any other group of scientists do. Or do you think cosmologists, physicists, biologist, botanists all have their own agendas that they are each attempting to foist on the world. Hmm, maybe that explains quantum physics.
The Exxon documents are 30 years older than the sources quoted above. The Exxon documents gave a time window of 5 to 10 years "before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." That was 35 years ago.
So what? It sounds like you are trying to make a meaningful statement, and yet you are actually saying nothing. If you are trying to say that they were wrong about their predictions then you still haven't shown why we should care about what they had to say on the most recent records
And if you are attempting to imply that there has been no global warming since 1978, then that is a big whopping lie. But no, you are not really saying that are you. You are just making a vague statement in the hope that we think that there must actually be something wrong with the climate predictions when you are offered no specific claim that this is the case. That is another typical denier FUD technique.
What is desperate and pathetic is the Zealotry of the Alarmists:
Oh dear. Did you just go and change the topic again? Thanks for proving my point.
And which is the more zealous man; the one who claims the sky is blue or the other who insists that it is brown? I think that if you are going to call someone a zealot, it surely must be the one who disagrees with the entire body of people whose job it is to study that subject. How arrogant is it to claim that you know better than all the highly educated scientists who spend their entire lives specialising in studying the climate?
Aren't you just a little bit angry that some of the people that probably influenced your beliefs (either directly or indirectly) were actually being paid to lie about climate change by a multinational oil and gas corporation? That is what this discussion is about.
I wonder what these guys think of he fact there's been no warming in nearly 20 years?
Typical response when a climate change denier has their argument countered: change the subject! Of the names listed that have been shown to have changed their stance at the orders of their bosses, there is no reason to care what they have on say on any subject now. So why would you want to know what they think about the slowdown of temperature rise over the last decade? The only reason to bring that up now is to attempt to muddy the debate and remove focus from the documented manipulation of the scientific and political debate by a vested interest.
You just know that if the scientists from the article had been at academic institutions then the deniers would be alleging that they were just trying to get government grants. But when it is shown to be the opposite, the people who are so obsessed with following the money remain silent; or worse, they try to hijack the debate by switching to a topic that they hope they can win.
It's like the Wizard of Oz telling us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. That is desperate and pathetic!
This article AND summary are perfect examples. They say Exxon this, Exxon that, but there are no names.
You obviously didn't read any further than the first few paragraphs if you think that they didn't name any names. It was littered with direct quotes and even linked documents. Here are the names that I have found (either in the article or the linked source documents):
James F. Black
Richard D. Keil
Harold N. Weinberg
Henry Shaw
Edward E. David
M B Glaser
M J Connor Jr
C M Eidt Jr
W R Epperly
R L Hirsch
T G Kaufmann
D G Levine
G H Long
J R Riley
H R Savage
A Schriesheim
J F Taylor
D T Wade
H N Weinberg
Roger Cohen
Lee Raymond
There is also a link at the end to a summary of the cast of characters. To try and claim that this was some vague puff piece is itself an attempt to spread FUD about the article.
It is hardly new that they share their code. They have had a Shared Source Initiative since 2001 to enable "source code access for customers, partners and educators, by making enterprise systems integrators (SIs) eligible to receive access to Microsoft Windows
source code" (Source).
Interestingly, Mainsoft was "one of the main providers for the Microsoft Windows Interface Source Environment (WISE) program, a licensing program from Microsoft which allowed developers to recompile and run Windows-based applications on UNIX and Macintosh platforms. Before WINE there was WISE!
Even at minimum wage, 1000 hours is $10,000. That'll buy one very spiffy security system.
Who is it that actually pays you for not working on a DIY alarm system? Do you expect the OP to get a second job just to pay off his commercial security system and to fill in the time that he would have otherwise spent tinkering with it?
Surely the 1000 hours would be more likely be spent on something unprofitable like watching TV, playing video games, or posting on/.
pro grade inkjets don't use cartridges, they use bottles and pipes to the print heads
That isn't always true, because this printer in question does have cartridges. I think that a printer that handles 44" wide paper and have 11 separate colour cartridges (including three levels of black) is hardly a consumer device. The cartridges come in three sizes: 150 ml, 350 ml or 700 ml, the latter having a larger capacity than what you call a pro grade inkjet.
Which is unfortunate because there's nothing special about WiFi, satellite networks have been using the same (and vastly more complex) modulation methods for decades.
Yes, it was the CSIRO satellite technology that they adapted for WiFi. And it was special because nobody else at the time could solve the problem. People like to simplify the issues by say that the CSIRO claim that they invented WiFi, but they have never said that.
This was the result of Ardbeg Distillery being invited by a company called NanoRacks to send a vial of whiskey up in a Russian rocket to the International Space Station - which is run by five participating space agencies, only one of which is NASA.
You want to damn an entire agency because a single vial of liquid was taken into space? I'm sure there have been plenty of experiments on different food stuffs in space, but you think that on this occasion this one example shows them to be a sham. Sorry, but that is a textbook case of overreaction. I bet you are still hurt from having your crayon-written application to be an astronaut denied. Or maybe you are just mad that NASA keep producing findings of studies that are at odds to your beliefs about global warming.
The last part of the exection in MS long history of Embrace, Extend, Extuinguish
Well, it is a good thing that their strategy was not Embrace, Extend and Spell-check.
But seriously, this has absolutely nothing to do with the E-E-E adage. Embrace does not mean buy; there was nothing here that they Extended; and shutting down non-profitable or under-used services of an acquisition is not Extinguishing them in the manner of that saying. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish is all about corrupting something that is a standard (or like one) so that it loses its usefulness as a cross-platform system. This case is just about pulling the plug on their own servers. It affects nobody other than their own customers.
Just because this is Microsoft that we are talking about doesn't mean that you have to trot out that old meme, "Developers, Developers, Developers" or even "Monkey-boy".
So does Microsoft. This project is an admission that they consider their own codecs to be effectively dead now anyway.
Did you even read the summary? It explicitly mentions "Microsoft's VC-1", which was the result of standardising their proprietary WMV9 video format back in 2006. If this latest act is their admission then they are at least 9 years too late. Microsoft have been moving away from proprietary formats since Vista, which I recall because I lost an argument back then about whether Windows Media Player could rip to MP3 format (I believed the anti-Vista hype back then).
I actually liked Flash being used for advertising on the Web, because I never installed Flash in the first place. It used to be my poor-man's ad-blocker long before that was a thing. But now that Flash is dying off, and with ubiquitous ad blockers, I now get confronted with the kind of flashy, power draining ads that I have always hated because everyone uses HTML5 video or canvas animations instead. I can tell when one loads because I can hear my poor little notebook's fan start chugging away as soon as the CPU-heavy ads start playing.
I want to support my free web services by allowing reasonable advertising on websites, but not when they take over the resources on my computer.
Windows Firewall, by default, allows all outgoing connections. In order to block an outgoing connection you have to specify exactly which one you want to block. How do you do that if you don't know which program is making the connections? What if Windows Update adds something that you don't even know exists?
Why ask these questions if you have already given the answer yourself? You simply change the firewall profile from its default setting to block all outgoing connections except those specified by a rule. This is not a missing feature from the Windows Firewall.
The big problem is that installers and services that run as admin can add their own entries to the firewall without notification. Steam does this for its own client and for any games that it installs. If it can't access the Internet for any reason, the client adds another entry for itself into the firewall. I eventually added another administrator account for the Steam service to run as and then denied it access to the firewall with the registry editor.
That's works for a third-party program, but Microsoft services could always bypass the security if they wanted. This isn't a limitation of the firewall per se, but rather a consequence of us not trusting the OS that actually provides the protection in the first place.
You're kidding, right? How often do we have to chant the mantra that climate is not the same as weather. The climate models may suggest that we will see in increase in precipitation, but that doesn't mean that in one specific location that there will be more rain. Also, there are other localised factors with droughts.
None of what was in that article is enough to make the claims that all the models have failed. I also don't understand the point of the article. If 97% of the scientists agree that man has a hand in global warming, it doesn't mean that they agree on all the details. Nor does it mean that any disagreement within the community is proof that the whole thing is a big fat lie.
BS. 'Big Oil' is a red-herring to divert attention away from 'Big Government', whose grants and funding tend to force researchers to become, in effect, lobbyists for political activism in order to 'pay the rent'.
And that is even more BS. There is no proof that there is any "Big Government" that is attempting to control the scientific community, especially when 50% of those people in power are actively against the idea of climate change. Whenever you hear of political interference with the scientific process, how often is it some left-wing conspiracy to force the hand of scientists compared with conservatives attempting to shut down institutions that do research into climate change? Where is the evidence of this giant conspiracy, other than far-right pundits speculating as if it was fact?
And now the onus is on your to back up what you say and prove that such rigor isn't required of climate science, or that the results are being significantly skewed because of their funding source. Just because what the science says does not match your gut instinct is not proof. Just because it could happen is not proof; we need evidence of inconvenient funding sources being omitted from research, or a meta study showing differing results depending on how the methodology is described.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that most climate scientists have done a good job of keeping corporate interests away from their research. If a scientist wanted to ensure future funding and be free of political interference, then they would take the easy path of downplaying global warming. No scientific research organisation has been defunded or disbanded because they gave evidence that contrary to man's impact on the environment.
Man's 3% of emissions seems to matter more than nature's 97%. Anyone who believes the climate change crap is not using their brain.
When the 97% of nature is in balance, then the 3% of mankind's emissions will be enough to put it out of balance.
It seems that someone doesn't understand how an equilibrium works. You can use your brain and still be wrong if you don't understand the problem in the first place.
How could you have been reading slashdot for a decade and not know what Kali is? You need to get out of your hole every once in a while.
Seriously? Do you know how many distros are out there? It is not one that I have needed to use until now because frankly I don't have the patience to wade through each one once I had found one that worked well enough for me.
Your attitude is similar to those who howl at people who ask questions in forums, telling them to RTFA. You blame people who aren't as interested in Linux as you are. That is the epitome of what is wrong with open source software.
...whatever you do, don't give us any fucking clues as to what the features of interest might be or why we might be interested in this particular distro.
They told you in the summary what was important; that it had rolling updates.
But seriously, that it absolutely true. I used to hate companies that insisted on having a mission statement on their websites, but it is something that is essential for the myriad of Linux distros and other open source projects that waste the front page of their websites with the change log. "Great, I know what has changed, now what is the program about?"
In this case, their front page does give a simple explanation of the purpose of the distro; that it is a "penetration testing platform". I guess if you don't know what that means that the product isn't meant for you. But how useful would it have been to have those three words in the/. summary?
Slashdot Mirror
That rat just ate it's own shit and fucked it's mother in the cage. I guess we aren't more intelligent and superior?
There are websites that you can find to show that some humans do exactly the same sort of thing. On the other hand, mice don't watch reality TV shows so that's a win for them!
Some disabled people are going to be very sad
If you are disabled enough to require voice control over your computer then you probably want to operate more than just Chrome and will have some more system-wide software in operation. It won't make much difference to them (in fact, it may be better as you don't have two different systems trying to listen to your voice).
Yeah, I've already heard from from my crunchy greenie friends about how this "proves" the value of traditional medicine. That one text mentions on herb that worked, and 1,999 texts listed herbs that didn't shows the exact opposite... completely escapes them.
To be fair, those traditional herbal medicines were not all supposed to be malaria cures specifically. In fact this particular herb was a general cure for fever.
From Artemisinin: Discovery from the Chinese Herbal Garden:
During their search, Youyou Tu and colleagues investigated more than 2,000 recipes of Chinese traditional herbs, compiling 640 recipes that might have some antimalarial activity.
Of course, traditional techniques for extracting the compound to make the medicine were still wrong though, so your friends who you are denigrating still don't have cause to celebrate. But traditional medicine is just an early version of modern medicine with just as sloppy scientific rigor as the doctors in the 60s who used to prescribe smoking to their patients. So there is no point feeling all high and mighty as our modern medicine can trace its roots back to a lot of leach-loving doctors.
So she "discovers" something that was widely known for, what, 500 years? and she gets a nobel? WTF is this about?
It's about eliminating the other 1,999 herbs that were also "known" about. It's about applying the herb that had been traditionally used to treat generic fevers to now fight malaria. It's about isolating the compound in the herb (Artemisinin) and figuring the best way to extract it (which wasn't the method traditionally used).
All that tells me is that gun violence isn't a big problem when it is the people who are trained and vetted who have the guns. That says nothing about the general population packing heat. In fact, there are a lot of myths about both Israel and Switzerland regarding gun ownership. The situations there are not evidence that high levels of gun ownership in the civilian population doesn't lead to increased gun violence.
So why don't you do what Las Vegas did with Fremont Street and actually made it so that it's no longer a road?
It is still a road if commercial vehicles like taxis and delivery trucks are still allowed. Blocking it completely is obviously not an option.
Its about FUD. From the Rockefeller foundation, the UN, the governments of the west, who all want in on this new bandwagon.
Which bit exactly is the FUD? That Exxon scientists went from publicly backing the rest of the scientific world's ideas of climate change to silence (and even championing the denier's cause) on the matter at the direction of their company masters? Which is more likely; that the entire scientific community, the UN, the governments of the world have all worked together to produce an enormous set of fake theories and data without a single whistle-blower or leak coming out to provide evidence of this monumentally huge conspiracy, or that the corporate interests have turned to the same right wing think thanks who attempted to debunk the link between smoking and cancer to spout exactly the same anti-science claims about global warming?
Where is your evidence then? Remember, without evidence your claims are just FUD. With all the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit the best "evidence" came down the some terminology (eg. the word "trick") and some out of context statements that the scientists didn't have all the answers yet. With the ability to accept such vague non-evidence as proof of nefarious activities, it is amazing how demanding the deniers are of the need for perfection and not a single amount of uncertainty from the scientific community.
Your appeal to authority only impresses those that have already bought into your ideology.
Incorrect. It only doesn't impress the people who are so anti-science that they have their head in the sand on this matter. Frankly, nothing is going to get through to people like you.
The sky is blue. The brown you are talking about is invisible and has no demonstrated any harm so far. But you and your "specialists" assure us we are doomed. I know another body of people who assure us we are doomed, and they have a big report out called The Bible, its true, because all the Bible experts say its true.
Seriously? This is supposed to be your evidence that it all a lie? The entire scientific world has it wrong because the Bible got it wrong too? Is that supposed to be a better appeal to authority?
The UN and associated governments have been outspending 10 to 1 any moneys put forth by those "big oil" companies, in propaganda in the last few decades.
Do you any even a shred of proof of this statement? You assume that what the scientific world is saying is propaganda because you have presupposed that greenhouse gases do not linger in the atmosphere and that they don't result in a warming effect on the planet. Without that presupposition, all the scientific community is doing is their job. Coming up with theories and looking at the data to see if it is true - just like any other group of scientists do. Or do you think cosmologists, physicists, biologist, botanists all have their own agendas that they are each attempting to foist on the world. Hmm, maybe that explains quantum physics.
The Exxon documents are 30 years older than the sources quoted above. The Exxon documents gave a time window of 5 to 10 years "before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." That was 35 years ago.
So what? It sounds like you are trying to make a meaningful statement, and yet you are actually saying nothing. If you are trying to say that they were wrong about their predictions then you still haven't shown why we should care about what they had to say on the most recent records
And if you are attempting to imply that there has been no global warming since 1978, then that is a big whopping lie. But no, you are not really saying that are you. You are just making a vague statement in the hope that we think that there must actually be something wrong with the climate predictions when you are offered no specific claim that this is the case. That is another typical denier FUD technique.
What is desperate and pathetic is the Zealotry of the Alarmists:
Oh dear. Did you just go and change the topic again? Thanks for proving my point.
And which is the more zealous man; the one who claims the sky is blue or the other who insists that it is brown? I think that if you are going to call someone a zealot, it surely must be the one who disagrees with the entire body of people whose job it is to study that subject. How arrogant is it to claim that you know better than all the highly educated scientists who spend their entire lives specialising in studying the climate?
Aren't you just a little bit angry that some of the people that probably influenced your beliefs (either directly or indirectly) were actually being paid to lie about climate change by a multinational oil and gas corporation? That is what this discussion is about.
I wonder what these guys think of he fact there's been no warming in nearly 20 years?
Typical response when a climate change denier has their argument countered: change the subject! Of the names listed that have been shown to have changed their stance at the orders of their bosses, there is no reason to care what they have on say on any subject now. So why would you want to know what they think about the slowdown of temperature rise over the last decade? The only reason to bring that up now is to attempt to muddy the debate and remove focus from the documented manipulation of the scientific and political debate by a vested interest.
You just know that if the scientists from the article had been at academic institutions then the deniers would be alleging that they were just trying to get government grants. But when it is shown to be the opposite, the people who are so obsessed with following the money remain silent; or worse, they try to hijack the debate by switching to a topic that they hope they can win.
It's like the Wizard of Oz telling us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. That is desperate and pathetic!
This article AND summary are perfect examples. They say Exxon this, Exxon that, but there are no names.
You obviously didn't read any further than the first few paragraphs if you think that they didn't name any names. It was littered with direct quotes and even linked documents. Here are the names that I have found (either in the article or the linked source documents):
There is also a link at the end to a summary of the cast of characters. To try and claim that this was some vague puff piece is itself an attempt to spread FUD about the article.
It is hardly new that they share their code. They have had a Shared Source Initiative since 2001 to enable "source code access for customers, partners and educators, by making enterprise systems integrators (SIs) eligible to receive access to Microsoft Windows source code" (Source).
They already did share their code with partners like Mainsoft, who was the source of the leaked Windows code for NT4 and 2000 that happened in 2004.
Interestingly, Mainsoft was "one of the main providers for the Microsoft Windows Interface Source Environment (WISE) program, a licensing program from Microsoft which allowed developers to recompile and run Windows-based applications on UNIX and Macintosh platforms. Before WINE there was WISE!
Even at minimum wage, 1000 hours is $10,000. That'll buy one very spiffy security system.
Who is it that actually pays you for not working on a DIY alarm system? Do you expect the OP to get a second job just to pay off his commercial security system and to fill in the time that he would have otherwise spent tinkering with it?
Surely the 1000 hours would be more likely be spent on something unprofitable like watching TV, playing video games, or posting on /.
pro grade inkjets don't use cartridges, they use bottles and pipes to the print heads
That isn't always true, because this printer in question does have cartridges. I think that a printer that handles 44" wide paper and have 11 separate colour cartridges (including three levels of black) is hardly a consumer device. The cartridges come in three sizes: 150 ml, 350 ml or 700 ml, the latter having a larger capacity than what you call a pro grade inkjet.
Which is unfortunate because there's nothing special about WiFi, satellite networks have been using the same (and vastly more complex) modulation methods for decades.
Yes, it was the CSIRO satellite technology that they adapted for WiFi. And it was special because nobody else at the time could solve the problem. People like to simplify the issues by say that the CSIRO claim that they invented WiFi, but they have never said that.
GO (fuck yourselves) NASA!!
What's NASA got to do with this?
This was the result of Ardbeg Distillery being invited by a company called NanoRacks to send a vial of whiskey up in a Russian rocket to the International Space Station - which is run by five participating space agencies, only one of which is NASA.
You want to damn an entire agency because a single vial of liquid was taken into space? I'm sure there have been plenty of experiments on different food stuffs in space, but you think that on this occasion this one example shows them to be a sham. Sorry, but that is a textbook case of overreaction. I bet you are still hurt from having your crayon-written application to be an astronaut denied. Or maybe you are just mad that NASA keep producing findings of studies that are at odds to your beliefs about global warming.
The last part of the exection in MS long history of Embrace, Extend, Extuinguish
Well, it is a good thing that their strategy was not Embrace, Extend and Spell-check.
But seriously, this has absolutely nothing to do with the E-E-E adage. Embrace does not mean buy; there was nothing here that they Extended; and shutting down non-profitable or under-used services of an acquisition is not Extinguishing them in the manner of that saying. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish is all about corrupting something that is a standard (or like one) so that it loses its usefulness as a cross-platform system. This case is just about pulling the plug on their own servers. It affects nobody other than their own customers.
Just because this is Microsoft that we are talking about doesn't mean that you have to trot out that old meme, "Developers, Developers, Developers" or even "Monkey-boy".
So does Microsoft. This project is an admission that they consider their own codecs to be effectively dead now anyway.
Did you even read the summary? It explicitly mentions "Microsoft's VC-1", which was the result of standardising their proprietary WMV9 video format back in 2006. If this latest act is their admission then they are at least 9 years too late. Microsoft have been moving away from proprietary formats since Vista, which I recall because I lost an argument back then about whether Windows Media Player could rip to MP3 format (I believed the anti-Vista hype back then).
I actually liked Flash being used for advertising on the Web, because I never installed Flash in the first place. It used to be my poor-man's ad-blocker long before that was a thing. But now that Flash is dying off, and with ubiquitous ad blockers, I now get confronted with the kind of flashy, power draining ads that I have always hated because everyone uses HTML5 video or canvas animations instead. I can tell when one loads because I can hear my poor little notebook's fan start chugging away as soon as the CPU-heavy ads start playing.
I want to support my free web services by allowing reasonable advertising on websites, but not when they take over the resources on my computer.
Windows Firewall, by default, allows all outgoing connections. In order to block an outgoing connection you have to specify exactly which one you want to block. How do you do that if you don't know which program is making the connections? What if Windows Update adds something that you don't even know exists?
Why ask these questions if you have already given the answer yourself? You simply change the firewall profile from its default setting to block all outgoing connections except those specified by a rule. This is not a missing feature from the Windows Firewall.
The big problem is that installers and services that run as admin can add their own entries to the firewall without notification. Steam does this for its own client and for any games that it installs. If it can't access the Internet for any reason, the client adds another entry for itself into the firewall. I eventually added another administrator account for the Steam service to run as and then denied it access to the firewall with the registry editor.
That's works for a third-party program, but Microsoft services could always bypass the security if they wanted. This isn't a limitation of the firewall per se, but rather a consequence of us not trusting the OS that actually provides the protection in the first place.
You're kidding, right? How often do we have to chant the mantra that climate is not the same as weather. The climate models may suggest that we will see in increase in precipitation, but that doesn't mean that in one specific location that there will be more rain. Also, there are other localised factors with droughts.
None of what was in that article is enough to make the claims that all the models have failed. I also don't understand the point of the article. If 97% of the scientists agree that man has a hand in global warming, it doesn't mean that they agree on all the details. Nor does it mean that any disagreement within the community is proof that the whole thing is a big fat lie.
BS. 'Big Oil' is a red-herring to divert attention away from 'Big Government', whose grants and funding tend to force researchers to become, in effect, lobbyists for political activism in order to 'pay the rent'.
And that is even more BS. There is no proof that there is any "Big Government" that is attempting to control the scientific community, especially when 50% of those people in power are actively against the idea of climate change. Whenever you hear of political interference with the scientific process, how often is it some left-wing conspiracy to force the hand of scientists compared with conservatives attempting to shut down institutions that do research into climate change? Where is the evidence of this giant conspiracy, other than far-right pundits speculating as if it was fact?
...such rigor were required of Climate Science.
And now the onus is on your to back up what you say and prove that such rigor isn't required of climate science, or that the results are being significantly skewed because of their funding source. Just because what the science says does not match your gut instinct is not proof. Just because it could happen is not proof; we need evidence of inconvenient funding sources being omitted from research, or a meta study showing differing results depending on how the methodology is described.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that most climate scientists have done a good job of keeping corporate interests away from their research. If a scientist wanted to ensure future funding and be free of political interference, then they would take the easy path of downplaying global warming. No scientific research organisation has been defunded or disbanded because they gave evidence that contrary to man's impact on the environment.
Man's 3% of emissions seems to matter more than nature's 97%. Anyone who believes the climate change crap is not using their brain.
When the 97% of nature is in balance, then the 3% of mankind's emissions will be enough to put it out of balance.
It seems that someone doesn't understand how an equilibrium works. You can use your brain and still be wrong if you don't understand the problem in the first place.
How could you have been reading slashdot for a decade and not know what Kali is? You need to get out of your hole every once in a while.
Seriously? Do you know how many distros are out there? It is not one that I have needed to use until now because frankly I don't have the patience to wade through each one once I had found one that worked well enough for me.
Your attitude is similar to those who howl at people who ask questions in forums, telling them to RTFA. You blame people who aren't as interested in Linux as you are. That is the epitome of what is wrong with open source software.
...whatever you do, don't give us any fucking clues as to what the features of interest might be or why we might be interested in this particular distro.
They told you in the summary what was important; that it had rolling updates.
But seriously, that it absolutely true. I used to hate companies that insisted on having a mission statement on their websites, but it is something that is essential for the myriad of Linux distros and other open source projects that waste the front page of their websites with the change log. "Great, I know what has changed, now what is the program about?"
In this case, their front page does give a simple explanation of the purpose of the distro; that it is a "penetration testing platform". I guess if you don't know what that means that the product isn't meant for you. But how useful would it have been to have those three words in the /. summary?
They also have a fairly simple features page.