I don't think anyone RTFA. It doesn't say anything about them hitting the jackpot (ie making money) yet. Only that the business has just started up, and a description on how they hope to hit the jackpot (make money). The/. ubermods are clearly drunk again...perhaps with hubris. That, and they appear to have a twisted fetish for idiot stories from idiot people who didn't RTFA or score poorly on reading comprehension...
Thanks for the link. Had no idea the Windows GUI components had such a huge and gaping window messaging authentication flaw in them. Although wouldn't the window already have to be open to allow a malicious program to attack? Ie, would Regedit have to be opened by the user before the program could start editing settings? Or is the desktop itself, Start menu and all, a "window?" This article only mentions Windows 2000, so I assume NT is also vulnerable, but what about XP or Server 2003? Any word on Longhorn? Also, as I am getting a laptop that runs the OS X BSD variant, does the Apple GUI(s) use a system similiar to Windows window messaging non-authentication? I believe it has 4 in total, Aqua, Carbon, Classic (is this Cocoa?) and of course X11. I could be wrong about the exact names, though. However, as there are 4 GUIs instead of one involved, it seems to me that the possibility for a flaw is greater, if not the actual probability.
So by this logic, the 286 never should have been released, because before that the entire x86 world was 8-bit, and of course the market was less than 5% saturated with 16-bit CPUs before the 286 was released, and for awhile after as well. Ergo, no new products should ever be introduced simply because it hasn't passed the "early adopter" stage and you're too impatient to allow the S-curve to bring greater functionatility for less price to the consumer.
because various OS components (Internet Explorer/ActiveX) allow bypassing of normal privilege isolation.
Ever heard of Firefox? You named one component. ActiveX is a subset of the IE component. Other than IE, do you have any other insecure components to mention?
You mean before the photographs had totally melted and were a chemical soup, and they somehow refroze the chemicals into the exact form of the original, frozen photograph? Amazing!
Is everyone else completely locked into Microsoft like we are?
You mean you're in a jail cell, and the only computer that you're allowed to use run Windows? That no other OS software is available, and that stores force you to buy a Windows product? That without Windows, you'd die on the spot? Get a life. No one is locked into any product. You don't like Windows? Use Unix, Linux, Mac, OS/2, or any of the numerous alternative operating systems out there. Don't like the products available, get off your ass and attempt to create something better. Your school decided to migrate to a total Windows setup; the government did not put a gun to their head and demand they must use Windows or be shut down (or shot). Complain to the school administration and IT department, and if you feel that strongly about the Windows issue, move to another school where the OS makeup is more to your liking. Until you put any effort into changing things, stop whining!
You do know that oil fields have been observed re-filling themselves, that oil is turning up in places with zero organic content, that oil may not be bio-based, and that it may be constantly upwelling from deep within the Earth's surface?
Nothing can possibly get infinite MPG, due to the conservation of energy. If you're pedaling a bicycle, you're expending kilcalories, which is energy, which came from food you ate, which took energy to produce. I doubt you'd get very far on just one gallon, of, say, water, or any other liquid that isn't toxic.
Apparently, the unit, sans screen, costs $600. If you want a screen for some reason, a B/W costs $123, while color is only a mere $15 bucks more, for $138. Totally nuts you have to pay more for a screen, should just be honest and sell two models, one for $723 and another for $738. F'ing retarded to try and slip in a lower unit price by pretending the screen is an optional accessory (Did fool the loons on Slashdot though; the uber-parent fell for this ploy, as did the nutsy Slashdot uber-mod).
Three things:
1. Slashdot uses a broken quad-color four-pane window, similiar to the Windows icon.
2. Slashdot has discovered Bill Gates is a member of the Borg Collective, apparently.
3. Broken panes department is bad, right?
So, as you can see, Slashdot, being objective, unbiased and in no way run by fringe Linux and Open Source zealots, has most certainly convinced me that Windows is the root of all evil, and are Communists to boot. This doesn't make logical sense to me, but Slashdot's judgement must never, ever be questioned.
"The Economist" isn't a reference? "2000 ICVS" isn't a reference? Of course, this is coming from a guy who can't spell or use proper punctuation, to say nothing of writing coherently. "are the independent" is a fine example.
Randam figures? Or is that a euphamism for "facts that don't support my opinion?" Your "theory" is not a theory. It is an idea that so far has nothing to back it up but circumstance. Handgun ownership isn't a factor in being mugged, or other crimes? Why do the states with the least amount of gun control laws consistently have lower crime rates? In any case, you obviously are a/. troll who makes up theories and bashes facts to hide their own ignorance on any matters of policy.
From the "The Economist," February 22nd, 2001, England and Wales is second after Australia for percentage of people who were a victim violent crime once or more in 1999. For car theft, England and Wales is number 1. For burglary, England and Wales is number 2.
After handguns were banned in England in 1997, "serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29 percent higher than 1996; robbery was 24 percent higher; murders 27 percent higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels."
"The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the most recent survey done, shows that the violent crime rate in England and Australia was twice the rate in the US."
I totally agree, right now hoping to get a Glock 26 for CC. However, he lives in London. The UK has enacted a total gun ban, and consequently, violent crime rates have gone up. Way up. London, along with Paris, are now the crime capitals of the Western world. As a previous poster said, the best thing to do would be to leave London. I'd say not only leave London, but move to a region where self-defense isn't a crime.
You appear to be making the argument 'All totalitarians are socialists' [hence all socialists are totalitarians]
This is like saying since all the terrorists so far have been Muslims, all Muslims are terrorists. While socialism nearly inevitably leads to totalitarianism, it was certainly the case at least before the rise of the Soviets and Nazis to hold socialist ideals out of good intentions; unfortunately, the outcome was quite different.
It is my contention that the far "Left" and the far "Right" are both closely related variants of totalitarianism. Having the same goal but different methods often invites the most severe infighting and violence, more so than an outsider with a different point of view can provide. Outsiders may be more tolerable as they are not expected to be in agreement with you, but those who are closest in ideals but disagree on points, either major or minor, can be seen as an unforgivable "betrayal" of the cause, and must be dealt with accordingly. Also, remember, the "Night of the Long Knives" was also designed to eliminate the SA at the behest of the German military, and purge any perceived rivals, as well as eliminating heretics. Yes, the Nazis repressed Socialist and Communist parties, but only because they had the same goals, but wished to expropriate power and resources fo the advantage of a different sub-group, ie not the Nazis.
In addition, please do not engage in personal insults. You do not know my knowledge of history, or that I am an ideologue. I assume that my opponents are not lacking in intelligence or history, or rank idealogues, but simply have not looked at a particular issue in its fullest context, or have not approached it in as many ways as possible. I would appreciate it if you would extend this courtesy to those who are not in full agreement with your own political views.
There is a large difference between 10% of a given population holding a belief in an idea, and a 10% statistical probability of an event occuring. Let's say 10% of the population believes that California will fall into the ocean sometime in the future. Does this mean there is a 10% chance of it occuring? As it's impossible for this to happen because of actual plate tectonic activity, it is not. Similiarly, if 10% of people, or even 100% of people, believe the Earth is flat, does this increase their chances of being correct? If 100% of the population wake up tomorrow and believe they are Jesus Christ?There is no inherent direct correlation between the percentage of the population who may believe in a concept and the probability of the idea being a valid one.
If the energy input that went into the mining of uranium was less than the energy output or its utility, it would not simply not be done. Saying it takes "quite alot" of energy to mine uranium is a totally subjective statement, and entirely ignores the products for which uranium is then used for.
The uber-parent has two fundamental misconceptions as written, and as such serves to mislead those who may not have had the time nor exposure to differences of opinion.
Firstly, it is highly questionable if the "Left" failed to stop Nazism, or even logically could have, as Nazism was an outgrowth of socialism combined with nationalism. The economist F.A. Hayek, in "The Road to Serfdom," noted that socialism would almost inevitably grow into a nationalist ideology. It is worth noting that the full name of the Nazi party was the "National Socialist German Worker's Party." Only those who deny the reality that socialism has a strong tendency to evolve into a totalitarian government, especially as the private means of production allows one to direct their own life as they see fit, and the state appropiation of this would lead to total control over the populace, if the program of socialization was utter and total.
As for global warming, the consensus among the scientific community is by no means solid. Perhaps 10% at most are convinced that global warming exists, that it's effects would be harmful to humanity, and that this could not be checked by human innovation. The vast majority of the scientific community, on the other hand, is either not convinced of its existence, or believe that the effects of global warming would be far less catostrophic that the Cassandras would have us believe. Indeed, it has been theorized that slight global warming would lead to longer growing seasons and greater crop production. As for the claim that such diseases as malaria would extend its reach beyond its current reach, we must remember that malaria was once widespread among the United States, and that it was public health initiatives, not a more temperate climate, that eliminated this scourge from the nation. Others point out that we are still coming out of an ice age, and that tropical conditions once existed far north and south of the Equator as at present, and they believe global warming is only a result of the natural cycle of the Earth's climate.
Let me make clear that I am in no way stating that those who believe otherwise are flawed or otherwise of poor character. The vast majority who hold views contrary to my own no doubt hold good intentions, but are in my opinion, due to the lack of diversity of thought throughout much of the common media, misinformed, or at the very least not confronted with alternative viewpoints that may challange their preconcieved notions of the world. However, let it be made clear that while one can disagree whether Nazism was on the "Left" or the "Right," it was an outgrowth of socialist thought of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Likewise, regardless of where one stands on the theory of global warming, the fact of the matter is that the scientific community as a whole is divided on this issue, with the current consensus of the vast majority that it either does not exist, is occuring naturally, or is occuring naturally and/or is man made, but will overall be beneficial to humankind.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think anyone RTFA. It doesn't say anything about them hitting the jackpot (ie making money) yet. Only that the business has just started up, and a description on how they hope to hit the jackpot (make money). The /. ubermods are clearly drunk again...perhaps with hubris. That, and they appear to have a twisted fetish for idiot stories from idiot people who didn't RTFA or score poorly on reading comprehension...
Like monitors, for instance? Please tell me this was a joke...
Thanks for the link. Had no idea the Windows GUI components had such a huge and gaping window messaging authentication flaw in them. Although wouldn't the window already have to be open to allow a malicious program to attack? Ie, would Regedit have to be opened by the user before the program could start editing settings? Or is the desktop itself, Start menu and all, a "window?" This article only mentions Windows 2000, so I assume NT is also vulnerable, but what about XP or Server 2003? Any word on Longhorn? Also, as I am getting a laptop that runs the OS X BSD variant, does the Apple GUI(s) use a system similiar to Windows window messaging non-authentication? I believe it has 4 in total, Aqua, Carbon, Classic (is this Cocoa?) and of course X11. I could be wrong about the exact names, though. However, as there are 4 GUIs instead of one involved, it seems to me that the possibility for a flaw is greater, if not the actual probability.
So by this logic, the 286 never should have been released, because before that the entire x86 world was 8-bit, and of course the market was less than 5% saturated with 16-bit CPUs before the 286 was released, and for awhile after as well. Ergo, no new products should ever be introduced simply because it hasn't passed the "early adopter" stage and you're too impatient to allow the S-curve to bring greater functionatility for less price to the consumer.
Ever heard of Firefox? You named one component. ActiveX is a subset of the IE component. Other than IE, do you have any other insecure components to mention?
Doesn't Linux toss out a new kernel more frequently than every 4 years? Isn't that a new NOS of sorts?
You mean before the photographs had totally melted and were a chemical soup, and they somehow refroze the chemicals into the exact form of the original, frozen photograph? Amazing!
You mean you're in a jail cell, and the only computer that you're allowed to use run Windows? That no other OS software is available, and that stores force you to buy a Windows product? That without Windows, you'd die on the spot? Get a life. No one is locked into any product. You don't like Windows? Use Unix, Linux, Mac, OS/2, or any of the numerous alternative operating systems out there. Don't like the products available, get off your ass and attempt to create something better. Your school decided to migrate to a total Windows setup; the government did not put a gun to their head and demand they must use Windows or be shut down (or shot). Complain to the school administration and IT department, and if you feel that strongly about the Windows issue, move to another school where the OS makeup is more to your liking. Until you put any effort into changing things, stop whining!
You do know that oil fields have been observed re-filling themselves, that oil is turning up in places with zero organic content, that oil may not be bio-based, and that it may be constantly upwelling from deep within the Earth's surface?
Nothing can possibly get infinite MPG, due to the conservation of energy. If you're pedaling a bicycle, you're expending kilcalories, which is energy, which came from food you ate, which took energy to produce. I doubt you'd get very far on just one gallon, of, say, water, or any other liquid that isn't toxic.
Apparently, the unit, sans screen, costs $600. If you want a screen for some reason, a B/W costs $123, while color is only a mere $15 bucks more, for $138. Totally nuts you have to pay more for a screen, should just be honest and sell two models, one for $723 and another for $738. F'ing retarded to try and slip in a lower unit price by pretending the screen is an optional accessory (Did fool the loons on Slashdot though; the uber-parent fell for this ploy, as did the nutsy Slashdot uber-mod).
Bluetooth is a wireless technology.
Three things: 1. Slashdot uses a broken quad-color four-pane window, similiar to the Windows icon. 2. Slashdot has discovered Bill Gates is a member of the Borg Collective, apparently. 3. Broken panes department is bad, right? So, as you can see, Slashdot, being objective, unbiased and in no way run by fringe Linux and Open Source zealots, has most certainly convinced me that Windows is the root of all evil, and are Communists to boot. This doesn't make logical sense to me, but Slashdot's judgement must never, ever be questioned.
"The Economist" isn't a reference? "2000 ICVS" isn't a reference? Of course, this is coming from a guy who can't spell or use proper punctuation, to say nothing of writing coherently. "are the independent" is a fine example.
Randam figures? Or is that a euphamism for "facts that don't support my opinion?" Your "theory" is not a theory. It is an idea that so far has nothing to back it up but circumstance. Handgun ownership isn't a factor in being mugged, or other crimes? Why do the states with the least amount of gun control laws consistently have lower crime rates? In any case, you obviously are a /. troll who makes up theories and bashes facts to hide their own ignorance on any matters of policy.
Maybe you should read the entire thread before speaking ill of others.
After handguns were banned in England in 1997, "serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29 percent higher than 1996; robbery was 24 percent higher; murders 27 percent higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels."
"The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the most recent survey done, shows that the violent crime rate in England and Australia was twice the rate in the US."
I totally agree, right now hoping to get a Glock 26 for CC. However, he lives in London. The UK has enacted a total gun ban, and consequently, violent crime rates have gone up. Way up. London, along with Paris, are now the crime capitals of the Western world. As a previous poster said, the best thing to do would be to leave London. I'd say not only leave London, but move to a region where self-defense isn't a crime.
This is like saying since all the terrorists so far have been Muslims, all Muslims are terrorists. While socialism nearly inevitably leads to totalitarianism, it was certainly the case at least before the rise of the Soviets and Nazis to hold socialist ideals out of good intentions; unfortunately, the outcome was quite different.
He didn't say it was. Only that in the case of the Brazilian rainforests, increased density has so far proven beneficial.
In addition, please do not engage in personal insults. You do not know my knowledge of history, or that I am an ideologue. I assume that my opponents are not lacking in intelligence or history, or rank idealogues, but simply have not looked at a particular issue in its fullest context, or have not approached it in as many ways as possible. I would appreciate it if you would extend this courtesy to those who are not in full agreement with your own political views.
There is a large difference between 10% of a given population holding a belief in an idea, and a 10% statistical probability of an event occuring. Let's say 10% of the population believes that California will fall into the ocean sometime in the future. Does this mean there is a 10% chance of it occuring? As it's impossible for this to happen because of actual plate tectonic activity, it is not. Similiarly, if 10% of people, or even 100% of people, believe the Earth is flat, does this increase their chances of being correct? If 100% of the population wake up tomorrow and believe they are Jesus Christ?There is no inherent direct correlation between the percentage of the population who may believe in a concept and the probability of the idea being a valid one.
If the energy input that went into the mining of uranium was less than the energy output or its utility, it would not simply not be done. Saying it takes "quite alot" of energy to mine uranium is a totally subjective statement, and entirely ignores the products for which uranium is then used for.
Firstly, it is highly questionable if the "Left" failed to stop Nazism, or even logically could have, as Nazism was an outgrowth of socialism combined with nationalism. The economist F.A. Hayek, in "The Road to Serfdom," noted that socialism would almost inevitably grow into a nationalist ideology. It is worth noting that the full name of the Nazi party was the "National Socialist German Worker's Party." Only those who deny the reality that socialism has a strong tendency to evolve into a totalitarian government, especially as the private means of production allows one to direct their own life as they see fit, and the state appropiation of this would lead to total control over the populace, if the program of socialization was utter and total.
As for global warming, the consensus among the scientific community is by no means solid. Perhaps 10% at most are convinced that global warming exists, that it's effects would be harmful to humanity, and that this could not be checked by human innovation. The vast majority of the scientific community, on the other hand, is either not convinced of its existence, or believe that the effects of global warming would be far less catostrophic that the Cassandras would have us believe. Indeed, it has been theorized that slight global warming would lead to longer growing seasons and greater crop production. As for the claim that such diseases as malaria would extend its reach beyond its current reach, we must remember that malaria was once widespread among the United States, and that it was public health initiatives, not a more temperate climate, that eliminated this scourge from the nation. Others point out that we are still coming out of an ice age, and that tropical conditions once existed far north and south of the Equator as at present, and they believe global warming is only a result of the natural cycle of the Earth's climate.
Let me make clear that I am in no way stating that those who believe otherwise are flawed or otherwise of poor character. The vast majority who hold views contrary to my own no doubt hold good intentions, but are in my opinion, due to the lack of diversity of thought throughout much of the common media, misinformed, or at the very least not confronted with alternative viewpoints that may challange their preconcieved notions of the world. However, let it be made clear that while one can disagree whether Nazism was on the "Left" or the "Right," it was an outgrowth of socialist thought of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Likewise, regardless of where one stands on the theory of global warming, the fact of the matter is that the scientific community as a whole is divided on this issue, with the current consensus of the vast majority that it either does not exist, is occuring naturally, or is occuring naturally and/or is man made, but will overall be beneficial to humankind.
You mean any object that is not enclosed 100% of the time in a sterilized bubble?