Running this exercise in a high school would be advantageous. Teenagers think they are invincible in high school and would be more apt to go "vigilante" in this situation and try to track down a shooter. This exercise could help identify some of these lemmings.
What do you mean by that please? Because it looks like you're saying that if someone were to try to stop the situation, they're a lemming? Seems to me, cowering under a desk waiting to be shot in the head is the mindless, ineffective approach. A student tackling the gunman so others could disarm him, or a teacher with a concealed carry permit, or _any_ non-passive response, seems to be a hell of a lot better than just waiting to die.
The realization that one has just overwritten a public-facing, high-traffic/index.html with something that was supposed to be a couple levels down is bad enough.
It's worse when/index.html is owned by someone else entirely. Someone who now must be woken up in the middle of the night, in a different country... In cases like that, you can go to archive.org and get the index.html from the "internet wayback machine" if the site was archived by them - almost every site I've tried, has been. It displays the dates that the page changed, you can pick from it and step back and forth through history.
I've saved quite a bit of time for clients with that little trick. Hope you find it useful.
Guess Daddypants didn't read his email. I've submitted maybe a dozen things to that email address, and never once have any of the serious problems been fixed. So I stopped. Not sure what the point is of asking for help and feedback if they don't read it. So now I make the process so much more efficient by not sending it.
>the idiot governor here doesn't trust good people to be honest and instead caves to criminals and the RIAA.
But you repeat yourself. Yeah, sorry about that. But his failings go so far beyond things like "I should be trusted to listen to my CDs however I want". He's one of these "Give the bad guy a 27th, 28th, and 29th chance, but don't give a law abiding citizen a first chance" kind of guys. Former defense attorney, what else can I say. Give me a non-lawyer or a prosecuting attorney any day for a politician, but this idiot has charm, charisma, and not a fucking clue.
Gubner Doyle, yeah, I know I have a file, try _thinking_ for once instead of basing your policy on how the polls tell you people want you to _feel_.
You thundering moron. Wisconsin is run by the democrats, the idiot governor here doesn't trust good people to be honest and instead caves to criminals and the RIAA. Why don't you actually get some facts before spewing your partisan crap.
We've been (this) close, twice, to getting rid of the criminal Doyle, but for reasons dictated by emotion rather than logic, the idiot got elected and then reelected. Yet he trusts criminals to be the only ones armed, and the RIAA to dicate how we listen to our CDs. So, maybe, just maybe, you could look at the actual situation next time, before guessing that it's the eeevul Republicans' fault, mmmkay? Thanks awfully.
"I know, I have several years on my resume I can't talk abuot except in the most vague ways."
Yeah, that part of your 'career' where you were in jail for climbing into the endangered bird sanctuary at your local zoo and buggering a heron. Technically that goes at the end under "hobbies and personal information" though, right?
Re:Actually, it shows the fallacy of organ donatio
on
Treating the Dead
·
· Score: 1
Of course, if you died in a traffick accident or something, the chances are that your brains are splattered on the sidewalk. I'd say that it's a bit unlikely that you'll walk from that, even if the cells aren't dead:).
On the assumption that you're serious, um, no. Grey matter is very rarely encountered in emergency medicine - maybe 1% of the trauma calls I've been on, max. Sure, once the egg is cracked, you're not getting 'em back, period, but that doesn't happen all that often, even in motorcycle vs. car crashes.
That said, in trauma cases, they reason they're dead isn't chemical, it's mechanical. They're dead because their spinal cord is snapped too high to survive. Or they're dead because of massive blood loss, internally or externally. Or they're dead because large chunks of them aren't where they should be. etc etc etc. Fixing the biochemical balance is one thing, fixing the mechanical problem that caused them to be dead in the first place is entirely different. I can see this being helpful in cardiac events, for instance, but for things like traumatic injury, not so much.
Did you read the British memo, written by Matthew Rycroft, published in the Sunday Times?
Extracts:
"July 23rd, 2002"
No need to say more. You can keep your delusions and rewrite history. But there is written proof the war decision was decided in advance, and the reasons for it were fixed. And this memo is not the only proof.
Wow, Bush really _is_ powerful. He even got all these Democrats to believe the intel he was fixing, in 2002. I wonder how he did that (note the dates) :
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
How did he get Clinton, the other Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, etc etc etc all convinced of his "fixed" intel, when he wasn't even President yet? Oh, I know, that's how devious (while simultaneously cripplingly stupid) he is, is that it?
Face it, they were all working from the same intel, and then the UN gave them years and years to hide the nasties somewhere.
He should stick to what he's good at, writing software. Hell yes. I don't understand why people think that just because they're a famous (actor/musician/geek/whatever), we're supposed to give a shiat what their politics are. Stick to what you're good at there, sparky, and stop making an ass of yourself in other areas. It limits your credibility, which hurts open source.
That some criminals will always have guns is a specious argument.
Let's examine:
Some criminals will always have guns. Therefore, there is no reason to control access to guns.
Bzzzt, wrong. You just invented that argument; nobody but the anti-gunners has said this. Can you tell me specifically how, in this specific situation, having the students and staffed barred from having guns on campus even if they were legal CCW carriers, made them more safe.
Don't get me wrong, I think citizens should be allowed to have firearms. But I also think it's silly that we put less effort into controlling who has a firearm than we do who can fix plumbing.
Then it's clear that you, sorry, don't know what you're talking about.
And I especially dislike it when gun-nuts and anti-gun nuts use bullshit arguments to attempt to blindly advance their cause. Making guns illegal for the populace to have at all isn't the answer. But complete unfettered access to firearms isn't the answer either.
Nobody _HAS_ complete unfettered access to firearms. What the citizens of Virginia understand, and what you and the University leadership do not understand, is that good people with guns are an asset to society, and can then defend themselves and others from criminals. If only they hadn't forced all those victims, and all those around them, to be safe to attack.
Criminals will break the law. Therefore laws against gun ownership make the situation such that law-abiding citizens cannot defend themselves.
When I heard about the shootings, that was the first thing I thought: It's too bad more students weren't armed.
And to make matters worse, it could have so easily been prevented. As you've probably read by now, the University decided not to let students and staff members who had a legal, valid permit to carry concealed weapons, do so on campus. Even worse perhaps is the decision not to allow their own "security guards" to be armed. This is a tragic example of how gun control causes damage. The population has been disarmed, they have announced same, and a criminal knows he's completely safe to come in and murder them without danger to himself.
Instead, we've got 32 victims whose deaths are at least in part due to the University making them safe to attack. I hope those administrators understand the gravity of their actions. Unfortunately, the anti-gunners will take this utter failure of their approach to say they need to do more of that which just helped cause 32 deaths.
The solution to school shootings is *more* guns in the classrooms? Absolutely. A gun in the hands of a good person has a net positive, or neutral at worst, effect on society. A gun in the hands of a bad person is always a negative for society.
That kind of escalation strategy is what kept the cold war going for so many decades, have you learned nothing?
I think yesterday showed that the only thing disarming good people accomplishes, is to make them safe targets to attack. I'm not sure that the safety of murderers is such a good thing to be accomplishing. The tragic part of all of this is that Virginia has concealed carry laws, but the University decided they didn't trust their students enough to potentially defend their own lives.
is the ability to drop six figures for a device that does little more than allow people to advertise to me while wasting my time. I wonder how it would work out as a monitor? Because after having ditched television over 15 years ago, I am not about to pick up the habit again.
Why is it that people who have given up television then seem to have the need to tell us about it? Why then, do you specifically, bother commenting on a product which by your own choice you're not interested in? It's equivalent to the guy who goes on and on about his OS of choice not having viruses.
Indeed, this fact alone makes the more simple firewall rules or web filters useless. They only match based on domains/urls/ips. Kids will get round this rather rapidly. Indeed. And that's just fine. I try to keep the network at my kids' school happy. So we have some basic filters in place, blocking URLs which are obviously not appropriate for a grade school. Is there that one kid in 7th grade bypassing the filters by going out through something or another? Sure. I would have been that kid in 7th grade too. Do I care? Not really. He's smart enough to do it, smart enough to (almost) cover his tracks, and adding another block will just make him find another hole. I don't _care_. The thing is, we're exercising due diligence so that if someone DOES end up with something on the screen that isn't appropriate for a grade school, we can point to what's in place, what they did to get around it, and the responsibility is firmly on the student who bypassed it. If it's wide open, then it's _our_ fault (either logically, or otherwise) for not "stopping my precious child from finding (whatever)".
I really don't see anything positive to be gained by anyone by continuing this conversation at this point, do you?
I think it would be positive if you'd agree to stop forcing people to do things against their will for your own personal gain. Or stop advocating they be forced. Freedom is positive. (Although it makes it harder to cash in at someone else's expense.) Let me be more clear. I'll waste no more time with you. You win or something, congratulations. Maybe you could save your anger for things which really matter, but hey, whatever. Get the laws changed or something.
Apple continued to claim that there were no vulnerabilities in Mac OS X
All systems have vulnerabilities, how can they say that with a straight face? I don't think anyone but the flamebait article writer in question ever did say that. The patches that Apple releases have pretty well written up release notes, and I'd bet that if you grep through them for "vulnerability" you'd get a few hits.
Really? Define "worse". How much higher? What's the REAL price of us needing to buy oil from countries who hate us, exactly, and how do you measure that?
Making people buy it makes those people poorer. How is it moral to force people to buy something they don't want at a price they would never willingly pay? It's just stealing from them indirectly. Yeah, I think I'm done. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy an E85 vehicle or E85 fuel, therefore those who do so willingly aren't being stolen from, despite the repeated claims by folks like you to the contrary. I really don't see anything positive to be gained by anyone by continuing this conversation at this point, do you?
But, it was farmland, was taken out of production because the prices fell so far that farmers were going out of business. You might not care, but at some point, we need to have enough people out there still growing food for us.
What is there that might provide an incentive for people to grow food and sell it? The answer is a higher price. Great. Then let's ENCOURAGE more use of that land, by making it more attractive to grow corn again, and start buying Ethanol rather than Petroleum. See how easy that is? (snip of the specious "therefore subsidies is stealing" noise - nothing to be gained by going around and around on that. Fix the problem.)
I agree. A "gas station" could consist of a giant wind turbine which directly drives a compressor. Obviously the tower would have to be extra high in an urban environment, to avoid the turbulence at low elevations. I suspect that you haven't run the numbers on this, as far as how much power is actually in wind. You'd need an _immense_ wind farm to feed a fueling station. Google for "wind power density" and it'll get you some good links. As an example, though, the individual-owned wind turbines you see from time to time? The most popular ones are in the 400 Watt (max) output range. That's enough to run a PC maybe but, not to push a car down the road.
"So, you'll give money to a terrorist to save a buck. Good to know. I suppose you buy from spammers too."
It's MY MONEY. WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU to tell me what I can do with MY MONEY?
Yup, I've got you figured out alright.
"Who is stealing anything from anyone?"
YOU ARE you stupid fuck. You admit it right here
"Actually, I _have_ 22 acres that I'm being paid not to grow anything on." See, the part people like you don't understand, is that without taking that land out of food production, you would be paying MORE for food right now, because there would be fewer people still able to afford farming. It's OK if you don't understand that, really it is. People that actually, you know, study math and economics and all that sort of thing do. Oh, and by the way? I've dumped WAY more into that land in money, time, and materials than the chintzy 45 dollars an acre per year gives me. I'm up to nearly 10,000 seedlings that I've planted on that land; some are taller than me now. What have YOU done for ME lately there, sparky?
"I'd rather burn bio-something than dino-something,"
That's fine for you, but again, WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU to tell me what I can do with MY MONEY? And frankly, until you get off the government teat, your opinion doesn't mean dick.
You're just another welfare addict, trying to justify spending MY money on something that enriches you. Your kind disgust me, and if you were honest, you'd be disgusted by yourself too.
Yeah, well I can't help but laugh at that. If you had the balls to post as something other than an AC, your opinions might have _any_ weight at all. But as they are, you're just another foulmouthed, clueless angry person with no apparent knowledge with which to back up your statements.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean by that please? Because it looks like you're saying that if someone were to try to stop the situation, they're a lemming? Seems to me, cowering under a desk waiting to be shot in the head is the mindless, ineffective approach. A student tackling the gunman so others could disarm him, or a teacher with a concealed carry permit, or _any_ non-passive response, seems to be a hell of a lot better than just waiting to die.
It's worse when
I've saved quite a bit of time for clients with that little trick. Hope you find it useful.
Um, that'd be TFA. Some folks R them before posting questions answered there, you see.
But you repeat yourself.
Yeah, sorry about that. But his failings go so far beyond things like "I should be trusted to listen to my CDs however I want". He's one of these "Give the bad guy a 27th, 28th, and 29th chance, but don't give a law abiding citizen a first chance" kind of guys. Former defense attorney, what else can I say. Give me a non-lawyer or a prosecuting attorney any day for a politician, but this idiot has charm, charisma, and not a fucking clue.
Gubner Doyle, yeah, I know I have a file, try _thinking_ for once instead of basing your policy on how the polls tell you people want you to _feel_.
You thundering moron. Wisconsin is run by the democrats, the idiot governor here doesn't trust good people to be honest and instead caves to criminals and the RIAA. Why don't you actually get some facts before spewing your partisan crap.
We've been (this) close, twice, to getting rid of the criminal Doyle, but for reasons dictated by emotion rather than logic, the idiot got elected and then reelected. Yet he trusts criminals to be the only ones armed, and the RIAA to dicate how we listen to our CDs. So, maybe, just maybe, you could look at the actual situation next time, before guessing that it's the eeevul Republicans' fault, mmmkay? Thanks awfully.
Yeah, that part of your 'career' where you were in jail for climbing into the endangered bird sanctuary at your local zoo and buggering a heron.
Technically that goes at the end under "hobbies and personal information" though, right?
Of course, if you died in a traffick accident or something, the chances are that your brains are splattered on the sidewalk. I'd say that it's a bit unlikely that you'll walk from that, even if the cells aren't dead :).
On the assumption that you're serious, um, no. Grey matter is very rarely encountered in emergency medicine - maybe 1% of the trauma calls I've been on, max. Sure, once the egg is cracked, you're not getting 'em back, period, but that doesn't happen all that often, even in motorcycle vs. car crashes.
That said, in trauma cases, they reason they're dead isn't chemical, it's mechanical. They're dead because their spinal cord is snapped too high to survive. Or they're dead because of massive blood loss, internally or externally. Or they're dead because large chunks of them aren't where they should be. etc etc etc. Fixing the biochemical balance is one thing, fixing the mechanical problem that caused them to be dead in the first place is entirely different. I can see this being helpful in cardiac events, for instance, but for things like traumatic injury, not so much.
What a fascinating machine we are.
Extracts:
"July 23rd, 2002"
No need to say more. You can keep your delusions and rewrite history. But there is written proof the war decision was decided in advance, and the reasons for it were fixed. And this memo is not the only proof.
Wow, Bush really _is_ powerful. He even got all these Democrats to believe the intel he was fixing, in 2002. I wonder how he did that (note the dates) : http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp How did he get Clinton, the other Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, etc etc etc all convinced of his "fixed" intel, when he wasn't even President yet? Oh, I know, that's how devious (while simultaneously cripplingly stupid) he is, is that it?
Face it, they were all working from the same intel, and then the UN gave them years and years to hide the nasties somewhere.
Nonsense!
The quality of American chocolate is every bit fine as American cheese, American Pizza, American Wine, American beer... oh wait! Overgeneralize much?
Hell yes. I don't understand why people think that just because they're a famous (actor/musician/geek/whatever), we're supposed to give a shiat what their politics are. Stick to what you're good at there, sparky, and stop making an ass of yourself in other areas. It limits your credibility, which hurts open source.
Let's examine:
Some criminals will always have guns. Therefore, there is no reason to control access to guns.
Bzzzt, wrong. You just invented that argument; nobody but the anti-gunners has said this. Can you tell me specifically how, in this specific situation, having the students and staffed barred from having guns on campus even if they were legal CCW carriers, made them more safe.
Don't get me wrong, I think citizens should be allowed to have firearms. But I also think it's silly that we put less effort into controlling who has a firearm than we do who can fix plumbing.
Then it's clear that you, sorry, don't know what you're talking about.
And I especially dislike it when gun-nuts and anti-gun nuts use bullshit arguments to attempt to blindly advance their cause. Making guns illegal for the populace to have at all isn't the answer. But complete unfettered access to firearms isn't the answer either.
Nobody _HAS_ complete unfettered access to firearms. What the citizens of Virginia understand, and what you and the University leadership do not understand, is that good people with guns are an asset to society, and can then defend themselves and others from criminals. If only they hadn't forced all those victims, and all those around them, to be safe to attack.
When I heard about the shootings, that was the first thing I thought: It's too bad more students weren't armed.
And to make matters worse, it could have so easily been prevented. As you've probably read by now, the University decided not to let students and staff members who had a legal, valid permit to carry concealed weapons, do so on campus. Even worse perhaps is the decision not to allow their own "security guards" to be armed. This is a tragic example of how gun control causes damage. The population has been disarmed, they have announced same, and a criminal knows he's completely safe to come in and murder them without danger to himself.
Imagine how differently this would have gone had someone been allowed to be carrying. Like in this case, where a school shooter was stopped by a student with a CCW: http://timlambert.org/guns/appalachian/nd/tackle/
Instead, we've got 32 victims whose deaths are at least in part due to the University making them safe to attack. I hope those administrators understand the gravity of their actions. Unfortunately, the anti-gunners will take this utter failure of their approach to say they need to do more of that which just helped cause 32 deaths.
Absolutely. A gun in the hands of a good person has a net positive, or neutral at worst, effect on society. A gun in the hands of a bad person is always a negative for society.
That kind of escalation strategy is what kept the cold war going for so many decades, have you learned nothing?
I think yesterday showed that the only thing disarming good people accomplishes, is to make them safe targets to attack. I'm not sure that the safety of murderers is such a good thing to be accomplishing. The tragic part of all of this is that Virginia has concealed carry laws, but the University decided they didn't trust their students enough to potentially defend their own lives.
Why is it that people who have given up television then seem to have the need to tell us about it? Why then, do you specifically, bother commenting on a product which by your own choice you're not interested in? It's equivalent to the guy who goes on and on about his OS of choice not having viruses.
Indeed. And that's just fine. I try to keep the network at my kids' school happy. So we have some basic filters in place, blocking URLs which are obviously not appropriate for a grade school. Is there that one kid in 7th grade bypassing the filters by going out through something or another? Sure. I would have been that kid in 7th grade too. Do I care? Not really. He's smart enough to do it, smart enough to (almost) cover his tracks, and adding another block will just make him find another hole. I don't _care_. The thing is, we're exercising due diligence so that if someone DOES end up with something on the screen that isn't appropriate for a grade school, we can point to what's in place, what they did to get around it, and the responsibility is firmly on the student who bypassed it. If it's wide open, then it's _our_ fault (either logically, or otherwise) for not "stopping my precious child from finding (whatever)".
+1 for obscurity In what universe, exactly, is the definition of common words considered "obscure" please?
Lighten up, Francis...
I think it would be positive if you'd agree to stop forcing people to do things against their will for your own personal gain. Or stop advocating they be forced. Freedom is positive. (Although it makes it harder to cash in at someone else's expense.)
Let me be more clear. I'll waste no more time with you. You win or something, congratulations. Maybe you could save your anger for things which really matter, but hey, whatever. Get the laws changed or something.
All systems have vulnerabilities, how can they say that with a straight face? I don't think anyone but the flamebait article writer in question ever did say that. The patches that Apple releases have pretty well written up release notes, and I'd bet that if you grep through them for "vulnerability" you'd get a few hits.
Ethanol is a worse fuel at a higher price.
Really? Define "worse". How much higher? What's the REAL price of us needing to buy oil from countries who hate us, exactly, and how do you measure that?
Making people buy it makes those people poorer. How is it moral to force people to buy something they don't want at a price they would never willingly pay? It's just stealing from them indirectly.
Yeah, I think I'm done. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy an E85 vehicle or E85 fuel, therefore those who do so willingly aren't being stolen from, despite the repeated claims by folks like you to the contrary. I really don't see anything positive to be gained by anyone by continuing this conversation at this point, do you?
What is there that might provide an incentive for people to grow food and sell it? The answer is a higher price.
Great. Then let's ENCOURAGE more use of that land, by making it more attractive to grow corn again, and start buying Ethanol rather than Petroleum. See how easy that is? (snip of the specious "therefore subsidies is stealing" noise - nothing to be gained by going around and around on that. Fix the problem.)
I suspect that you haven't run the numbers on this, as far as how much power is actually in wind. You'd need an _immense_ wind farm to feed a fueling station. Google for "wind power density" and it'll get you some good links. As an example, though, the individual-owned wind turbines you see from time to time? The most popular ones are in the 400 Watt (max) output range. That's enough to run a PC maybe but, not to push a car down the road.
It's MY MONEY. WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU to tell me what I can do with MY MONEY?
Yup, I've got you figured out alright.
"Who is stealing anything from anyone?"
YOU ARE you stupid fuck. You admit it right here
"Actually, I _have_ 22 acres that I'm being paid not to grow anything on."
See, the part people like you don't understand, is that without taking that land out of food production, you would be paying MORE for food right now, because there would be fewer people still able to afford farming. It's OK if you don't understand that, really it is. People that actually, you know, study math and economics and all that sort of thing do. Oh, and by the way? I've dumped WAY more into that land in money, time, and materials than the chintzy 45 dollars an acre per year gives me. I'm up to nearly 10,000 seedlings that I've planted on that land; some are taller than me now. What have YOU done for ME lately there, sparky?
"I'd rather burn bio-something than dino-something,"
That's fine for you, but again, WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU to tell me what I can do with MY MONEY? And frankly, until you get off the government teat, your opinion doesn't mean dick.
You're just another welfare addict, trying to justify spending MY money on something that enriches you. Your kind disgust me, and if you were honest, you'd be disgusted by yourself too.
Yeah, well I can't help but laugh at that. If you had the balls to post as something other than an AC, your opinions might have _any_ weight at all. But as they are, you're just another foulmouthed, clueless angry person with no apparent knowledge with which to back up your statements.