But pray that not many users will follow your advice or you will get the attention of the spammers and the situation will be the same with your "perfectly secure OS". So enjoy your minority while you can.
In order to cause a security breech, they need motivation _and_ opportunity. And I didn't see him or anyone else say "perfectly secure OS". I can only conclude, therefore, that you're either ignorant, or a troll.
...meaning spyware, adware, viruses, trojans etc. It has nothing to do with your choice of browser.
I disagree. On my work system (the only windows box I use), with IE, I get lots of popups, with firefox, I get very very few. So it certainly has _something_ to do with my choice of browser. It's all additive, of course: use a browser that has some decent popup blocking, _and_ don't install stupid shit on your pc, _or_ don't run the OS the stupid shit is made for. It all helps.
A shotgun is what you really need for home defense anyway, and a rifle if you have some space to protect or you're afraid of a riot. Handguns are for murder, long guns are for hunting and fighting wars.
Ah, so many problems in so few words. A shotgun is what _I_ use for home defense, sure. However, a handgun would be easier to store in a small vault for people who that's a more appropriate choice for. And, given that in the vast majority of defensive uses of firearms, a shot is never fired, a rifle is just as effective as a deterrent.
As to your "handguns are for murder" - that's really a stretch. I must be using all mine wrong then, because here I've been using them for target shooting, collecting, investments, study of history and engineering, and well, other aspects that no doubt you don't understand and will probably dismiss. But at the range friday, there were about a dozen people there in the 2 hours I was, and I'd say each of us averaged 100 rounds fired. So over 1000 rounds from handguns, and guess what? No murders. None. This isn't an unusual group of gun owners, this is the vast majority of us which are like this.
I suppose your exposure is only to the criminal element using guns, or news reports of same. That's a shame because those of us who actually participate and understand what gun ownership is really about, have a lot of fun, are safer, and have recreational and investment opportunities you choose not to have. It's OK that you don't understand and make staements like "handguns are for murder", but that doesn't mean you're right, and that you should take my rights away. Don't sweat it though, the anti-gun propaganda is pervasive, and they're _very_ good liars. Just think a bit. Ignorance is just fine and understandable but I hope you're open to a discussion including actual facts?
Unorganized fails the "well regulated" test. The 2nd is talking about the national guard, not the boy scouts.
How specifically do you feel that the 2nd is talking about the National Guard, when that organization didn't even exist until 140 years _after_ the constitution was written? Show your work...
The word militia was defined at the time as any able bodied man not in the military, more or less. The word "unorganized" has a specific meaning as well, by the way. I suggest googling the term "Federalist papers", which will give you the contemporary background that you're lacking. Think of it as release notes for the Constitution (sorry, trying to bring this vaguely into slashdot territory with that one).
The US Code:
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 311
311. Militia: composition and classes
Yes, yes, that's all very interesting, but about 150 years newer than the constitution. How about the definition of the militia at the time the word was being used? Someone revising it to mean the National Guard, 150 years later, is hardly a way of defining how it was being used at the time. But by all means, nice try backdooring the constitution there.
That's not a Godwin-able event, sorry. Godwin's only applies when you compare the person you're arguing with _to_ hitler, not just by mentioning hitler's name. So, "Sure, that's what hitler would say too", Godwin. "hitler was responsible for building the Autobahn", not Godwin. It's very simple actually.
Hey, I would too if I were buying a $500 toilet seat.
You _do_ know, right, that that "$500 toilet seat" was actually the entire inner wall for the bathroom in an airplane, right? Not exactly a home depot item.
For some reason, I just pictured a girl with gigantic tits jumping up and down on a trampoline followed immediately by Admiral Akbar yelling "it's a trap!"
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
the president, let them down. He led them astray believing that they were protecting american by getting rid of "WMD's" when the real reason they were sent to Iraq is to secure US oil interests in the middle east.
Why do you have such a selective memory? Kerry, Clinton, Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy, Pelosi - all of 'em were quite happy to talk about Saddam's WMDs, and yet now you and they are pretending all that never happened. Here, read this on snopes: Words of Mass Destruction on Snopes
The snopes article shows cites for these quotes, and then goes on to expand them with the context of the comments. Short version, a bunch of Democrats agreed with Bush into 2003 at least, and now are pretending it was all his idea.
So, were they lying then when they said there were WMDs, or are they lying now when they say it was all Bush's idea, or both?
But for that one cent you can have the satisfaction of screwing slashdot out of their kickback.
Seems to me the value-add provided by slashdot, by giving us a review of the book, to me is worth a "kickback". But of course, in any endeavor where the costs are only paid by those willing to do so, there will always be those who not just only take from it, but who do so while pretending they're somehow superior for doing so. (shrug) Whatever.
Now whether or not its a Good Idea(TM), that is a tough call. Likely it depends on whther you're on the trigger end or muzzle end, so to speak.
I'm thinking that it depends on what the alternative is. If it's a choice between lethal and non-lethal force, it's a good thing. If it's a choice between a loudspeaker saying "you guys need to leave here" and this, well, then I'd rather have the loudspeaker. Its all a matter of degrees.
So I went in to the thread see the comments, and was presented with an ad for Kentucky Fried Chicken. Keywords gone wrong, or just a funny coincidence?
The important issue is if the British can still keep all their stolen artifacts.
Right. About that, for the record, the museum guides at the British Museum don't take kindly to visitors asking "Excuse me, but where are the plundered Egyption artifacts?" Just in case you were wondering, that is. They didn't like it at all.
You'd think after nearly two years of not working at GE, I wouldn't get so wound up about it. I guess as an engineer, it really gets my goat when people use math improperly.
I left GE in early 2002 when the "drink the koolaid" was still strong. Went away for 4.5 years or so, back now and the whole six-sigma thing has all but disappeared. The tools are still around, to be used when appropriate, but the whole framework around it that you and I found annoying isn't here at least in this business. The whole cult-status thing seems to have gone away, much to my relief. That was actually one of my questions in the interviews to come back here, I knew things were good when I got a quizzical look when asking how Six Sigma was being implemented these days. I can't say that I miss it. Some good tools (the 4-block, and other basic engineering/feeback/improve stuff) are still in use, and that's appropriate. The saffron robes, tamorines, and vacant stares of "let me tell you about six sigma" while handing me a pamphlet? Keep it. It's much better now.
The problem is that converting heat energy directly into electricity violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, not unlike perpetual motion machines.
Can you explain how heat (infrared photons, right?) is different in this regard than visible light (as in a photovoltaic cell)? I'm not busting your chops here, I just don't understand why the wavelength of the light matters in this context.
Back then, the NRA was a gun safety and training organization. They struck everyone as being straight-forward and calm, more interested in making sure that people knew how to prevent gun accidents and how to responsibly own firearms.
Then things changed, and they transformed themselves into a political organization
Thing is, the NRA _still is_ that gun safety and training organization. Unfortunately, clueless legislators have made it necessary for us to also worry about the real risk of legislation making us all less safe by disarming us. The gun safety programs are successful; the training programs are successful - these things are still going on, probably as much or more than they were before. You won't hear about it from the press, of course, because they've got an agenda, and something as uninteresting as "The NRA's gun safety programs continue to work just as they have for the last many decades", just isn't newsworthy.
It's always interesting to see someone telling what the NRA is "all about", when they just don't have their facts right. It's no different than any other topic, I suppose - you'll always have people disagreeing with (thing), and when you ask them why, they give reasons that aren't true. It shows that they disagree with the lies, not with the organization being lied about.
Did you also send him an e-mail offering to parent his newborn?
Or did you think he would terminate it when he found out someone could host his domain?
Um? Did you read TFL? He's losing his hosting, if the site is useful, and he wanted to continue, I don't mind helping. Haven't used pine in years, but (shrug) whatever. Not sure what your post is supposed to mean.
I sent him an email offering to host the site, we'll see what happens. I see patchesforpine.com is available (or was when this article was in "red" preview status). We'll see what happens; I can't see it being a huge load on my webhosts.
Almost. It's more of a "you're probably more informed than you think you are" type comment. Even if it's vague generalizations like "democrats trust criminals to reform themselves more than they trust gun owners who never did anything wrong in the first place", or "republicans are often religious and make descisions based on that". If he doesn't actually care about any issues, and has managed to reach voting age without noticing which parties have what general stance on them, well, yeah, someone _that_ oblivious probably shouldn't vote.
I mean, you must care about _something_. Social issues, crime & punishment issues, the right to casemod, _something_. It doesn't take that much work to find out what your guy specifically supports; if not, then which of the two (sorry, but let's be realistic) parties pisses you off less?
If you wait to vote until you find someone you agree with on everything, you'll never vote, and far as I'm concerned, you give up your ability to complain about what's going on. Do I agree with everyone I voted for today on every issue? Of course not, but... I agree with them more than I agree with the other guy. So I'd say that (a) you can't truly be _uninformed_, (b) pick your top issues, and (c) go vote for that person or party which lines up best on your hot issues.
Slashdot Mirror
But pray that not many users will follow your advice or you will get the attention of the spammers and the situation will be the same with your "perfectly secure OS". So enjoy your minority while you can.
In order to cause a security breech, they need motivation _and_ opportunity. And I didn't see him or anyone else say "perfectly secure OS". I can only conclude, therefore, that you're either ignorant, or a troll.
Entrepreneur.com's traffic dropped by 5 million when they stopped their popunder campaign. Pretty sad...
Well, it's not like anyone was reading their ads anyway. Traffic doesn't help anything, especially if you annoy me to deliver the object.
...meaning spyware, adware, viruses, trojans etc. It has nothing to do with your choice of browser.
I disagree. On my work system (the only windows box I use), with IE, I get lots of popups, with firefox, I get very very few. So it certainly has _something_ to do with my choice of browser. It's all additive, of course: use a browser that has some decent popup blocking, _and_ don't install stupid shit on your pc, _or_ don't run the OS the stupid shit is made for. It all helps.
What are these "popups" of what you speak, please? /firefox
A shotgun is what you really need for home defense anyway, and a rifle if you have some space to protect or you're afraid of a riot. Handguns are for murder, long guns are for hunting and fighting wars.
Ah, so many problems in so few words. A shotgun is what _I_ use for home defense, sure. However, a handgun would be easier to store in a small vault for people who that's a more appropriate choice for. And, given that in the vast majority of defensive uses of firearms, a shot is never fired, a rifle is just as effective as a deterrent.
As to your "handguns are for murder" - that's really a stretch. I must be using all mine wrong then, because here I've been using them for target shooting, collecting, investments, study of history and engineering, and well, other aspects that no doubt you don't understand and will probably dismiss. But at the range friday, there were about a dozen people there in the 2 hours I was, and I'd say each of us averaged 100 rounds fired. So over 1000 rounds from handguns, and guess what? No murders. None. This isn't an unusual group of gun owners, this is the vast majority of us which are like this.
I suppose your exposure is only to the criminal element using guns, or news reports of same. That's a shame because those of us who actually participate and understand what gun ownership is really about, have a lot of fun, are safer, and have recreational and investment opportunities you choose not to have. It's OK that you don't understand and make staements like "handguns are for murder", but that doesn't mean you're right, and that you should take my rights away. Don't sweat it though, the anti-gun propaganda is pervasive, and they're _very_ good liars. Just think a bit. Ignorance is just fine and understandable but I hope you're open to a discussion including actual facts?
Unorganized fails the "well regulated" test. The 2nd is talking about the national guard, not the boy scouts.
How specifically do you feel that the 2nd is talking about the National Guard, when that organization didn't even exist until 140 years _after_ the constitution was written? Show your work...
The word militia was defined at the time as any able bodied man not in the military, more or less. The word "unorganized" has a specific meaning as well, by the way. I suggest googling the term "Federalist papers", which will give you the contemporary background that you're lacking. Think of it as release notes for the Constitution (sorry, trying to bring this vaguely into slashdot territory with that one).
The US Code: TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 311 311. Militia: composition and classes
Yes, yes, that's all very interesting, but about 150 years newer than the constitution. How about the definition of the militia at the time the word was being used? Someone revising it to mean the National Guard, 150 years later, is hardly a way of defining how it was being used at the time. But by all means, nice try backdooring the constitution there.
21 minutes for Godwin's law. Incredible.
That's not a Godwin-able event, sorry. Godwin's only applies when you compare the person you're arguing with _to_ hitler, not just by mentioning hitler's name. So, "Sure, that's what hitler would say too", Godwin. "hitler was responsible for building the Autobahn", not Godwin. It's very simple actually.
Hey, I would too if I were buying a $500 toilet seat.
You _do_ know, right, that that "$500 toilet seat" was actually the entire inner wall for the bathroom in an airplane, right? Not exactly a home depot item.
By the way: the fact that she chose that particular metaphor indicates the depth to which television has taken over her mind.
How else do you propose she gets updates about what's going on over there?
For some reason, I just pictured a girl with gigantic tits jumping up and down on a trampoline followed immediately by Admiral Akbar yelling "it's a trap!"
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
the president, let them down. He led them astray believing that they were protecting american by getting rid of "WMD's" when the real reason they were sent to Iraq is to secure US oil interests in the middle east.
Why do you have such a selective memory? Kerry, Clinton, Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy, Pelosi - all of 'em were quite happy to talk about Saddam's WMDs, and yet now you and they are pretending all that never happened. Here, read this on snopes: Words of Mass Destruction on Snopes
The snopes article shows cites for these quotes, and then goes on to expand them with the context of the comments. Short version, a bunch of Democrats agreed with Bush into 2003 at least, and now are pretending it was all his idea.
So, were they lying then when they said there were WMDs, or are they lying now when they say it was all Bush's idea, or both?
But for that one cent you can have the satisfaction of screwing slashdot out of their kickback.
Seems to me the value-add provided by slashdot, by giving us a review of the book, to me is worth a "kickback". But of course, in any endeavor where the costs are only paid by those willing to do so, there will always be those who not just only take from it, but who do so while pretending they're somehow superior for doing so. (shrug) Whatever.
Now whether or not its a Good Idea(TM), that is a tough call. Likely it depends on whther you're on the trigger end or muzzle end, so to speak.
I'm thinking that it depends on what the alternative is. If it's a choice between lethal and non-lethal force, it's a good thing. If it's a choice between a loudspeaker saying "you guys need to leave here" and this, well, then I'd rather have the loudspeaker. Its all a matter of degrees.
Degrees. I don't believe I wrote that.
So I went in to the thread see the comments, and was presented with an ad for Kentucky Fried Chicken. Keywords gone wrong, or just a funny coincidence?
The important issue is if the British can still keep all their stolen artifacts.
Right. About that, for the record, the museum guides at the British Museum don't take kindly to visitors asking "Excuse me, but where are the plundered Egyption artifacts?" Just in case you were wondering, that is. They didn't like it at all.
You'd think after nearly two years of not working at GE, I wouldn't get so wound up about it. I guess as an engineer, it really gets my goat when people use math improperly.
I left GE in early 2002 when the "drink the koolaid" was still strong. Went away for 4.5 years or so, back now and the whole six-sigma thing has all but disappeared. The tools are still around, to be used when appropriate, but the whole framework around it that you and I found annoying isn't here at least in this business. The whole cult-status thing seems to have gone away, much to my relief. That was actually one of my questions in the interviews to come back here, I knew things were good when I got a quizzical look when asking how Six Sigma was being implemented these days. I can't say that I miss it. Some good tools (the 4-block, and other basic engineering/feeback/improve stuff) are still in use, and that's appropriate. The saffron robes, tamorines, and vacant stares of "let me tell you about six sigma" while handing me a pamphlet? Keep it. It's much better now.
The problem is that converting heat energy directly into electricity violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, not unlike perpetual motion machines.
Can you explain how heat (infrared photons, right?) is different in this regard than visible light (as in a photovoltaic cell)? I'm not busting your chops here, I just don't understand why the wavelength of the light matters in this context.
Back then, the NRA was a gun safety and training organization. They struck everyone as being straight-forward and calm, more interested in making sure that people knew how to prevent gun accidents and how to responsibly own firearms. Then things changed, and they transformed themselves into a political organization
Thing is, the NRA _still is_ that gun safety and training organization. Unfortunately, clueless legislators have made it necessary for us to also worry about the real risk of legislation making us all less safe by disarming us. The gun safety programs are successful; the training programs are successful - these things are still going on, probably as much or more than they were before. You won't hear about it from the press, of course, because they've got an agenda, and something as uninteresting as "The NRA's gun safety programs continue to work just as they have for the last many decades", just isn't newsworthy.
It's always interesting to see someone telling what the NRA is "all about", when they just don't have their facts right. It's no different than any other topic, I suppose - you'll always have people disagreeing with (thing), and when you ask them why, they give reasons that aren't true. It shows that they disagree with the lies, not with the organization being lied about.
I also just sent him a hosting offer. And, I'm a professor in the University of Washington math department!
By all means, I will defer to you in this matter. All things considered...
Did you also send him an e-mail offering to parent his newborn? Or did you think he would terminate it when he found out someone could host his domain?
Um? Did you read TFL? He's losing his hosting, if the site is useful, and he wanted to continue, I don't mind helping. Haven't used pine in years, but (shrug) whatever. Not sure what your post is supposed to mean.
I sent him an email offering to host the site, we'll see what happens. I see patchesforpine.com is available (or was when this article was in "red" preview status). We'll see what happens; I can't see it being a huge load on my webhosts.
Almost. It's more of a "you're probably more informed than you think you are" type comment. Even if it's vague generalizations like "democrats trust criminals to reform themselves more than they trust gun owners who never did anything wrong in the first place", or "republicans are often religious and make descisions based on that". If he doesn't actually care about any issues, and has managed to reach voting age without noticing which parties have what general stance on them, well, yeah, someone _that_ oblivious probably shouldn't vote.
I mean, you must care about _something_. Social issues, crime & punishment issues, the right to casemod, _something_. It doesn't take that much work to find out what your guy specifically supports; if not, then which of the two (sorry, but let's be realistic) parties pisses you off less?
... I agree with them more than I agree with the other guy. So I'd say that (a) you can't truly be _uninformed_, (b) pick your top issues, and (c) go vote for that person or party which lines up best on your hot issues.
If you wait to vote until you find someone you agree with on everything, you'll never vote, and far as I'm concerned, you give up your ability to complain about what's going on. Do I agree with everyone I voted for today on every issue? Of course not, but
"Round up the usual suspects"
...and suddenly, it got strangely quiet on slashdot...