This sounds so much like how Microsoft handles security. Make something so intrusive and such a pain to use, that no one uses it. Then you can blame the user/consumer for failing to use the available security.
Someone else suggested making the credit companies responsible for the losses. Personally, I think we should make the credit _reporting_ companies responsible. I guarantee you they will implement a reasonable security solution rather quickly if that happened. When they could end up paying for a $10,000 credit card charge because they gave your credit info to a "business" in Moscow, they might start thinking a little smarter instead of taking the (?) $10 fee from every Tom, Dick, or Ivan.
Why do the American people tolerate elected officials who obviously have not read the Constitution, or don't give a shit about the Constitution, or are too stupid to understand the Constitution?
I've always wanted to write something like this to someone like Hatch,
Dear Sir,
Perhaps you missed this part of the Constitution in your obviously inadequate education:
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
Uhm, BULLSHIT. A background check is required when you purchase a firearm, even at gun shows. This lie from the Brady Bunch is one of many they just kept repeating so often that gullible people (go look in a mirror) began to believe it.
In many European countries, and in all Scandinavian countries, the vendors pay a minor environment-tax for each item sold.
A little lesson in basic economics for you. Not a single vendor in all of Europe has ever paid a dime in taxes. You, the consumer, paid them through higher prices.
I'm not arguing against a disposal tax. I just happen to know that I will eventually pay it if implemented here in the U.S.
That occurred at the one place where there was a guarantee of no guns, a school.
Many years ago some terrorist assholes took over a school in Israel and killed a bunch of teachers and little kids (terrorists love killing innocent children). After that incident, the government removed the ban on firearms in schools and, in fact, encouraged the teachers to arm themselves. Terrorists tried taking a school hostage only one more time. It didn't go well for them.
The religious leadership of the islamic world has been taken over, for the most part, by fundamentalist extremists. These religious leaders constantly preach that the western world (and the Jews) must be destroyed. I'd say the sign is a statement of fact so long as this so-called religion of peace is lead by lunatics.
I made a mistake. It wasn't a pro troops sign. The exact words on it were "Win the War or lose to Jihad!" Would you consider that hate speech?
Of course I know the difference between an individual making a statement and taking steps to destroy it. However, when a politician makes a statement, it should be considered that politicians official policy. When enough politicians do that, it becomes government policy.
So if you lie about something that isn't anyone's business
Everything that occurs in the Oval Office is our damn business. If it had been about getting a BJ in a seedy apartment then it would be a different matter.
It's already happening. I know of an instance where a "pro troops" sign was ripped out of someone's hands. When asked why they were against free speech, the person responded, "That's hate speech. Hate speech shouldn't be protected." And let's not ignore the numerous instances where criticism of radical islamic fundamentalism is denounced as hate speech by politicians in the EU. The EU needs to grow some balls and stand up to those bastards.
I'm getting real tired of this constant "Bush Lied" line. I can't stand him, but my dislike is for his domestic policy. His foreign policy is fine by me. Let's get this straight. When Bush laid out the reasons to go to war with Iraq he listed around 30 reasons (give or take a few). Only one of those reasons has turned out to be incorrect, the WMD. Except it wasn't completely false, either. They have components for the creation of WMDs, and these particular items had no other purpose (extremely high tolerance centrifuges, for example). Also, he based the point on information that other countries also believed to be true at the time. Relying on faulty information is not lying, unless you believe him to be somehow omniscient.
But for the sake of the argument, let's just remove the WMD from the list entirely. The other 29-odd other points were a good enough damn reason to go after Saddam. Hell, one single item, small children being imprisoned for the political beliefs of the parents, was a good enough reason.
I'm sickened by the blind hatred of the far left. The willingness to embraced a group who's ideologies are diametrically opposed to them. People who would kill you for your beliefs. Feminists? You'd be killed. Homosexuals? You'd be killed. Free press advocates? You'd be killed. Grow a fucking brain! Why does the far left support groups like Hamas and Al Quada, groups who don't tolerate the slightest deviation from their beliefs. Who's ONLY response to any deviation is murder.
I'm a centrist libertarian. I'm tired of the extremism of both sides.
I'll bet money that some brainless pseudo-anarchist punks (with trust funds) mod me down. That's another problem with the far left. Its inability to allow others to argue their side. I've actually heard someone say that arguing pro war was hate speech and, therefore, should not be allowed.
Same here, but it's painful to pay for Bordeaux. The prices are outrageous.
Some of the wines from Chile are quite good as well.
I remember when the world discovered Chilean merlot (early 90s?). It was excellent wine at a budget price. The run on Chilean wine caused a shortage. In response, the Chilean wine producers did something absolutely stupid. They pumped out as much wine as they could, ignoring quality. This hurt their reputation big time. Hopefully, they've learned their lesson.
I prefer to taste the grapes rather than the barrel
Overly oaked wine surrounded by an impervious wall of tannin is a very California Cab thing. I can't drink the stuff. There's zero fruit to the wine and no chance for subtleness because of the oak and tannins.
As for what the French buy in their local supermarket. It's crap. Your average French consumer buys their equivalent of "Gallo", just like the average American consumer.
The French make the best wine in the world. They also make the worst wine in the world. This may be because they are more willing to take chances. When it works, it's wonderful, when it fails, it's a disaster. While the Napa wineries want consistentsy (probably because American wine consumers expect the same taste from a specific label every year), so treat winemaking more as a scientific and manufacturing process. There are, fortunately, local wineries that are willing to take chances (let nature do her job) and produce some outstanding stuff when the weather cooperates. In those cases, our wines come close to French Bordeaux quality. Even surpassing them in an exceptional year.
BTW, on my last trip to the wine store (yesterday) I picked up two California zins, an Australian shiraz, a French Bordeaux, and two bottles of Hungarian Tokaji.
A long time a go I worked for a company that made fonts. From my experience, trying to kern mathematically just didn't work. The only way you can properly create kerning is to have a table for every possible character combination (at that time, 256x256 characters, minus the 32 control characters) with the kerning value. You needed a table for each font, face, and size. Thus, Times Roman 10pt Normal was entirely different from Times Roman 12pt Bold. Kerning mixed fonts was not even considered. For printed text (as opposed to giant building signs), a short int (single byte, signed) per character pair was sufficient since -127 to +127 was way overkill. However, that's a 64k table for each and every font. At the time, that was a big deal. An alternative system was to assume zero kerning as the default, but have a table for the exceptions, e.g. 'v' and 'o' (being a common pair needing negative kerning).
Even if you produced a perfectly good kerning system, it was tossed out the window when someone printed "fully justified".
Since the overwhelming majority of fathers behind in their payments is because of inability to pay, a database isn't going to make a damn bit of difference. Child support (and alimony) are pretty much set in stone and a change in the man's employment situation doesn't matter. If he suddenly finds him self unemployed or under-employed, as I'm sure happened to many slashdotters when the the dot com boost finally went belly up, he still has to pay the original amount. The court enforced amount is partially based on the man's earning capability (to prevent assholes from quiting good jobs just to screw their ex-wives), but the courts are blind to massive changes in the economy.
In Vietnam, approximately 1 million rounds were fired by American troops for each kill. When the soldiers just spray and pray, accuracy isn't all that important.
.info is so completely overrun by spammers that I don't want anything to do with it. I've seen wholesale blacklisting of the entire tld by some of the more agressive administrators (.biz is even worse).
I've been trying to get a domain for several years now. It's my family name, but it's being sat on by a link farm and they keep renewing it. It's a.org so it shouldn't be used for its current purpose. The.com is owned by a fancy hotel of the same name, quite legitimate. The.net is owned by a very distant cousin. I want to use the.org for the family geneolgy. Oh, well.
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds so much like how Microsoft handles security. Make something so intrusive and such a pain to use, that no one uses it. Then you can blame the user/consumer for failing to use the available security.
Someone else suggested making the credit companies responsible for the losses. Personally, I think we should make the credit _reporting_ companies responsible. I guarantee you they will implement a reasonable security solution rather quickly if that happened. When they could end up paying for a $10,000 credit card charge because they gave your credit info to a "business" in Moscow, they might start thinking a little smarter instead of taking the (?) $10 fee from every Tom, Dick, or Ivan.
Why do the American people tolerate elected officials who obviously have not read the Constitution, or don't give a shit about the Constitution, or are too stupid to understand the Constitution?
I've always wanted to write something like this to someone like Hatch,
Dear Sir,
Perhaps you missed this part of the Constitution in your obviously inadequate education:
Sincerely,
Your Boss
Uhm, BULLSHIT. A background check is required when you purchase a firearm, even at gun shows. This lie from the Brady Bunch is one of many they just kept repeating so often that gullible people (go look in a mirror) began to believe it.
Knowing who people are is the first step towards controlling their freedom.
"In the name of security" and "To better protect you" are tired old excuses for implementing draconian laws.
The universities should answer with "go fuck yourself", wrapped in suitably nice legalese, of course.
A little lesson in basic economics for you. Not a single vendor in all of Europe has ever paid a dime in taxes. You, the consumer, paid them through higher prices.
I'm not arguing against a disposal tax. I just happen to know that I will eventually pay it if implemented here in the U.S.
That occurred at the one place where there was a guarantee of no guns, a school.
Many years ago some terrorist assholes took over a school in Israel and killed a bunch of teachers and little kids (terrorists love killing innocent children). After that incident, the government removed the ban on firearms in schools and, in fact, encouraged the teachers to arm themselves. Terrorists tried taking a school hostage only one more time. It didn't go well for them.
The religious leadership of the islamic world has been taken over, for the most part, by fundamentalist extremists. These religious leaders constantly preach that the western world (and the Jews) must be destroyed. I'd say the sign is a statement of fact so long as this so-called religion of peace is lead by lunatics.
I made a mistake. It wasn't a pro troops sign. The exact words on it were "Win the War or lose to Jihad!" Would you consider that hate speech?
Of course I know the difference between an individual making a statement and taking steps to destroy it. However, when a politician makes a statement, it should be considered that politicians official policy. When enough politicians do that, it becomes government policy.
Everything that occurs in the Oval Office is our damn business. If it had been about getting a BJ in a seedy apartment then it would be a different matter.
It's already happening. I know of an instance where a "pro troops" sign was ripped out of someone's hands. When asked why they were against free speech, the person responded, "That's hate speech. Hate speech shouldn't be protected." And let's not ignore the numerous instances where criticism of radical islamic fundamentalism is denounced as hate speech by politicians in the EU. The EU needs to grow some balls and stand up to those bastards.
I'm getting real tired of this constant "Bush Lied" line. I can't stand him, but my dislike is for his domestic policy. His foreign policy is fine by me. Let's get this straight. When Bush laid out the reasons to go to war with Iraq he listed around 30 reasons (give or take a few). Only one of those reasons has turned out to be incorrect, the WMD. Except it wasn't completely false, either. They have components for the creation of WMDs, and these particular items had no other purpose (extremely high tolerance centrifuges, for example). Also, he based the point on information that other countries also believed to be true at the time. Relying on faulty information is not lying, unless you believe him to be somehow omniscient.
But for the sake of the argument, let's just remove the WMD from the list entirely. The other 29-odd other points were a good enough damn reason to go after Saddam. Hell, one single item, small children being imprisoned for the political beliefs of the parents, was a good enough reason.
I'm sickened by the blind hatred of the far left. The willingness to embraced a group who's ideologies are diametrically opposed to them. People who would kill you for your beliefs. Feminists? You'd be killed. Homosexuals? You'd be killed. Free press advocates? You'd be killed. Grow a fucking brain! Why does the far left support groups like Hamas and Al Quada, groups who don't tolerate the slightest deviation from their beliefs. Who's ONLY response to any deviation is murder.
I'm a centrist libertarian. I'm tired of the extremism of both sides.
I'll bet money that some brainless pseudo-anarchist punks (with trust funds) mod me down. That's another problem with the far left. Its inability to allow others to argue their side. I've actually heard someone say that arguing pro war was hate speech and, therefore, should not be allowed.
Same here, but it's painful to pay for Bordeaux. The prices are outrageous.
I remember when the world discovered Chilean merlot (early 90s?). It was excellent wine at a budget price. The run on Chilean wine caused a shortage. In response, the Chilean wine producers did something absolutely stupid. They pumped out as much wine as they could, ignoring quality. This hurt their reputation big time. Hopefully, they've learned their lesson.
Overly oaked wine surrounded by an impervious wall of tannin is a very California Cab thing. I can't drink the stuff. There's zero fruit to the wine and no chance for subtleness because of the oak and tannins.
As for what the French buy in their local supermarket. It's crap. Your average French consumer buys their equivalent of "Gallo", just like the average American consumer.
The French make the best wine in the world. They also make the worst wine in the world. This may be because they are more willing to take chances. When it works, it's wonderful, when it fails, it's a disaster. While the Napa wineries want consistentsy (probably because American wine consumers expect the same taste from a specific label every year), so treat winemaking more as a scientific and manufacturing process. There are, fortunately, local wineries that are willing to take chances (let nature do her job) and produce some outstanding stuff when the weather cooperates. In those cases, our wines come close to French Bordeaux quality. Even surpassing them in an exceptional year.
BTW, on my last trip to the wine store (yesterday) I picked up two California zins, an Australian shiraz, a French Bordeaux, and two bottles of Hungarian Tokaji.
A long time a go I worked for a company that made fonts. From my experience, trying to kern mathematically just didn't work. The only way you can properly create kerning is to have a table for every possible character combination (at that time, 256x256 characters, minus the 32 control characters) with the kerning value. You needed a table for each font, face, and size. Thus, Times Roman 10pt Normal was entirely different from Times Roman 12pt Bold. Kerning mixed fonts was not even considered. For printed text (as opposed to giant building signs), a short int (single byte, signed) per character pair was sufficient since -127 to +127 was way overkill. However, that's a 64k table for each and every font. At the time, that was a big deal. An alternative system was to assume zero kerning as the default, but have a table for the exceptions, e.g. 'v' and 'o' (being a common pair needing negative kerning).
Even if you produced a perfectly good kerning system, it was tossed out the window when someone printed "fully justified".
Oops. I replied to the wrong one.
No, the number is right. The number you quote is about right for WW2. About 100,000 in Korea, then a million in Vietnam. Notice a trend?
I got the figures from a book about snipers in the US Army (who scoff at anything more than one round, one kill).
Since the overwhelming majority of fathers behind in their payments is because of inability to pay, a database isn't going to make a damn bit of difference. Child support (and alimony) are pretty much set in stone and a change in the man's employment situation doesn't matter. If he suddenly finds him self unemployed or under-employed, as I'm sure happened to many slashdotters when the the dot com boost finally went belly up, he still has to pay the original amount. The court enforced amount is partially based on the man's earning capability (to prevent assholes from quiting good jobs just to screw their ex-wives), but the courts are blind to massive changes in the economy.
In Vietnam, approximately 1 million rounds were fired by American troops for each kill. When the soldiers just spray and pray, accuracy isn't all that important.
"That's a nice little slush fund you have there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it."
The exhaust system on my Harley causes overly sensitive car alarms to go off - usually BMWs. Yes, I do enjoy cruising the supermarket parking lot.
.info is so completely overrun by spammers that I don't want anything to do with it. I've seen wholesale blacklisting of the entire tld by some of the more agressive administrators (.biz is even worse).
.name.
I hadn't considered
I give it 48 hours after initial release before a patch to bypass the ads is released online.
I've been trying to get a domain for several years now. It's my family name, but it's being sat on by a link farm and they keep renewing it. It's a .org so it shouldn't be used for its current purpose. The .com is owned by a fancy hotel of the same name, quite legitimate. The .net is owned by a very distant cousin. I want to use the .org for the family geneolgy. Oh, well.
The goal is to to defeat monopolies. Microsoft just happens to be the biggest one in the computing world.