Instead of signing the back of his credit cards, my dad writes "Ask for photo ID". If they don't, he asks them calmly if the signatures match. If the cashier says yes, he asks to talk to their supervisor.
Being on the other side of that, it seems some customers like to play a retarded "I'm better than you" game with it. Often, they'll hand me their credit card and then about 1/2 second later say, "You didn't ask for my ID! Didn't you look at the back of the card? What's this world coming to!" This is invariably before I've even had a chance to turn the card over.
Since I'm not just a lowly paid cashier, but actually own the store, I can guarantee you I check people's signatures and ask for ID. I don't want to get stuck with a chargeback!
The shi'a (shiite) muslims in Iraq, which hold a majority population but were underrepresented in government, were under the impression that they should revolt following the gulf war I. [...] There's your iran-iraq war.
Uh... I don't have a degree in history, but I thought the Iran-Iraq war ran fron 1980-1988. How could the failed Shiite uprising after the gulf war in 1990-1991 have been the cause? Or am I missing something?
This happens to be one of my pet peeves. Anyone who thinks that humans are at the top of the (supposed) food chain (or chart as you call it) has never been stalked by a cougar or a bear.
Yes, I think there is a general misunderstanding of the term 'food chain'. The position on the food chain refers to the distance your energy source is from the sun.
The textbook view is that Producers (e.g. plants) are at the bottom of the chain, Consumers (e.g. animals) are in the middle, and Decomposers (e.g. bacteria) are at the top. Large predators like ourselves are specialized to feed near the top of the food chain, but as I believe you were trying to point out, it's not really a clean line. It's more like a web than a chain.
If that were true then humanity would be getting smarter. The birth rate is much higher now than it was during Barnum's time.
Well, just to be pedantic, the above statement only sets a minimum 'sucker birth rate'. It doesn't preclude more than one sucker being born each minute.
However, nothing in the Dictionary supports your specific characterization of flagrant "so excessive(ly) it's noticeable."
From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: (emphasis mine)
It is not surprising that blatant and flagrant are often confused, since the words have overlapping meanings. Both attribute conspicuousness and offensiveness to certain acts. Blatant emphasizes the failure to conceal the act. Flagrant, on the other hand, emphasizes the serious wrongdoing inherent in the offense. Certain contexts may admit either word depending on what is meant: a violation of human rights might be either blatant or flagrant. If it was committed with contempt for public scrutiny, it is blatant. If its barbarity was monstrous, it is flagrant.
I think it ought to be flagrant, since it's seen and not heard.
The 'blatant' vs 'flagrant' distinction isn't between seen and heard, even though blatant's roots are from 'to blab'. The difference is that blatant describes something that's done in an exessively noticeable manner, where flagrant describes something that's done is so excessively it's noticeable. Note the difference.
Copying, then generalizing according to the kid's own logic, then learning where the generalizations don't work. Actually, that's pretty much how most of us learn most everything:)
Yeah, true enough! There's something really magic about watching a tiny little baby start to show signs of higher intelligence as they grow. I know it's sort of a "well, duh!", but it just fascinates me every time.
So in a kid's mind, the logical progression (already established by the majority of the verbs they hear) is run, runned; drink, drinked, etc. To little kids, "ran" and "drank" probably sound like bad grammar!
The fascinating thing to watch is that most kids go through what is called a "U-Shaped" learning curve. At first they copy what you say (e.g. they'll say "ran"), but then as they figure out the concept of adding 'ed' to the end of words to get a past tense they seem to go backwards (e.g. they'll now say "runned"). Finally, when they learn the exceptions, they'll go back to "ran" again.
If it makes you feel better, I'll let you in on a secret. The only pure-breed cat I've ever owned was a rescue and I've never owned a cat or dog that wasn't spayed or nuetered (at least by the time it was of beeding age.) I'm honestly not very fond of pure-breeds (cats or dogs) because they seem to have so many health problems.
I hope you didn't think I was attacking you personally! I'm not even one of those crazies who thinks all pure-bred breeders are inherently evil. I was really just taking the opportunity to hopefully point out the homeless cat problem to any slashdot readers who love cats but maybe didn't realize the issue was so critical, and that casually allowing cats to breed is maybe not the best idea.
And at that price with "normal" cats, you are allowed to breed them and "resell" the resulting kittens.
You're allowed to, but I beg you... please don't! With the number of homeless cats in the tens of millions in the US alone (See Alley Cat Allies), that last thing we need is more kittens.
Your point about being specific in a discussion is well stated. I agree with you on that one. However...
Stealing does have multiple meanings but many people will use "to steal" and mean "to violate copyrights" but treat it as if they said "to deny access"
By trying to deny a popularly accepted definition of the term theft, one is playing the exact same political games as the people who one accuses of trying muddle the connotations. I believe it is for this reason that people get annoyed at others who say "It's not THEFT!" as if from on high. Your point about being specific is a good one. But it's subtly different and politically less powerful, and one I don't think you'll get the raving "Not Theft" loonies to conceed.
Similarily, in a hypothetical discussion of cars vs bicycles, you probably shouldn't use the word vehicle to refer to either.
Agreed. But that's not what people are doing in these discussions. What they're doing is saying, "That's NOT a vehicle. Vehicles have four wheels. That's definately a bike, sure, but it's no vehicle! Damn, you're stupid!"
Data is stored in ascii-mapping or using the optional stealth-mode which decreaces storage density but improves undetectability by using phrases taken from other posts to encode a data stream
Heh, that reminds me of the slashdot Markov program I wrote a while back. Here's a small sample output taken from this article's comments:
But doomed by wonder if it a feature to Windows only takes one is restricted to takes one really plans on your gmail as an easy installation! by but perhaps a hairy reply to school without Google are all their trust also dooming the web - link the relative cost of Linux, but doomed by pages with the bill has thousands of packaging not up and email they analyze those and the Win application to My Computer folder, where can offer so how does google will hit Google don't start immediately coming true. Kill it yet; I will get some people doing that the servers. These are accustomed' - The Google expanding gmail account before storage used the filed, installed in less cross platform version of packaging not like any existing. I wonder if a drive for your current Cool hack... Feed your current Now we won't even "share" folders to mappens in 3. You'll get a bit... I just this is kind of explorer.exe, suggest that lives somewhere other than one hand, it after So which is in this would be quite a setting that whatever makes money and they'll try now.
Now tell me honestly that makes any less sense than the usual rambling slashdot posting;-)
My parts reps are always in here repeating that stupid marketing line, "Look at this wiz-bang chip! So, I guess 8-bit is dead now, huh?"
Not bloody likely. I use Philip's line of 8051 based chips everyday and don't have any wish to give them up. The majority of their line is way more powerful than I need, they're ultra cheap, and I can still get them in packages that are convenient for hand assembly (something important for a company like us who make a lot of custom, short run product lines).
These fancy ARM based processors are neat to poke at, but they just don't make sense in a lot of low end applications, where small 8-bit MCU will be around for a long, long time.
Re:That explains those mysterious hirings
on
Breaking Google's DRM
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Then most intelligent atheists are in reality agnostics.
Well, yes, but... Atheism states that since there is no decent evidence for God's existance, there is no reason to believe in God's existance. Agnosticism states that there is no way to prove whether God exists or not. Notice carefully that those are *not* competing positions. You can be both agnostic & atheistic at the same time, or one and not the other, or neither.
What you are talking about is an intranet, not an internet.
Ah, but intranet is more of a marketing term than a networking one. You've been fooled into thinking that stupid marketing terms actually make sense! An intranet is actually a grouping of websites and applications not accessable to people outside an organization. What you describe as an intranet really *is* an internet- a collection of separate networks connected via routers/gateways. What the parent poster described is a LAN.
I've noticed in the past that many of the public wireless networks that want you to pay to use allow DNS traffic to flow even before you've paid. I've often thought that'd you could use that to build a tunnel and not have to pay for service.
Mind you, I've never done it because it would be kind of rotten, but it did cross my mind.
Agreed, it's got a lot of issues. Mostly I don't think anybody will be willing to pay any bond for anything. If you demand any money at all for reading email, people will just stop sending you email all together. "What? This thing says I have to go sign up for some account and enter my financial information, just so I can send this guy some email? Whatever..."
You're all missing the 'Sender can just not send the mail if the cost is too much' angle that makes this different than other pay to send schemes.
Not adding the sender to your whitelist just blocks the mail. The sender isn't charged unless they decide it's important enough to them to go ahead and pay your price.
No, if somebody signs up for your free mailing list and then demands $0.10 for the mail you send them, you just don't send them the mail and immediately take them off your list.
Apple tends to succeed better when they adopt the standards (USB, Firewire, etc) rather than go it their own
Not to be nit-picky, but Firewire doesn't really illustrate your point. Apple didn't adopt Firewire. Apple invented Firewire instead of using the standard (USB).
Then there is a daemon which listens on that port and you may feed it with UDP stream trying to DOS it.
Yeah, that's a point... but if you know the port to DOS, you must have been snooping. If you're snooping, you can just DOS whatever service the knocking opens up regardless of the knock protocol. Port knocking just keeps port scanners from seeing open services, it doesn't guard against a targetted DOS attack.
Why do you need to go to the trouble of hitting a one time sequence of closed ports rather than just knocking with a one time password in a single UDP datagram?
Yes, but a copy-protected cd is not a piece of shit. If it is labeled as copy protected you can't just turn around and return it for being copy protected.
Yeah, it's a messy situation there. I think there's an argument that it fails "fitness of purpose" if it doesn't play in a bunch of standard players. But there's also an argument that there's a responsibility of the consumer to fully inspect the merchandise. The best legal thing (ob. IANAL) for the consumer to do is simply ask the merchant "Will this work in all my standard CD players?". If the merchant says yes, you now have grounds to return it when it doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Being on the other side of that, it seems some customers like to play a retarded "I'm better than you" game with it. Often, they'll hand me their credit card and then about 1/2 second later say, "You didn't ask for my ID! Didn't you look at the back of the card? What's this world coming to!" This is invariably before I've even had a chance to turn the card over.
Since I'm not just a lowly paid cashier, but actually own the store, I can guarantee you I check people's signatures and ask for ID. I don't want to get stuck with a chargeback!
Uh... I don't have a degree in history, but I thought the Iran-Iraq war ran fron 1980-1988. How could the failed Shiite uprising after the gulf war in 1990-1991 have been the cause? Or am I missing something?
this release will install as OpenOffice.org 1.9.65, it comes with ugly hacked splash screen to make clear, that this is not the final 2.0 build.
Yes, I think there is a general misunderstanding of the term 'food chain'. The position on the food chain refers to the distance your energy source is from the sun.
The textbook view is that Producers (e.g. plants) are at the bottom of the chain, Consumers (e.g. animals) are in the middle, and Decomposers (e.g. bacteria) are at the top. Large predators like ourselves are specialized to feed near the top of the food chain, but as I believe you were trying to point out, it's not really a clean line. It's more like a web than a chain.
If that were true then humanity would be getting smarter. The birth rate is much higher now than it was during Barnum's time.
Well, just to be pedantic, the above statement only sets a minimum 'sucker birth rate'. It doesn't preclude more than one sucker being born each minute.
From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: (emphasis mine)
It is not surprising that blatant and flagrant are often confused, since the words have overlapping meanings. Both attribute conspicuousness and offensiveness to certain acts. Blatant emphasizes the failure to conceal the act. Flagrant, on the other hand, emphasizes the serious wrongdoing inherent in the offense. Certain contexts may admit either word depending on what is meant: a violation of human rights might be either blatant or flagrant. If it was committed with contempt for public scrutiny, it is blatant. If its barbarity was monstrous, it is flagrant.
The 'blatant' vs 'flagrant' distinction isn't between seen and heard, even though blatant's roots are from 'to blab'. The difference is that blatant describes something that's done in an exessively noticeable manner, where flagrant describes something that's done is so excessively it's noticeable. Note the difference.
Yeah, true enough! There's something really magic about watching a tiny little baby start to show signs of higher intelligence as they grow. I know it's sort of a "well, duh!", but it just fascinates me every time.
The fascinating thing to watch is that most kids go through what is called a "U-Shaped" learning curve. At first they copy what you say (e.g. they'll say "ran"), but then as they figure out the concept of adding 'ed' to the end of words to get a past tense they seem to go backwards (e.g. they'll now say "runned"). Finally, when they learn the exceptions, they'll go back to "ran" again.
I hope you didn't think I was attacking you personally! I'm not even one of those crazies who thinks all pure-bred breeders are inherently evil. I was really just taking the opportunity to hopefully point out the homeless cat problem to any slashdot readers who love cats but maybe didn't realize the issue was so critical, and that casually allowing cats to breed is maybe not the best idea.
You're allowed to, but I beg you... please don't! With the number of homeless cats in the tens of millions in the US alone (See Alley Cat Allies), that last thing we need is more kittens.
Stealing does have multiple meanings but many people will use "to steal" and mean "to violate copyrights" but treat it as if they said "to deny access"
By trying to deny a popularly accepted definition of the term theft, one is playing the exact same political games as the people who one accuses of trying muddle the connotations. I believe it is for this reason that people get annoyed at others who say "It's not THEFT!" as if from on high. Your point about being specific is a good one. But it's subtly different and politically less powerful, and one I don't think you'll get the raving "Not Theft" loonies to conceed.
Similarily, in a hypothetical discussion of cars vs bicycles, you probably shouldn't use the word vehicle to refer to either.
Agreed. But that's not what people are doing in these discussions. What they're doing is saying, "That's NOT a vehicle. Vehicles have four wheels. That's definately a bike, sure, but it's no vehicle! Damn, you're stupid!"
Heh, that reminds me of the slashdot Markov program I wrote a while back. Here's a small sample output taken from this article's comments:
But doomed by wonder if it a feature to Windows only takes one is restricted to takes one really plans on your gmail as an easy installation! by but perhaps a hairy reply to school without Google are all their trust also dooming the web - link the relative cost of Linux, but doomed by pages with the bill has thousands of packaging not up and email they analyze those and the Win application to My Computer folder, where can offer so how does google will hit Google don't start immediately coming true. Kill it yet; I will get some people doing that the servers. These are accustomed' - The Google expanding gmail account before storage used the filed, installed in less cross platform version of packaging not like any existing. I wonder if a drive for your current Cool hack... Feed your current Now we won't even "share" folders to mappens in 3. You'll get a bit... I just this is kind of explorer.exe, suggest that lives somewhere other than one hand, it after So which is in this would be quite a setting that whatever makes money and they'll try now.
Now tell me honestly that makes any less sense than the usual rambling slashdot posting ;-)
Not bloody likely. I use Philip's line of 8051 based chips everyday and don't have any wish to give them up. The majority of their line is way more powerful than I need, they're ultra cheap, and I can still get them in packages that are convenient for hand assembly (something important for a company like us who make a lot of custom, short run product lines).
These fancy ARM based processors are neat to poke at, but they just don't make sense in a lot of low end applications, where small 8-bit MCU will be around for a long, long time.
Well, yes, but... Atheism states that since there is no decent evidence for God's existance, there is no reason to believe in God's existance. Agnosticism states that there is no way to prove whether God exists or not. Notice carefully that those are *not* competing positions. You can be both agnostic & atheistic at the same time, or one and not the other, or neither.
Too dumb even to notice that the MSNBC article is a Reuters piece.
I believe he was refering to Symantec as the original source of the news, not who was reporting it.
Ah, but intranet is more of a marketing term than a networking one. You've been fooled into thinking that stupid marketing terms actually make sense! An intranet is actually a grouping of websites and applications not accessable to people outside an organization. What you describe as an intranet really *is* an internet- a collection of separate networks connected via routers/gateways. What the parent poster described is a LAN.
Mind you, I've never done it because it would be kind of rotten, but it did cross my mind.
Agreed, it's got a lot of issues. Mostly I don't think anybody will be willing to pay any bond for anything. If you demand any money at all for reading email, people will just stop sending you email all together. "What? This thing says I have to go sign up for some account and enter my financial information, just so I can send this guy some email? Whatever..."
Not adding the sender to your whitelist just blocks the mail. The sender isn't charged unless they decide it's important enough to them to go ahead and pay your price.
No, if somebody signs up for your free mailing list and then demands $0.10 for the mail you send them, you just don't send them the mail and immediately take them off your list.
Not to be nit-picky, but Firewire doesn't really illustrate your point. Apple didn't adopt Firewire. Apple invented Firewire instead of using the standard (USB).
Yeah, that's a point... but if you know the port to DOS, you must have been snooping. If you're snooping, you can just DOS whatever service the knocking opens up regardless of the knock protocol. Port knocking just keeps port scanners from seeing open services, it doesn't guard against a targetted DOS attack.
Why do you need to go to the trouble of hitting a one time sequence of closed ports rather than just knocking with a one time password in a single UDP datagram?
Yeah, it's a messy situation there. I think there's an argument that it fails "fitness of purpose" if it doesn't play in a bunch of standard players. But there's also an argument that there's a responsibility of the consumer to fully inspect the merchandise. The best legal thing (ob. IANAL) for the consumer to do is simply ask the merchant "Will this work in all my standard CD players?". If the merchant says yes, you now have grounds to return it when it doesn't.