Ah here is the crux of the matter. They can back port it, there is no doubt about it. They don't want to and that is their decision. They want to use it as a selling point for Vista, and that is fine. No problems so far. They said they couldn't for technical reasons. DING DING DING. We have a winner. No, they don't want to do it because it won't be a selling point for Vista. Like I said, that's fine. It's ultimately their software and their decision. They don't have to do it if they don't want to. But I expect people (and companies are run by people) to be honest. They lied. Why did they lie about it? What is it about Vista that is so crappy that they have to lie? Why can't they just tell us the truth? Of course they are using DX10 to sell Vista. Whatever, so what, big deal, no problem. But they have to go and lie about the reasons for using it to sell Vista. Now we have a problem.
I've already explained this. There's nothing crappy about Vista that caused them to lie, I believe they were trying to avoid people screaming "I've always gotten DX before without paying!!!" Seriously too, did they actually cause you some harm if they did lie (I still haven't seen a DX10 card with "backported" DX10 running a game on XP)? Who cares what their reason was anyway? Is it relevent?
The post you replied to mentioned Halo 2. That was obviously a Vista only product to help sell Vista. Did you see how upset people got about that? Hardly at all. They even had to work to make it Vista only. The game was on the Xbox originally, which had DX8 I believe. They had to work to make it DX10 instead of doing the easy port. Did they lie about it and say it could only be DX10 for technical reasons? No, they just did and people got over it and saw it as a stupid gimmick, but they all moved on. But that they lied about DX10 is the problem. It's trust here that is at the core of the issue.
Funny, I seem to recall quite a few angry posts here on/. being pissed off that it was Vista only. The amount of "work" you say they had to do was pretty trivial, since people figured out how to bypass it I believe the next day. I think that's more the reason we haven't heard people pissed it was intended to be Vista only; because its easily cracked to work on XP.
Um, I'm a gamer, and I haven't had a console since the SNES. My wife got me the Wii last March, and I've been playing it almost everyday. I have seven or so Wii games, and then five or some GameCube games (the Resident Evil series). Except for Zelda, I haven't purchased a single Nintendo game. I'm simply waiting for the third party developers to release games. That said, Tomb Raider just came out and I plan to pick that up, and I may pick up RE: UC. I'm currently having fun with MK: A though, but I'll certainly be getting more good games. I may even rent Manhunt2 to see if its any good.
Well, thanks for your opinion, I think. Personally I wouldn't have even known Hurt was a Johnny Cash song if I didn't see your post. It sounds like I'd find your music choices "annoying, droning sameness" though.
Conversely, any idiot can pen a stupid ditty which costs nothing then get approximately forever to profit from it. How much did humanity benefit from, say, the song "Beth" versus Lipitor?
Huh? That's one of the dumbest posts ever on this site. Go ahead, write a song for us and perform it. I have a good feeling it will be awful.
Humanity isn't only benefiting from science, it benefits from art and culture as well. Believe it or not, KISS contributed to both.
No, not at all. From Wikipedia: "Greed denotes desire to acquire wealth or possessions beyond the the needs of the individual especially when this accumulation of possession denies others legitimate needs or access to those or other resources. For example, amassing a large collection of sea shells would not be considered greed, unless in doing so, the needs of others was jepordized."
Is it greed when a poor person wants to protect the small house they work to have? Is it greed for a poor person to have food in his house, enough to feed his family?
I don't think you could actually argue that. So greed goes well beyond "protecting your property." There's nothing wrong with protecting what you've worked for (otherwise, why work at all? Might as well become a leech and go on welfare).
I don't know how your family does it, but we've only used two sink basins, each half filled with water. One for soap, the other to rinse. Also, almost all dish soap is now antibacterial.
FWIW, I don't think most dishwashers are either; my relatively new one (two years old) has a seperate wash mode to kill bacteria.
The savings in power from replacing the CRT were $18/year, not $90. Assuming no time-value of money, it would take 11 years to pay it off. It takes longer, of course, if there is time-value (interest). Not many LCDs really have that lifetime, so money-wise, you're not saving any.
I wasn't only focusing on the CRT though when I was replying. My only point regarding the CRT was that it can be recycled. As for LCD lifetimes, I know several people that have laptops and the LCD screen works just fine even though its about 12 years old. I don't see where you got that 11 year number from; every LCD tv will be trash in 11 years? I somehow doubt that. At any rate, saying that the LCD must pay for itself without using savings elsewhere is silly.
In terms of energy, it takes energy to make the LCD, transport it, and to recycle the CRT (rather than dump toxens into a landfill). How much of the $200 pays directly for the energy? Does $18/year, or even $90/year really pay it off?
It takes far less energy to create than its $200 price. Much of the price is in materials, labor, and markup. By the time you buy the monitor, its $200. It may have only cost the manufactorer $75, and not all of those are energy costs.
Personally I'd rather use some energy to recycle than let posious chemicals end up in drinking water.
This is why people say it's trivial. In many cases, there's no gain by replacing working equipment.
It doesn't seem that logic supports that. At any rate, the LCD is already created, sitting on a shelf. Letting it sit there and using a CRT that takes up more energy doesn't seem like a great idea either.
Sometimes there is, though. His office lighting used 370 watts (twice his office equipment). In terms of energy and cost, it would probably be worth it to reduce that. My home office uses about 40W of lighting for general use, 90W when task lighting, which happens less than once a week. So, if he saved on lighting, that's between 280W and 330W or 2.24-2.64kWh in an 8-hour day (provided you use the lights in day-time).
Agreed; but savings are savings, and if you can cut cost further that seems to be a good thing. Most of our nation gets its electric from coal burning plants, possibly one of the costiest (in terms of polution) ways to generate power. Cutting your power bill today lessens the need to burn as much coal.
I think the best bet is to give said people benefit of the doubt that they are in fact doing something useful with them. I would never leave a computer on that wasn't serving some kind of purpose.
So get the twist designs. I found a 25W one I believe from GE that was brighter than the 100W bulbs we had before. I've had some well over two years now, and there is no noticable dim.
Don't buy the cheap crap ones from Home Depot or KMart; get a decent CF bulb.
The author spent $200 to buy an LCD monitor to replace a 19" CRT, saving $18 / yr electricity: more than a five year payoff. And he's putting a CRT into a landfill somewhere. There's no economic incentive to buy an LCD; savings are pocket change and doesn't realistically pay for itself. And the environmental cost could be a wash, since the reduced carbon footprint is weighed against a CRT dumped in the trash.
$90 / yr / monitor in a business setting is a big deal though. And you assume he tossed the CRT instead of having it properly recycled. I don't see why you'd assume that.
This article is fun, and I might play a similar game at home. But people chasing $90 in electricity is nearly trite compared to the real energy users: home heating and cooling and clothes washers and dryers. Globally, this is spitting in the ocean compared to the real change that's (presumably) neeeded.
$90 * 100 million homes = $9 billion / year. Not trival at all.
It's reported that eliminating coal-mine fires (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/from-bagels-to-coal-fires-an-unorthodox-economist-keeps-pushing-for-change/) would reduce CO2 emissions annually equivalent to that produced by all cars and light-trucks in the US. There's little value in individuals replacing 3 W cable modems for 2 W versions when the "easy" targets are still ignored.
If it were "easy" to put out a coal fire, don't you think we would have done so already? Letting it burn underground is a waste; mining it and burning it at a plant at least provides some value. Ideally, we should be able to do both.
Hell, why do you need your own house? Surely an apartment is good enough for you? Even that's wasteful, why not just live in a building with shared bathrooms and beds. Who needs lights at night anyway, or a TV for that matter? Surely not buying a washing machine would be more efficent too, just do your dishes in the sink. Its also a waste to travel, so lets live at where ever we are employed. And you get one plate to call your own. Who needs more than that?
The layout gives them more information they had. And it also give the positions of the guard towers and everything. But maybe your right. Why don't you tell us where the control panel for your house alarm is located at and what specific brands and models are being used. You know, there is nothing to worry about because no one would be able to do anything with the alarm and all the security it offers. I hope that sounded as idiotic as someone having the floor plan wouldn't aid them in their attack.
I don't have a home alarm system, actually. And floor plans to my house are available as public record. I feel plenty safe. Floor plans don't tell you where security systems are located, typically. They also don't tell you the patrol routines, how many guards are inside, and I'm pretty sure the towers themselves are visible without need for the plans as well.
What are you a dumbass? It says nothing about torture. It describes how to confuse a person and condition them into being helpfull. Nothing about torture or anything remotely close to torture. If you consider that torture then every one who goes to a car lot and talks to a used car sales man is subjecting themselves to torture. My god, it torture going to end up with the same dilution that racists has? Is it just something we throw out there now to quiet conversation or to piss other people off and turn them against someone? I mean nothing in the book it even close to torture. Get over it.
Ahh, "conditioning." Please explain how you "condition" someone without torturing them? "Just" starving them? Keeping them awake for days at a time? Letting dogs bite their legs? Do you think a terrorist is so stupid that they can easily be confused into telling everything they know? Are you even sure the people in the prisons ARE terrorists or have any information?
Lol.. So lets not take any steps to protect them. We are at war, they are in harms way so lets make it as likely as possible that they will die or be maimed. Do you actually think before you write something? Or is this just natural for you?
If you were truely concerned for the soliders safety you'd say the same thing I do: bring them home.
Yes, she probably does. Not because everyone is slacking off and letting things slide though. Let her goto Iraq and attempt to live a normal life and try to make that same statement.
Her safety level in Iraq is irrelevent; its unchanged here in the state from pre-9/11. Nice strawman though.
You see, We have foiled several attempts at home on American soil. We have seen terrorist attempts happen all around the world. Do you know what the biggest difference between an act of terror and an actr of war is? with terrorism, you, the innocent civilian is the target. with war, there is a military objective.
Can you prove they wouldn't have been foiled in a pre-9/11 situation? We certainly stopped terrorist attempts here before, but it didn't make the news each time. I'm glad to know we never targeted a civilan target in Iraq; I guess no innocent civilians died because of American troops.
And where do you get off pushing your morals on me. What made you the ultimate decider of morality? When your willing to let someone dies because death happens but fight anyone who attempts to stop it from happening. I'm willing to bet that you don't even have a clue about what is going on enough to make a morality judgment over let alone push your morals on to other people.
Where do you get off pushing your morals on me? On destrying my freedoms and the freedoms of all citizens because even though you're turing the country into a police state, AT LEAST YOU'LL BE ALIVE. You sir are the clueless one; I want to stick to our Constitution and the beliefs of our founders. If you disagree with them, feel free to move to another country that more closely matches your ideals.
I'm glad you brought that up. You see, it used to be that no one could walk around on 160th street any tim
There is no reason for anyone to upgrade to vista... I'm not sure how microsoft managed to get honest-to-god fanbois, but you guys are worse than mac addicts.
And you're calling me a fanboy? Wow, I didn't realize simply defending MS made someone a fan boy. You don't think there are valid reasons, that's fine, that's your opinion. To state that as a fact is just stupid.
As a developer, I know about many of the new features, a good number of which are under the hood and not easily seen by an end user. DX10 is one that IS seen by end users, and I can understand why MS would want to include that as a reason on a list of reasons they say you should upgrade.
I never said it WAS a good reason (in my mind, at least).
I'm just stupified at the comments here; surely on/. we know that given enough time ANY new feature could be backported to an existing version of software? The only reason a for profit company has to put out a whole new version is for something new to sell.
I don't know how people manage to get insightful for illogical crap.
I can't explain it any other way, but not backporting DX doesn't logically lead to DX10 is the only reason to upgrade to Vista. Of course they may have lied; they simply were trying to avoid angering those that expected DX10 to be backported. People would accept that MS doesn't want to backport because technologically its not possible or too difficult; they'd be upset if they just came out and said "we don't want to so that we can have one more reason to give for upgrading" people would just be upset.
Even if there's no technical reason, your logic is still faulty. Feature X is ONE OF MANY new features. That doesn't mean its the only reason the new version is worthwhile, it is there to ADD to the list of features that make the new version worthwhile.
Take a vacuum cleaner; a newer model has a more powerful motor that would work perfectly in the older model. In addition, there are more attachments (or whatever) that actually do only work with the newer model. The older model is still in use, and they could sell the motor to people that had it, so does that mean the other new features on the new vacuum aren't worthwhile? Of course not.
This might sound odd, but if DX10 was available on XP, I would be more willing to look into Vista. By keeping DX10 Vista only, they tell me there is nothing in Vista worth upgrading to except DX10, but if it's on XP, then they are saying Vista can stand on its own compared to XP.
That's just stupid logic. Keeping feature x restricted to the new OS means there aren't any other features in Vista? Who would upgrade just for DX10 anyway? You REALLY think MS was hoping people would?
I believe they were hoping that, combined with the other new features, DX10 would be one of many reasons to upgrade.
I'm not a support of the myraid of laws we have to follow on a daily basis... but they're there regardless. Given that; a 19 year old college student, a 45 year old college professor, the janitor, and the CEO of Big Bucks Corp all are obliged to follow the same laws. Regardless of how stupid many laws are, equal accountability across all demographics I still very much believe in.
No, no one is under any obligation to follow unjust laws. You need to read up on our nations history if you believe you must follow all laws, no matter how unjust.
Well, You would have to ask yourself who they are hiding it from and why. I would say that detailed plans of a prison would need to be kept secrete from anyone attempting to break into it.
First, I'm not aware that prisons are that popular to break IN to. Second, security through obsecurity doesn't work. You act as if knowing the layout means that there aren't guard towers, cameras and other security measures in place.
I would also say that the playbook on how to condition prisoners so they are more likely to give information is something you would want to keep from the enemy or future prisoners.
You're talking about torture, which is immoral. Certainly something I'd want to know about, and I'm a citizen.
IT has to do with men and women's lives being at risk now. Both the guards and the prisoners lives are now at risk.
They are at risk anyway. Its a war, remember? Don't forget that we never had a reason to be there to begin with. You can't cry fowl when you do something wrong and then get bit back.
It means that future prisoners will be conditioned to how we get information from them and we might not know when the next attack that almost kills your mom and dad or some other loved one is going to be.
Stop with your irrational paranoia. My mom has a better chance to die from being hit by lightning than a terrorist attack. Had we done not gone to war, we'd have exactly the same number of terrorist attacks that we did before. Almost none. People die, its part of life. "Saving lives" is not justification for acting immorally.
But I know that for some, other people's lives ending is just fine as long as it isn't the bad guys.
That's just silly.
They have to do everything possible to undermine our government's efforts to protect us just so they can complain that it isn't working or Elect their candidate of choice.
Wake up. Your government CAN'T protect you. Its simply not possible. Don't believe me? Walk around at night on 160th street in NYC, see how much protection you get from the government there.
And there are lots of people who see it and turn a blind eye to it hiding behind some magical holier then though separation (it isn't my war, I didn't start it) so the deaths resulting indirectly from their actions don't matter to them.
Its a valid point though. 3000 people died in the WTC attack. We're at what, almost double that in soliders deaths? It certainly doesn't make sense to me. Especially given that the attacks were successful on a fluke, and NONE of the provisions of the patriot act would have stopped the terrorists to begin with. Invading a soverign nation has only strengthed hatred of the US. Our policies created that hatred to begin with. I think we need to take a hard look at ourselves and what we have done to drive people to such extremes that they would blow themselves up to kill Americans.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Isn't "nothing to hide" what us privacy nuts are always told when we object to invasions of privacy? Seems to me it should work both ways.
Logon to the database server implies permission to run arbitrary SQL on your server.
Your point? Arbitrary sql doesn't mean you have access to any tables directly, it doesn't mean you can run code you want. Your logon can be very limited in the database objects that it can interact with or modify. Views and procedures can take into account your logon and limit access to data.
Yes, you could lock down your database permissions so there's no real risk in the first case but why give the user an extra attack vector?
Web services makes the solution more expensive and prone to failure and can kill performance if the application isn't already 'chatty.'
Its not as if adding another layer doesn't have implications, you need to balance with security.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah here is the crux of the matter. They can back port it, there is no doubt about it. They don't want to and that is their decision. They want to use it as a selling point for Vista, and that is fine. No problems so far. They said they couldn't for technical reasons. DING DING DING. We have a winner. No, they don't want to do it because it won't be a selling point for Vista. Like I said, that's fine. It's ultimately their software and their decision. They don't have to do it if they don't want to. But I expect people (and companies are run by people) to be honest. They lied. Why did they lie about it? What is it about Vista that is so crappy that they have to lie? Why can't they just tell us the truth? Of course they are using DX10 to sell Vista. Whatever, so what, big deal, no problem. But they have to go and lie about the reasons for using it to sell Vista. Now we have a problem.
/. being pissed off that it was Vista only. The amount of "work" you say they had to do was pretty trivial, since people figured out how to bypass it I believe the next day. I think that's more the reason we haven't heard people pissed it was intended to be Vista only; because its easily cracked to work on XP.
I've already explained this. There's nothing crappy about Vista that caused them to lie, I believe they were trying to avoid people screaming "I've always gotten DX before without paying!!!" Seriously too, did they actually cause you some harm if they did lie (I still haven't seen a DX10 card with "backported" DX10 running a game on XP)? Who cares what their reason was anyway? Is it relevent?
The post you replied to mentioned Halo 2. That was obviously a Vista only product to help sell Vista. Did you see how upset people got about that? Hardly at all. They even had to work to make it Vista only. The game was on the Xbox originally, which had DX8 I believe. They had to work to make it DX10 instead of doing the easy port. Did they lie about it and say it could only be DX10 for technical reasons? No, they just did and people got over it and saw it as a stupid gimmick, but they all moved on. But that they lied about DX10 is the problem. It's trust here that is at the core of the issue.
Funny, I seem to recall quite a few angry posts here on
Um, I'm a gamer, and I haven't had a console since the SNES. My wife got me the Wii last March, and I've been playing it almost everyday. I have seven or so Wii games, and then five or some GameCube games (the Resident Evil series). Except for Zelda, I haven't purchased a single Nintendo game. I'm simply waiting for the third party developers to release games. That said, Tomb Raider just came out and I plan to pick that up, and I may pick up RE: UC. I'm currently having fun with MK: A though, but I'll certainly be getting more good games. I may even rent Manhunt2 to see if its any good.
Well, thanks for your opinion, I think. Personally I wouldn't have even known Hurt was a Johnny Cash song if I didn't see your post. It sounds like I'd find your music choices "annoying, droning sameness" though.
Don't care about kiss, but don't do anything to Metallica until after they're done the black album.
Conversely, any idiot can pen a stupid ditty which costs nothing then get approximately forever to profit from it. How much did humanity benefit from, say, the song "Beth" versus Lipitor?
Huh? That's one of the dumbest posts ever on this site. Go ahead, write a song for us and perform it. I have a good feeling it will be awful.
Humanity isn't only benefiting from science, it benefits from art and culture as well. Believe it or not, KISS contributed to both.
No, not at all. From Wikipedia: "Greed denotes desire to acquire wealth or possessions beyond the the needs of the individual especially when this accumulation of possession denies others legitimate needs or access to those or other resources. For example, amassing a large collection of sea shells would not be considered greed, unless in doing so, the needs of others was jepordized."
Is it greed when a poor person wants to protect the small house they work to have? Is it greed for a poor person to have food in his house, enough to feed his family?
I don't think you could actually argue that. So greed goes well beyond "protecting your property." There's nothing wrong with protecting what you've worked for (otherwise, why work at all? Might as well become a leech and go on welfare).
I was playing it on an Atari 2600.
I don't know how your family does it, but we've only used two sink basins, each half filled with water. One for soap, the other to rinse. Also, almost all dish soap is now antibacterial.
FWIW, I don't think most dishwashers are either; my relatively new one (two years old) has a seperate wash mode to kill bacteria.
The savings in power from replacing the CRT were $18/year, not $90. Assuming no time-value of money, it would take 11 years to pay it off. It takes longer, of course, if there is time-value (interest). Not many LCDs really have that lifetime, so money-wise, you're not saving any.
I wasn't only focusing on the CRT though when I was replying. My only point regarding the CRT was that it can be recycled. As for LCD lifetimes, I know several people that have laptops and the LCD screen works just fine even though its about 12 years old. I don't see where you got that 11 year number from; every LCD tv will be trash in 11 years? I somehow doubt that. At any rate, saying that the LCD must pay for itself without using savings elsewhere is silly.
In terms of energy, it takes energy to make the LCD, transport it, and to recycle the CRT (rather than dump toxens into a landfill). How much of the $200 pays directly for the energy? Does $18/year, or even $90/year really pay it off?
It takes far less energy to create than its $200 price. Much of the price is in materials, labor, and markup. By the time you buy the monitor, its $200. It may have only cost the manufactorer $75, and not all of those are energy costs.
Personally I'd rather use some energy to recycle than let posious chemicals end up in drinking water.
This is why people say it's trivial. In many cases, there's no gain by replacing working equipment.
It doesn't seem that logic supports that. At any rate, the LCD is already created, sitting on a shelf. Letting it sit there and using a CRT that takes up more energy doesn't seem like a great idea either.
Sometimes there is, though. His office lighting used 370 watts (twice his office equipment). In terms of energy and cost, it would probably be worth it to reduce that. My home office uses about 40W of lighting for general use, 90W when task lighting, which happens less than once a week. So, if he saved on lighting, that's between 280W and 330W or 2.24-2.64kWh in an 8-hour day (provided you use the lights in day-time).
Agreed; but savings are savings, and if you can cut cost further that seems to be a good thing. Most of our nation gets its electric from coal burning plants, possibly one of the costiest (in terms of polution) ways to generate power. Cutting your power bill today lessens the need to burn as much coal.
I think the best bet is to give said people benefit of the doubt that they are in fact doing something useful with them. I would never leave a computer on that wasn't serving some kind of purpose.
So get the twist designs. I found a 25W one I believe from GE that was brighter than the 100W bulbs we had before. I've had some well over two years now, and there is no noticable dim.
Don't buy the cheap crap ones from Home Depot or KMart; get a decent CF bulb.
The author spent $200 to buy an LCD monitor to replace a 19" CRT, saving $18 / yr electricity: more than a five year payoff. And he's putting a CRT into a landfill somewhere. There's no economic incentive to buy an LCD; savings are pocket change and doesn't realistically pay for itself. And the environmental cost could be a wash, since the reduced carbon footprint is weighed against a CRT dumped in the trash.
$90 / yr / monitor in a business setting is a big deal though. And you assume he tossed the CRT instead of having it properly recycled. I don't see why you'd assume that.
This article is fun, and I might play a similar game at home. But people chasing $90 in electricity is nearly trite compared to the real energy users: home heating and cooling and clothes washers and dryers. Globally, this is spitting in the ocean compared to the real change that's (presumably) neeeded.
$90 * 100 million homes = $9 billion / year. Not trival at all.
It's reported that eliminating coal-mine fires (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/from-bagels-to-coal-fires-an-unorthodox-economist-keeps-pushing-for-change/) would reduce CO2 emissions annually equivalent to that produced by all cars and light-trucks in the US. There's little value in individuals replacing 3 W cable modems for 2 W versions when the "easy" targets are still ignored.
If it were "easy" to put out a coal fire, don't you think we would have done so already? Letting it burn underground is a waste; mining it and burning it at a plant at least provides some value. Ideally, we should be able to do both.
Hell, why do you need your own house? Surely an apartment is good enough for you? Even that's wasteful, why not just live in a building with shared bathrooms and beds. Who needs lights at night anyway, or a TV for that matter? Surely not buying a washing machine would be more efficent too, just do your dishes in the sink. Its also a waste to travel, so lets live at where ever we are employed. And you get one plate to call your own. Who needs more than that?
The layout gives them more information they had. And it also give the positions of the guard towers and everything. But maybe your right. Why don't you tell us where the control panel for your house alarm is located at and what specific brands and models are being used. You know, there is nothing to worry about because no one would be able to do anything with the alarm and all the security it offers. I hope that sounded as idiotic as someone having the floor plan wouldn't aid them in their attack.
I don't have a home alarm system, actually. And floor plans to my house are available as public record. I feel plenty safe. Floor plans don't tell you where security systems are located, typically. They also don't tell you the patrol routines, how many guards are inside, and I'm pretty sure the towers themselves are visible without need for the plans as well.
What are you a dumbass? It says nothing about torture. It describes how to confuse a person and condition them into being helpfull. Nothing about torture or anything remotely close to torture. If you consider that torture then every one who goes to a car lot and talks to a used car sales man is subjecting themselves to torture. My god, it torture going to end up with the same dilution that racists has? Is it just something we throw out there now to quiet conversation or to piss other people off and turn them against someone? I mean nothing in the book it even close to torture. Get over it.
Ahh, "conditioning." Please explain how you "condition" someone without torturing them? "Just" starving them? Keeping them awake for days at a time? Letting dogs bite their legs? Do you think a terrorist is so stupid that they can easily be confused into telling everything they know? Are you even sure the people in the prisons ARE terrorists or have any information?
Lol.. So lets not take any steps to protect them. We are at war, they are in harms way so lets make it as likely as possible that they will die or be maimed. Do you actually think before you write something? Or is this just natural for you?
If you were truely concerned for the soliders safety you'd say the same thing I do: bring them home.
Yes, she probably does. Not because everyone is slacking off and letting things slide though. Let her goto Iraq and attempt to live a normal life and try to make that same statement.
Her safety level in Iraq is irrelevent; its unchanged here in the state from pre-9/11. Nice strawman though.
You see, We have foiled several attempts at home on American soil. We have seen terrorist attempts happen all around the world. Do you know what the biggest difference between an act of terror and an actr of war is? with terrorism, you, the innocent civilian is the target. with war, there is a military objective.
Can you prove they wouldn't have been foiled in a pre-9/11 situation? We certainly stopped terrorist attempts here before, but it didn't make the news each time. I'm glad to know we never targeted a civilan target in Iraq; I guess no innocent civilians died because of American troops.
And where do you get off pushing your morals on me. What made you the ultimate decider of morality? When your willing to let someone dies because death happens but fight anyone who attempts to stop it from happening. I'm willing to bet that you don't even have a clue about what is going on enough to make a morality judgment over let alone push your morals on to other people.
Where do you get off pushing your morals on me? On destrying my freedoms and the freedoms of all citizens because even though you're turing the country into a police state, AT LEAST YOU'LL BE ALIVE. You sir are the clueless one; I want to stick to our Constitution and the beliefs of our founders. If you disagree with them, feel free to move to another country that more closely matches your ideals.
I'm glad you brought that up. You see, it used to be that no one could walk around on 160th street any tim
There is no reason for anyone to upgrade to vista ... I'm not sure how microsoft managed to get honest-to-god fanbois, but you guys are worse than mac addicts.
/. we know that given enough time ANY new feature could be backported to an existing version of software? The only reason a for profit company has to put out a whole new version is for something new to sell.
And you're calling me a fanboy? Wow, I didn't realize simply defending MS made someone a fan boy. You don't think there are valid reasons, that's fine, that's your opinion. To state that as a fact is just stupid.
As a developer, I know about many of the new features, a good number of which are under the hood and not easily seen by an end user. DX10 is one that IS seen by end users, and I can understand why MS would want to include that as a reason on a list of reasons they say you should upgrade.
I never said it WAS a good reason (in my mind, at least).
I'm just stupified at the comments here; surely on
I don't know how people manage to get insightful for illogical crap.
I can't explain it any other way, but not backporting DX doesn't logically lead to DX10 is the only reason to upgrade to Vista. Of course they may have lied; they simply were trying to avoid angering those that expected DX10 to be backported. People would accept that MS doesn't want to backport because technologically its not possible or too difficult; they'd be upset if they just came out and said "we don't want to so that we can have one more reason to give for upgrading" people would just be upset.
Actually what is suprising is that it hasn't collapsed already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#The_need_for_future_repairs
Even if there's no technical reason, your logic is still faulty. Feature X is ONE OF MANY new features. That doesn't mean its the only reason the new version is worthwhile, it is there to ADD to the list of features that make the new version worthwhile.
Take a vacuum cleaner; a newer model has a more powerful motor that would work perfectly in the older model. In addition, there are more attachments (or whatever) that actually do only work with the newer model. The older model is still in use, and they could sell the motor to people that had it, so does that mean the other new features on the new vacuum aren't worthwhile? Of course not.
This might sound odd, but if DX10 was available on XP, I would be more willing to look into Vista. By keeping DX10 Vista only, they tell me there is nothing in Vista worth upgrading to except DX10, but if it's on XP, then they are saying Vista can stand on its own compared to XP.
That's just stupid logic. Keeping feature x restricted to the new OS means there aren't any other features in Vista? Who would upgrade just for DX10 anyway? You REALLY think MS was hoping people would?
I believe they were hoping that, combined with the other new features, DX10 would be one of many reasons to upgrade.
I'm not a support of the myraid of laws we have to follow on a daily basis ... but they're there regardless. Given that; a 19 year old college student, a 45 year old college professor, the janitor, and the CEO of Big Bucks Corp all are obliged to follow the same laws. Regardless of how stupid many laws are, equal accountability across all demographics I still very much believe in.
No, no one is under any obligation to follow unjust laws. You need to read up on our nations history if you believe you must follow all laws, no matter how unjust.
Well, You would have to ask yourself who they are hiding it from and why. I would say that detailed plans of a prison would need to be kept secrete from anyone attempting to break into it.
First, I'm not aware that prisons are that popular to break IN to. Second, security through obsecurity doesn't work. You act as if knowing the layout means that there aren't guard towers, cameras and other security measures in place.
I would also say that the playbook on how to condition prisoners so they are more likely to give information is something you would want to keep from the enemy or future prisoners.
You're talking about torture, which is immoral. Certainly something I'd want to know about, and I'm a citizen.
IT has to do with men and women's lives being at risk now. Both the guards and the prisoners lives are now at risk.
They are at risk anyway. Its a war, remember? Don't forget that we never had a reason to be there to begin with. You can't cry fowl when you do something wrong and then get bit back.
It means that future prisoners will be conditioned to how we get information from them and we might not know when the next attack that almost kills your mom and dad or some other loved one is going to be.
Stop with your irrational paranoia. My mom has a better chance to die from being hit by lightning than a terrorist attack. Had we done not gone to war, we'd have exactly the same number of terrorist attacks that we did before. Almost none. People die, its part of life. "Saving lives" is not justification for acting immorally.
But I know that for some, other people's lives ending is just fine as long as it isn't the bad guys.
That's just silly.
They have to do everything possible to undermine our government's efforts to protect us just so they can complain that it isn't working or Elect their candidate of choice.
Wake up. Your government CAN'T protect you. Its simply not possible. Don't believe me? Walk around at night on 160th street in NYC, see how much protection you get from the government there.
And there are lots of people who see it and turn a blind eye to it hiding behind some magical holier then though separation (it isn't my war, I didn't start it) so the deaths resulting indirectly from their actions don't matter to them.
Its a valid point though. 3000 people died in the WTC attack. We're at what, almost double that in soliders deaths? It certainly doesn't make sense to me. Especially given that the attacks were successful on a fluke, and NONE of the provisions of the patriot act would have stopped the terrorists to begin with. Invading a soverign nation has only strengthed hatred of the US. Our policies created that hatred to begin with. I think we need to take a hard look at ourselves and what we have done to drive people to such extremes that they would blow themselves up to kill Americans.
Um, I believe those same signers also opposed the Crown anonymously BEFORE decided that war was the only solution.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Isn't "nothing to hide" what us privacy nuts are always told when we object to invasions of privacy? Seems to me it should work both ways.
Right, because its all about winning! yay!
Logon to the database server implies permission to run arbitrary SQL on your server.
Your point? Arbitrary sql doesn't mean you have access to any tables directly, it doesn't mean you can run code you want. Your logon can be very limited in the database objects that it can interact with or modify. Views and procedures can take into account your logon and limit access to data.
Yes, you could lock down your database permissions so there's no real risk in the first case but why give the user an extra attack vector?
Web services makes the solution more expensive and prone to failure and can kill performance if the application isn't already 'chatty.'
Its not as if adding another layer doesn't have implications, you need to balance with security.