Consider that some countries have extended the definition to cover other countries: Japan's legal porn age was 13, but the US told them that they had to raise that to 18 because the US doesn't want a giant influx of Japanese 13 year old schoolgirls getting fucked in the ass on.MPEG files from legal sources they can't prosecute.
Which is ridiculous. Child labor laws should prohibit employing 13 year olds.
See I would teach a 7 year old that she should occasionally touch strangers "there." With her fists. You'd be amazed at how quickly a punch to the balls stops a child abduction. These stories usually end in tears, though... wouldn't you cry if you got punched in the balls by a seven year old?
I'm always amazed to see that sex is considered shocking, and that we should protect children from it.
We also need to protect children from violence (wouldn't want anyone growing up to be revolutionaries if the government turns into a tyranny); and especially from the truth (I mean seriously, Sarah finds out that Santa Clause isn't real... by the time she's 7 she's living in a gutter sucking dick for crack and easter eggs, can't let that happen).
That's poor analysis on your part, so your conclusion is completely wrong.
Yeah, I saw; you made passwd root-owned, which is the smart thing to do. How "passwd" works with root group r-- and no SUID is a mystery to me, I'll have to look later.
BTW, the announcement specifically mentioned that "a vulnerability in crontab(1) or at(1) can't result in a root compromise without a vulnerability in crond(8) or in a critical system component relied upon by crond(8)." Did you not read that? Or do you disagree, thereby stating that we're inexperienced in the stuff we've been doing for 10 years?
Theo de Radt used the argument on me once that he was more experienced than me and knew what he was talking about; he took it off-list which was good for him. The argument was whether position independent executables were "very expensive" (his words) on x86 (32-bit), and in the end I ran OProfile against the whole system and found that the slow-down was 6% (1% normally, 6% if you use -fomit-stack-pointer because it doesn't work with -fpie -fpie) in the code, but the affected code was actually running less than 2% of the time. The total cost was a 0.0012% slowdown. "Very expensive."
I could always be wrong, but so could you. What I find suspicious about at(1) is you can make cron and at run tasks with root level privileges. This is a feature, unless you removed it (in which case cron simply won't run anything as root, good job). In typical operation, there's one file for this stuff, and the program has access to modify it; getting that access unrestricted by the security logic of the program itself is a quick sidestep of all system security.
Of course I could be wrong. Making the relevant "files" instead "directories" with chmod u=rwx,g=rwx,o=t and reading the user by checking the owner of the crontab gives a possibility I hadn't thought of. Dropping privileges before parsing files and filenames (by iterating directories and using stat() for known-good-from-the-kernel input) eliminates the last possible foreign input vector.
A curious detail is that there are no SUID programs in a default install
of Owl 3.0. Instead, there are some SGIDs, where their group level
access, if compromised via a vulnerability, can't be expanded into
root access without finding and exploiting another vulnerability in
another part of the system - e.g., a vulnerability in crontab(1) or
at(1) can't result in a root compromise without a vulnerability in
crond(8) or in a critical system component relied upon by crond(8).
From some googling and the announcement.
Basically if you exploit something with 'shadow' (i.e. passwd) you add a root user account to/etc/passwd and su to it. if you exploit crontab or at, you add a crontab that adds a root level account or runs a command as root or creates a SUID program. It requires some hacker creativity, but doesn't make anything secure.
I have never shopped at target and it is a dying chain around here now because they told the salvation army to never put a bell ringer outside their store ever and got a huge amount of negative publicity. Basically people said they hated poor people or something because they hated Salvation Army santas; and then it got out that Target is an "American" company owned by a French holding company... during the Iraqi war, when hating France was all the rage. Hence why a lot of people around here call the place "Tar-zhey"...
Aside, anodized aluminum is some of the nicer new-tech out there (that teflon crap is horrible, way too much sticking and too fragile and no heat tolerance). I have a well-seasoned cast iron frying pan that's slicker than teflon though (somehow... teflon might stick, but its actual FRICTION is pretty low), and just recently discovered that cooking eggs in bacon or sausage grease produces perfect results (frying eggs in butter, various vegetable oils, etc didn't work too great for me). I guess lard was always superior.
Actually, one might argue that there is a real social problem in female body image (and judging from the proliferation of drugs intended to increase penis size, male as well) in western society.
It could further be argued that much of this has to do with both the "soft porn" of the fashion industry, and the exaggerated bodies of "hard core" porn as well.
To have realistic body portrayals - perhaps not the morbidly obese, unless you're someone with a fetish for that, but not "Olive Oyl and Brutus" caricature-bodies either - regain the mainstream spotlight might not be such a bad thing.
I've noticed that there is a range of extremely hot girls, none chubby, from the skinny-but-not-annorexic petites I love to the shapely-but-extremely-curvy sweeties that are eating just a bit more pie.
The funny thing is there's a LOT of girls like this.
It's not a matter of working their ass off doing 5 hours of aerobics a day. Any girl that plays a sport is going to stay in shape (lacross, soccer). Sure they might not be the "slim/athletic" girls that go in "super hot model" jobs, but they're not going to be "a little chubby" either... there's a size in between where they're slim, shapely, and extremely curvy. Most girls that aren't shoving down unhealthy amounts of food manage to have a soft body with just enough padding that they're girl shaped, not egg shaped (or columnar for that matter).
Healthy bodies are different: humans are sexually dimorphic, and there is a point where you stop looking like a man/woman and start looking like a fat asshole. That is where you're going downhill. There's no shortage of happy, healthy girls though. It's a little ridiculous when they're 130 pounds and complaining they need to lose 10 pounds... they're just going to lose hips, or boobs, or soft curves along the legs... no cellulite, no ugly unsightly ripples or bulges, just shape. 180... 200 pound girls that are 5'2 and carrying 50% body fat are well out of shape though.
was one of the greatest documents ever, something he would have cherished all his life. He had meticulously kept a running list of every movie he had ever seen, hundreds and hundreds, with his comments on each.
If you cherish this your whole life, you have no life.
it's because most buyers only buy cheap products at low prices and don't see any reason to trade up, that's a problem with manufacturer branding or value propositions though.
I pay $20 for 3 pairs of socks and I have lost a few and had to buy more... after 2 years. The old ones are slightly yellowed, but otherwise identical to the brand new ones.
After 2 months, Wal-Mart $6 for 8 pair socks all have holes in them and I need to spend another $6 for 8 pair, or wear something that's falling apart and pounded flat but wasn't really fluffy and luxurious to begin with anyway... you know when they show poor people on TV and cartoons and they're wearing falling apart shoes and their socks have holes in them? That's what a Wal-Mart sock looks like after 2 months.
If I don't lose the shit, $20 for 3 pair is actually a good deal. But this took a $20 investment on 3 pair of socks to find out, which is not attractive to a lot of people-- as you said, value proposition, socks are cheap. It's the same with cotton undershirts (the $20 for 3 white undershirts I get are not itchy; fruit of the loom undershirts itch like fuck, they're almost papery).
The secret to success here is the razor and blade model, really, but without the razor. People won't switch from a Mach 3 with $20 8 packs of blades to a Merkur that you spend $35 for 100 blades for. The Merkur HD long handle is a $40 razor; you need a $20 brush for it and then pucks of shave soap that cost $5-$10 each and last several months (my $10 puck of Tabac lasted almost a year). The initial investment of $60-$80 is too much for most people when they can get a Mach 3 for $10 and then spend $20 a month on blades forever. Similarly, people will spend $18 on shirts that they have to throw away after 6 months-- sure you can wear the tattered, worn crap... unless you have a bizcas dresscode office job. And bizcas office people shop at walmart too--some of them make $20k/year, some make $60k/year, even at $100k/year they might not see the point in "wasting money."
I'll never understand how people can make $100k/year and still buy $60 tires, though. And cheap, crap-quality food when you can get so much better without spending $300/meal.
I've been wanting to start a competitor to Wal-Mart but you know, no capital. It'd be like Wal-Mart but more selective...
Wal-Mart sells some good stuff, but mostly crappy stuff; but for the most part all they do is play on price. I can get King Arthur Flour for about $3.50 for a 5lb bag there, which is a great price for the best flour I've yet found; although the bags look a little manhandled, and I wonder if they really have 5lb or if some's been beaten out of them in transit.... Wal-Mart pushes its manufacturers to reduce prices at any cost, suggesting ways to cut corners, get cheaper materials, even outsource to China; I dislike this, because they care nothing for quality.
What I want is a Wal-Mart like store that specifically tries to play the budget game, but on value terms. "Cheap as shit" is not value; "Great Value" brand food is the least costly food, but also the worst value. If you want value, you must spend a little more.. and only a little more.
When I buy clothes, I go to Sears. I pick out Land's End Business Outfitter's clothes. A shirt at Wal-Mart costs $18 and tears at the seams or develops fuzzy spots or holes after 2-3 washes; after 2 years, the $25 Land's End shirts I have aren't even discolored, much less fuzzy or tearing. One DID fall apart, a little... one of the seams wasn't finished right. I have had 8 of their shirts, that one was an oddity. I suspect performance of Polo and Doc Martin's clothes would be the same; Levis always made awesome jeans. By the way, pants at Wal-Mart cost about $22 last I looked, and Land's End pants cost $40 BUT I buy them on sale for $30, which happens all the time.
That's the kind of thing I would do for a Wal-Mart clone. We can't compete on price with Wal-Mart, but you aren't getting Wal-Mart crap. I'd skip the standard stuff. In the food section I'd only offer King Arthur and maybe some of the fine-milled flour I can get at the farmer's market in bulk (I'd talk to the farmers for this one). There's way better milk than the mass-market pushed crap; Trickling Springs Creamery makes EXCELLENT milk (it surprised me milk actually could taste better), and there are other dairies that put out cheaper but still better product than Leigh's and Cloverfield. Fresh baked bread is always good; there would be a bakery... like at Safeway, you know, $1 baguettes and artisan loaves, bread is pretty cheap to make and can be done en masse for not too much labor cost (that $1 baguette is 25 cents of product and 75 cents of labor and margin).
Good food, better quality non-designer-brand clothing (not like $100 shirts, more like $25 shirts instead of $18 shirts), maybe stock some alternative stuff in the personal care section (Merkur DE razors, straight razors, brushes, DE blades; Dr Bronner's soap, etc, there's some not-Dial-soap that's not $4 a bar too; some higher end colognes that only cost $10-$15 a bottle...). I might tint the CD section... no censoring CDs, but aim for less mainstream material and more diversification (i.e. have Die Toten Hosen in the metal section, some Eurobands, some less-known names like Sonata Arctica, indie stuff and good mainstream), maybe with a suggestion box so customers can share their favorite no-name bands. CDs are easily accessible (Amazon), I'm not interested in pushing mainstream crap; the value-add service there is to have an "interesting" CD section, not a grocery section to buy radio songs and Top 10 hits.
I think it's a sad reflection of society that we have places like Wal-Mart that push "low low LOW prices" and sell absolute garbage. Everything there is either "what everyone buys" or "something we dug out of the trash"... it's like a dollar store that's trying not to be a dollar store. They know they have to sell actual Oxyclean because the brand recognition is better than the $1 price tag on "Awesome Oxygen", same goes for dish washing liquid and motor oil (motor oil is actually important though). Gillette razors are so over-markete
So Best Buy is going to get a taste of what they did to CompUSA and Circuit City? The management at Best Buy--right from the executive level down to store management level--literally cheered when CompUSA and Circuit City were going out of business. I think the executives select aggressive, blood-thirsty drones for district management, who in turn select store managers of the same caliber. They all seemed abusive and shady to me, prone to lie and twist laws... I've seen best buy managers refuse to sell things at the posted price, and constantly play bait-and-switch games; this is the status quo there.
No, that was a reaction to the guy's signature and following conversation. The people who call people communists for asking why the poor are hungry are idiots; but the poor are obviously hungry because they can't afford food. You're a saint when you're giving people food; you're a communist when you're forcing people (by threat of jail time etc-- you know, that thing that happens when you don't pay taxes) to give others food against their own will.
There are other fundamental solutions to poverty and hunger, or at least to the impact thereof, than simply giving people food or money. Asking questions like "Why are the poor hungry?" and "How do we fix this?" is good. We chose not to tax not-for-profit charity organizations; we don't so much take your money away and give it to others as we clap our hands and give you a cookie for taking the initiative yourself. Yes, the burden of "making up your taxes" is "shared by society"; but on the other hand, charities provide a service to society, and so the so-called "burden" is more like "extracting money away from a social service paid for by voluntary taxes." Like robbing --er, repurposing funds from-- social security.
Questions like "Why are the poor hungry" can be answered by other questions like "why are we taxing soup kitchens 40% of their donated income?" These are questions I like to see asked; it's not communism until the answer is "yeah that's a shame, we should take money away from everyone else for the Common Good(tm)." The government must be very selective about the services it offers, and must make sure they are going to have the proper social impact and not just put such an increasing tax burden on society that it creates more of the problem it's trying to solve (but hey, if you create 10% more homeless people, that's 10% more homeless people that can still eat, right?).
I have lost a game of Go by 359.5 points. There are 361 points on the board and komi was 0.5; there were about 40 open points where I could have pointlessly played without my opponent responding until capture, so in a space of 361 points I could have lost by around 400 points.
Go is not a zero-sum game. I can create and destroy points on the board directly (play a pointless stone in my own territory, lose a point the opponent doesn't gain; play a pointless stone in my opponent's territory, he gains a point).
Yes but they call the Irish uncivilized as well, as opposed to the British English (yes, the Irish are now owned by England, as well as the Scotts) and the Americans.
The Irish are "uncivilized" because, while the British might tell you to "fick off ya miserable cunt," the Irish will just slug you in the face. Violence is uncivilized.
I have at times felt the need to explain the cultural advancement of the Irish against the cultural failure of the British and Americans. You see, one day the British government will shift to a totallitarian regime; and then they will have a civil war with the Irish, because the Irish will decide they need to collectively slug British Parliament-Emperor in the mouth. When this happens in America, we will all remember that violence is bad and that bloody revolutions should be avoided at all costs.
Cue people shooting off at the mouth about "the revolution about to come" who won't honestly do anything but shout loudly from their armchairs when it's really time to go beheading whoever's in washington 20 years or so from now. It'll be like the French revolution... except we'll stop at the "lots of complaining" part, whereas the French eventually moved on to "beheading everyone in the aristocracy."
An armed society is not a polite society. An armed society is a dictatorial nightmare; you don't want to try to establish a totalitarian regime under an evil dictator when half the country is liable to ask who the fuck you are and show up with guns or just bricks in their hands. It doesn't work out well. The people are rude and violent to begin with; now they're rude, violent, and very much don't like you.
People are very bad at a lot of things. Least of all deciding what's good for "everybody"... we instead look at a few "unfortunate" cases and decide to eliminate "unpleasant elements." Try that when playing Go: you'll over-concentrate, gaining good local positions but losing whole board control and always losing the game, probably horribly. Sometimes it's better to leave some of the ugly alone.
When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, people ask if I'm an idiot. When I tell people they should be FORCED to give the poor food, they call me a Communist.
And you're making the mistake of assuming any of this shit is relevant. I've shown in one way that he is, apparently, a US citizen. Whether he is a Muslim, or was born before Hawaii was a state, or feels like hiding his birth certificate, or vacationed in Indonesia for several years... is irrelevant.
The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason. Every issue above is one in which the Republican Party had a vested interest. The GOP benefited from the ignorance that Fox News helped to proliferate. The results were apparent in the election last month as voters based their decisions on demonstrably false information fed to them by Fox News.
By the way, the rest of the media was not blameless. CNN and the broadcast network news operations fared only slightly better in many cases. Even MSNBC, which had the best record of accurately informing viewers, has a ways to go before it can brag about it.
The conclusions in this study need to be disseminated as broadly as possible. Fox’s competitors need to report these results and produce ad campaigns featuring them. Newspapers and magazines need to publish the study across the country. This is big news and it is critical that the nation be advised that a major news enterprise is poisoning their minds.
This is not an isolated review of Fox’s performance. It has been corroborated time and time again. The fact that Fox News is so blatantly dishonest, and the effects of that dishonesty have become ingrained in an electorate that has been been purposefully deceived, needs to be made known to every American. Our democracy cannot function if voters are making choices based on lies. We have the evidence that Fox is tilting the scales and we must now make certain its corporate owners do not get away with it.
Emphasis mine.
Basically it says, "Everyone sucks, but everyone should attack Fox News for sucking." It's a vendetta against Fox News, with a slight nod that Fox is not statistically worse than the rest ("only slightly" does not speak to me of statistical significance; it tells me that you happened to be the bottom of the {87%, 87.3%, 87.9%, 88.2%} set and we REALLY don't like you so we're going to point and laugh like it means something).
Exactly what I wanted to say. People watching Fox are "less informed" about the majority opinion. Obama's birth certificate is a good example: there is a lot of garbage surrounding the issue, including that the image given was modified (parts were blacked over i.e. redacted) and such. The debate is largely over Obama's exact birth date, which is argued to be in some 2 month range that includes both a point in time when Hawaii was not a US state (a territory though!) and a period when Hawaii was a state. My question of course is... if it was a US territory at the time, doesn't that still make Obama a US citizen? Besides, Hawaii was added to the union, thus all Hawaiians are US citizens.
You see, I'm not saying that Obama's birth certificate is clear. I don't even like the guy; he strikes me as a car salesman (lying self-deluded uninformed jackass with a good people-personality), and I dislike his political policies. But I don't think the whole issue much matters when it comes to Obama's citizenship. He was born in Hawaii, either as a US territory or a US state; and he was born very close to the annexing of Hawaii in one way or another. He's a US citizen as much as every other Hawaiian his age.
To my knowledge, the exact details of the birth certificate thing have never been resolved. Likely because the courts have never bothered to get the official records shipped from Hawaii as evidence, because it doesn't really matter.
Also realize that a study like this would count people who don't believe in human-caused global warming as "uninformed" because the mainstream view is that humans are massively responsible for the current climate change issues and that the issues are massive. The pollsters probably believe that, sans-fossil-fuels, the global temperature would have stayed stable for all eternity, and would consider anyone believing anything different "uninformed."
So? Like chess, the rules are not that complicated. How well you play is what's interesting.
Yes, although comparing Go to Chess is like comparing Chess to Checkers...:)
Is rather vague, but "fit into their rigid world view" seems to hint at things for which there is absolutely no evidence.
I like learning languages because the subtleties and mechanics are immediately obvious to me, but I can never seem to explain them in English. It's like that for me with a lot of things: I can functionally work with things that can't be accurately explained in any language I'm functional in, even though in theory language is the only way I have to work with things. Language is digital, but the world is analog.
It's like if you learn Japanese. Certain particles make semi-sense, like 'ne' and 'ka'; others don't, like 'wo' and 'ga' and 'wa'. 'ka' is the most accessible example: it's a question. It's dumped on the end of a sentence to make a question mark; it's ticked on the end of an indicator to make an indefinite noun (i.e. "where" becomes "somewhere" by doko becoming dokoka); it's used in place of the English word "or" (again leaving the selection of a list to an uncertainty). The particle has a single meaning, not 3 different meanings; I had to work out the vulgar explanations from there, but the very basic function is difficult to concisely explain.
There are words in other languages that are completely impossible to explain. There are words in German that mean "somewhere between X and Y and Z" and in English the three attributes (such as emotions, etc) being compared don't even seem related to each other; how something can be "between" these without being "a mix of" them is completely nonsensical.
My point is entirely that I don't spend my time racking my brain trying to explain things if I can UNDERSTAND them. There are things I understand that cannot be put into words, or can't be worded accurately, or can't be explained without hundreds or thousands of pages of text even though they're extremely simple and limited in scope. I mean it took me half a paragraph to explain one syllable and its several uses in Japanese; but that one syllable doesn't have several meanings, it has exactly one, and it is simply understood.
On the original topic, the assertion made was that "spiritual" people are idiots and lunatics. In general, people are idiots and lunatics across the board; catholics and muslims and scientologists are in many cases great people, but in many other cases just nutjobs looking for something to cling to to give form to their complete and total psychosis. I've met atheists that I disagree with (they are completely closed on many subjects), but get along fine with otherwise; I've also met ones that are complete assholes acting like they are fundamentally superior to the whole damn universe, where their non-belief in any sort of god or spirituality seems to be an affliction of delusion more than a carefully considered rationalization. This stuff is everywhere.
On a more personal level, I am a very "spiritual" person. I don't spend a lot of time worshipping gods I can't confirm exist, or babbling about the spirits speaking to me from the gray lands, or whatever. I have not rejected that there is a sort of spiritual connection between physical existence and "something else," nor have I completely accepted it. What I do understand is that there is something more than people flatly understand.
Spiritual endeavors such as deep meditation, chakrah balancing, and the like have a very real impact; scientifically we have proven this. The exact mechanism is left to question, however; maybe there's power in the ether around you, or maybe you have a strong psychosomatic control over you body's facilities. We know that people who "fight" live when they should die, and people who "give up on life" die under physical stress they should handle easily. People don't like
It lies in the very end of your statement: exact same moment.
Internet TV is *never* done at the "exact same moment".
Right, and if everyone works 9-5 and gets home and either watches TV between 5-7 or 7-9 ("prime time"), then nobody will be watching the show "at the exact same moment," several frames to several minutes away instead; yet they will all be watching *a* show at the exact same moment, and many will be watching the same show but not at the same point, and besides-- we can't multicast effectively...
This would or could allow shows to be cached locally within an ISP's network, preventing the un-necessary transfer of files repeatedly over the upstream pipe.
And downstream pipe? ISP to Home isn't that big, you know. The network simply doesn't work that way; NetFlix HD streaming is about 3.5Mbit/s, and with one show playing across a city block of 32 houses that's 112Mb/s. One block can oversaturate a 100Mb/s down link. For a 10Gbit/s link, that's 89 blocks.
And that assumes that everyone is going to watch one show at a time and do nothing else -- no downloading, no online gaming, no parents watching skinnemax while kids watch the history channel in their room. That just doesn't happen these days; everyone has 4 TVs in their house!
The current network can't handle it. It takes some massive SONET--OC-192 throws 9.6Gbit/s payload, consider that against the 89 city blocks listed--to push this down. You can't lease lines for this shit; the lease line cost for an OC-3 is $2500/mo, what do you think it'd cost for an OC-12?
Face it, your 8 megs a second is oversold. Your 50 megs a second FIOS is oversold. Supplying 50 megs a second to everyone, even just back to the ISP, is not going to happen in the same way that 128kbit/s wasn't going to happen: it happened alright, and by then we all needed 512kbit. Now we all "get" 3 megs, and we're talking about NEEDING 3 megs but it turns out the lines saturate at everyone in that particular block drawing 700k at the same time... it's 3 megs when nobody else is using it. When we all have 3 megs continuous, we'll be sold 50 megs or 100 megs or a gig of bandwidth, and we'll need 30 megs and won't have it.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider that some countries have extended the definition to cover other countries: Japan's legal porn age was 13, but the US told them that they had to raise that to 18 because the US doesn't want a giant influx of Japanese 13 year old schoolgirls getting fucked in the ass on .MPEG files from legal sources they can't prosecute.
Which is ridiculous. Child labor laws should prohibit employing 13 year olds.
See I would teach a 7 year old that she should occasionally touch strangers "there." With her fists. You'd be amazed at how quickly a punch to the balls stops a child abduction. These stories usually end in tears, though... wouldn't you cry if you got punched in the balls by a seven year old?
I'm always amazed to see that sex is considered shocking, and that we should protect children from it.
We also need to protect children from violence (wouldn't want anyone growing up to be revolutionaries if the government turns into a tyranny); and especially from the truth (I mean seriously, Sarah finds out that Santa Clause isn't real... by the time she's 7 she's living in a gutter sucking dick for crack and easter eggs, can't let that happen).
Move to Japan.
The other name of the "slippery slope fallacy" is the "boiling frog."
That's poor analysis on your part, so your conclusion is completely wrong.
Yeah, I saw; you made passwd root-owned, which is the smart thing to do. How "passwd" works with root group r-- and no SUID is a mystery to me, I'll have to look later.
BTW, the announcement specifically mentioned that "a vulnerability in crontab(1) or at(1) can't result in a root compromise without a vulnerability in crond(8) or in a critical system component relied upon by crond(8)." Did you not read that? Or do you disagree, thereby stating that we're inexperienced in the stuff we've been doing for 10 years?
Theo de Radt used the argument on me once that he was more experienced than me and knew what he was talking about; he took it off-list which was good for him. The argument was whether position independent executables were "very expensive" (his words) on x86 (32-bit), and in the end I ran OProfile against the whole system and found that the slow-down was 6% (1% normally, 6% if you use -fomit-stack-pointer because it doesn't work with -fpie -fpie) in the code, but the affected code was actually running less than 2% of the time. The total cost was a 0.0012% slowdown. "Very expensive."
I could always be wrong, but so could you. What I find suspicious about at(1) is you can make cron and at run tasks with root level privileges. This is a feature, unless you removed it (in which case cron simply won't run anything as root, good job). In typical operation, there's one file for this stuff, and the program has access to modify it; getting that access unrestricted by the security logic of the program itself is a quick sidestep of all system security.
Of course I could be wrong. Making the relevant "files" instead "directories" with chmod u=rwx,g=rwx,o=t and reading the user by checking the owner of the crontab gives a possibility I hadn't thought of. Dropping privileges before parsing files and filenames (by iterating directories and using stat() for known-good-from-the-kernel input) eliminates the last possible foreign input vector.
So yeah, I could be wrong.
A curious detail is that there are no SUID programs in a default install of Owl 3.0. Instead, there are some SGIDs, where their group level access, if compromised via a vulnerability, can't be expanded into root access without finding and exploiting another vulnerability in another part of the system - e.g., a vulnerability in crontab(1) or at(1) can't result in a root compromise without a vulnerability in crond(8) or in a critical system component relied upon by crond(8).
From some googling and the announcement.
Basically if you exploit something with 'shadow' (i.e. passwd) you add a root user account to /etc/passwd and su to it. if you exploit crontab or at, you add a crontab that adds a root level account or runs a command as root or creates a SUID program. It requires some hacker creativity, but doesn't make anything secure.
I have never shopped at target and it is a dying chain around here now because they told the salvation army to never put a bell ringer outside their store ever and got a huge amount of negative publicity. Basically people said they hated poor people or something because they hated Salvation Army santas; and then it got out that Target is an "American" company owned by a French holding company... during the Iraqi war, when hating France was all the rage. Hence why a lot of people around here call the place "Tar-zhey" ...
Aside, anodized aluminum is some of the nicer new-tech out there (that teflon crap is horrible, way too much sticking and too fragile and no heat tolerance). I have a well-seasoned cast iron frying pan that's slicker than teflon though (somehow... teflon might stick, but its actual FRICTION is pretty low), and just recently discovered that cooking eggs in bacon or sausage grease produces perfect results (frying eggs in butter, various vegetable oils, etc didn't work too great for me). I guess lard was always superior.
Actually, one might argue that there is a real social problem in female body image (and judging from the proliferation of drugs intended to increase penis size, male as well) in western society.
It could further be argued that much of this has to do with both the "soft porn" of the fashion industry, and the exaggerated bodies of "hard core" porn as well.
To have realistic body portrayals - perhaps not the morbidly obese, unless you're someone with a fetish for that, but not "Olive Oyl and Brutus" caricature-bodies either - regain the mainstream spotlight might not be such a bad thing.
I've noticed that there is a range of extremely hot girls, none chubby, from the skinny-but-not-annorexic petites I love to the shapely-but-extremely-curvy sweeties that are eating just a bit more pie.
The funny thing is there's a LOT of girls like this.
It's not a matter of working their ass off doing 5 hours of aerobics a day. Any girl that plays a sport is going to stay in shape (lacross, soccer). Sure they might not be the "slim/athletic" girls that go in "super hot model" jobs, but they're not going to be "a little chubby" either... there's a size in between where they're slim, shapely, and extremely curvy. Most girls that aren't shoving down unhealthy amounts of food manage to have a soft body with just enough padding that they're girl shaped, not egg shaped (or columnar for that matter).
Healthy bodies are different: humans are sexually dimorphic, and there is a point where you stop looking like a man/woman and start looking like a fat asshole. That is where you're going downhill. There's no shortage of happy, healthy girls though. It's a little ridiculous when they're 130 pounds and complaining they need to lose 10 pounds ... they're just going to lose hips, or boobs, or soft curves along the legs... no cellulite, no ugly unsightly ripples or bulges, just shape. 180... 200 pound girls that are 5'2 and carrying 50% body fat are well out of shape though.
was one of the greatest documents ever, something he would have cherished all his life. He had meticulously kept a running list of every movie he had ever seen, hundreds and hundreds, with his comments on each.
If you cherish this your whole life, you have no life.
it's because most buyers only buy cheap products at low prices and don't see any reason to trade up, that's a problem with manufacturer branding or value propositions though.
I pay $20 for 3 pairs of socks and I have lost a few and had to buy more... after 2 years. The old ones are slightly yellowed, but otherwise identical to the brand new ones.
After 2 months, Wal-Mart $6 for 8 pair socks all have holes in them and I need to spend another $6 for 8 pair, or wear something that's falling apart and pounded flat but wasn't really fluffy and luxurious to begin with anyway... you know when they show poor people on TV and cartoons and they're wearing falling apart shoes and their socks have holes in them? That's what a Wal-Mart sock looks like after 2 months.
If I don't lose the shit, $20 for 3 pair is actually a good deal. But this took a $20 investment on 3 pair of socks to find out, which is not attractive to a lot of people-- as you said, value proposition, socks are cheap. It's the same with cotton undershirts (the $20 for 3 white undershirts I get are not itchy; fruit of the loom undershirts itch like fuck, they're almost papery).
The secret to success here is the razor and blade model, really, but without the razor. People won't switch from a Mach 3 with $20 8 packs of blades to a Merkur that you spend $35 for 100 blades for. The Merkur HD long handle is a $40 razor; you need a $20 brush for it and then pucks of shave soap that cost $5-$10 each and last several months (my $10 puck of Tabac lasted almost a year). The initial investment of $60-$80 is too much for most people when they can get a Mach 3 for $10 and then spend $20 a month on blades forever. Similarly, people will spend $18 on shirts that they have to throw away after 6 months-- sure you can wear the tattered, worn crap... unless you have a bizcas dresscode office job. And bizcas office people shop at walmart too--some of them make $20k/year, some make $60k/year, even at $100k/year they might not see the point in "wasting money."
I'll never understand how people can make $100k/year and still buy $60 tires, though. And cheap, crap-quality food when you can get so much better without spending $300/meal.
Incidentally, I believe this is the reason why people argue against flat tax (it's harder on the poor folks than it is on the rich ones).
You mean, the poor folks that just got taxed $0.00020 on their $20?
I've been wanting to start a competitor to Wal-Mart but you know, no capital. It'd be like Wal-Mart but more selective...
Wal-Mart sells some good stuff, but mostly crappy stuff; but for the most part all they do is play on price. I can get King Arthur Flour for about $3.50 for a 5lb bag there, which is a great price for the best flour I've yet found; although the bags look a little manhandled, and I wonder if they really have 5lb or if some's been beaten out of them in transit.... Wal-Mart pushes its manufacturers to reduce prices at any cost, suggesting ways to cut corners, get cheaper materials, even outsource to China; I dislike this, because they care nothing for quality.
What I want is a Wal-Mart like store that specifically tries to play the budget game, but on value terms. "Cheap as shit" is not value; "Great Value" brand food is the least costly food, but also the worst value. If you want value, you must spend a little more.. and only a little more.
When I buy clothes, I go to Sears. I pick out Land's End Business Outfitter's clothes. A shirt at Wal-Mart costs $18 and tears at the seams or develops fuzzy spots or holes after 2-3 washes; after 2 years, the $25 Land's End shirts I have aren't even discolored, much less fuzzy or tearing. One DID fall apart, a little... one of the seams wasn't finished right. I have had 8 of their shirts, that one was an oddity. I suspect performance of Polo and Doc Martin's clothes would be the same; Levis always made awesome jeans. By the way, pants at Wal-Mart cost about $22 last I looked, and Land's End pants cost $40 BUT I buy them on sale for $30, which happens all the time.
That's the kind of thing I would do for a Wal-Mart clone. We can't compete on price with Wal-Mart, but you aren't getting Wal-Mart crap. I'd skip the standard stuff. In the food section I'd only offer King Arthur and maybe some of the fine-milled flour I can get at the farmer's market in bulk (I'd talk to the farmers for this one). There's way better milk than the mass-market pushed crap; Trickling Springs Creamery makes EXCELLENT milk (it surprised me milk actually could taste better), and there are other dairies that put out cheaper but still better product than Leigh's and Cloverfield. Fresh baked bread is always good; there would be a bakery ... like at Safeway, you know, $1 baguettes and artisan loaves, bread is pretty cheap to make and can be done en masse for not too much labor cost (that $1 baguette is 25 cents of product and 75 cents of labor and margin).
Good food, better quality non-designer-brand clothing (not like $100 shirts, more like $25 shirts instead of $18 shirts), maybe stock some alternative stuff in the personal care section (Merkur DE razors, straight razors, brushes, DE blades; Dr Bronner's soap, etc, there's some not-Dial-soap that's not $4 a bar too; some higher end colognes that only cost $10-$15 a bottle...). I might tint the CD section... no censoring CDs, but aim for less mainstream material and more diversification (i.e. have Die Toten Hosen in the metal section, some Eurobands, some less-known names like Sonata Arctica, indie stuff and good mainstream), maybe with a suggestion box so customers can share their favorite no-name bands. CDs are easily accessible (Amazon), I'm not interested in pushing mainstream crap; the value-add service there is to have an "interesting" CD section, not a grocery section to buy radio songs and Top 10 hits.
I think it's a sad reflection of society that we have places like Wal-Mart that push "low low LOW prices" and sell absolute garbage. Everything there is either "what everyone buys" or "something we dug out of the trash" ... it's like a dollar store that's trying not to be a dollar store. They know they have to sell actual Oxyclean because the brand recognition is better than the $1 price tag on "Awesome Oxygen", same goes for dish washing liquid and motor oil (motor oil is actually important though). Gillette razors are so over-markete
So Best Buy is going to get a taste of what they did to CompUSA and Circuit City? The management at Best Buy--right from the executive level down to store management level--literally cheered when CompUSA and Circuit City were going out of business. I think the executives select aggressive, blood-thirsty drones for district management, who in turn select store managers of the same caliber. They all seemed abusive and shady to me, prone to lie and twist laws... I've seen best buy managers refuse to sell things at the posted price, and constantly play bait-and-switch games; this is the status quo there.
No, that was a reaction to the guy's signature and following conversation. The people who call people communists for asking why the poor are hungry are idiots; but the poor are obviously hungry because they can't afford food. You're a saint when you're giving people food; you're a communist when you're forcing people (by threat of jail time etc-- you know, that thing that happens when you don't pay taxes) to give others food against their own will.
There are other fundamental solutions to poverty and hunger, or at least to the impact thereof, than simply giving people food or money. Asking questions like "Why are the poor hungry?" and "How do we fix this?" is good. We chose not to tax not-for-profit charity organizations; we don't so much take your money away and give it to others as we clap our hands and give you a cookie for taking the initiative yourself. Yes, the burden of "making up your taxes" is "shared by society"; but on the other hand, charities provide a service to society, and so the so-called "burden" is more like "extracting money away from a social service paid for by voluntary taxes." Like robbing --er, repurposing funds from-- social security.
Questions like "Why are the poor hungry" can be answered by other questions like "why are we taxing soup kitchens 40% of their donated income?" These are questions I like to see asked; it's not communism until the answer is "yeah that's a shame, we should take money away from everyone else for the Common Good(tm)." The government must be very selective about the services it offers, and must make sure they are going to have the proper social impact and not just put such an increasing tax burden on society that it creates more of the problem it's trying to solve (but hey, if you create 10% more homeless people, that's 10% more homeless people that can still eat, right?).
Life is not a zero-sum game.
I have lost a game of Go by 359.5 points. There are 361 points on the board and komi was 0.5; there were about 40 open points where I could have pointlessly played without my opponent responding until capture, so in a space of 361 points I could have lost by around 400 points.
Go is not a zero-sum game. I can create and destroy points on the board directly (play a pointless stone in my own territory, lose a point the opponent doesn't gain; play a pointless stone in my opponent's territory, he gains a point).
Yes but they call the Irish uncivilized as well, as opposed to the British English (yes, the Irish are now owned by England, as well as the Scotts) and the Americans.
The Irish are "uncivilized" because, while the British might tell you to "fick off ya miserable cunt," the Irish will just slug you in the face. Violence is uncivilized.
I have at times felt the need to explain the cultural advancement of the Irish against the cultural failure of the British and Americans. You see, one day the British government will shift to a totallitarian regime; and then they will have a civil war with the Irish, because the Irish will decide they need to collectively slug British Parliament-Emperor in the mouth. When this happens in America, we will all remember that violence is bad and that bloody revolutions should be avoided at all costs.
Cue people shooting off at the mouth about "the revolution about to come" who won't honestly do anything but shout loudly from their armchairs when it's really time to go beheading whoever's in washington 20 years or so from now. It'll be like the French revolution... except we'll stop at the "lots of complaining" part, whereas the French eventually moved on to "beheading everyone in the aristocracy."
An armed society is not a polite society. An armed society is a dictatorial nightmare; you don't want to try to establish a totalitarian regime under an evil dictator when half the country is liable to ask who the fuck you are and show up with guns or just bricks in their hands. It doesn't work out well. The people are rude and violent to begin with; now they're rude, violent, and very much don't like you.
People are very bad at a lot of things. Least of all deciding what's good for "everybody" ... we instead look at a few "unfortunate" cases and decide to eliminate "unpleasant elements." Try that when playing Go: you'll over-concentrate, gaining good local positions but losing whole board control and always losing the game, probably horribly. Sometimes it's better to leave some of the ugly alone.
When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, people ask if I'm an idiot. When I tell people they should be FORCED to give the poor food, they call me a Communist.
And you're making the mistake of assuming any of this shit is relevant. I've shown in one way that he is, apparently, a US citizen. Whether he is a Muslim, or was born before Hawaii was a state, or feels like hiding his birth certificate, or vacationed in Indonesia for several years... is irrelevant.
What the article actually says is:
The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason. Every issue above is one in which the Republican Party had a vested interest. The GOP benefited from the ignorance that Fox News helped to proliferate. The results were apparent in the election last month as voters based their decisions on demonstrably false information fed to them by Fox News.
By the way, the rest of the media was not blameless. CNN and the broadcast network news operations fared only slightly better in many cases. Even MSNBC, which had the best record of accurately informing viewers, has a ways to go before it can brag about it.
The conclusions in this study need to be disseminated as broadly as possible. Fox’s competitors need to report these results and produce ad campaigns featuring them. Newspapers and magazines need to publish the study across the country. This is big news and it is critical that the nation be advised that a major news enterprise is poisoning their minds.
This is not an isolated review of Fox’s performance. It has been corroborated time and time again. The fact that Fox News is so blatantly dishonest, and the effects of that dishonesty have become ingrained in an electorate that has been been purposefully deceived, needs to be made known to every American. Our democracy cannot function if voters are making choices based on lies. We have the evidence that Fox is tilting the scales and we must now make certain its corporate owners do not get away with it.
Emphasis mine.
Basically it says, "Everyone sucks, but everyone should attack Fox News for sucking." It's a vendetta against Fox News, with a slight nod that Fox is not statistically worse than the rest ("only slightly" does not speak to me of statistical significance; it tells me that you happened to be the bottom of the {87%, 87.3%, 87.9%, 88.2%} set and we REALLY don't like you so we're going to point and laugh like it means something).
Which tells me this guy is an idiot.
Exactly what I wanted to say. People watching Fox are "less informed" about the majority opinion. Obama's birth certificate is a good example: there is a lot of garbage surrounding the issue, including that the image given was modified (parts were blacked over i.e. redacted) and such. The debate is largely over Obama's exact birth date, which is argued to be in some 2 month range that includes both a point in time when Hawaii was not a US state (a territory though!) and a period when Hawaii was a state. My question of course is ... if it was a US territory at the time, doesn't that still make Obama a US citizen? Besides, Hawaii was added to the union, thus all Hawaiians are US citizens.
You see, I'm not saying that Obama's birth certificate is clear. I don't even like the guy; he strikes me as a car salesman (lying self-deluded uninformed jackass with a good people-personality), and I dislike his political policies. But I don't think the whole issue much matters when it comes to Obama's citizenship. He was born in Hawaii, either as a US territory or a US state; and he was born very close to the annexing of Hawaii in one way or another. He's a US citizen as much as every other Hawaiian his age.
To my knowledge, the exact details of the birth certificate thing have never been resolved. Likely because the courts have never bothered to get the official records shipped from Hawaii as evidence, because it doesn't really matter.
Also realize that a study like this would count people who don't believe in human-caused global warming as "uninformed" because the mainstream view is that humans are massively responsible for the current climate change issues and that the issues are massive. The pollsters probably believe that, sans-fossil-fuels, the global temperature would have stayed stable for all eternity, and would consider anyone believing anything different "uninformed."
All modern "news" is bullshit.
So? Like chess, the rules are not that complicated. How well you play is what's interesting.
Yes, although comparing Go to Chess is like comparing Chess to Checkers... :)
Is rather vague, but "fit into their rigid world view" seems to hint at things for which there is absolutely no evidence.
I like learning languages because the subtleties and mechanics are immediately obvious to me, but I can never seem to explain them in English. It's like that for me with a lot of things: I can functionally work with things that can't be accurately explained in any language I'm functional in, even though in theory language is the only way I have to work with things. Language is digital, but the world is analog.
It's like if you learn Japanese. Certain particles make semi-sense, like 'ne' and 'ka'; others don't, like 'wo' and 'ga' and 'wa'. 'ka' is the most accessible example: it's a question. It's dumped on the end of a sentence to make a question mark; it's ticked on the end of an indicator to make an indefinite noun (i.e. "where" becomes "somewhere" by doko becoming dokoka); it's used in place of the English word "or" (again leaving the selection of a list to an uncertainty). The particle has a single meaning, not 3 different meanings; I had to work out the vulgar explanations from there, but the very basic function is difficult to concisely explain.
There are words in other languages that are completely impossible to explain. There are words in German that mean "somewhere between X and Y and Z" and in English the three attributes (such as emotions, etc) being compared don't even seem related to each other; how something can be "between" these without being "a mix of" them is completely nonsensical.
My point is entirely that I don't spend my time racking my brain trying to explain things if I can UNDERSTAND them. There are things I understand that cannot be put into words, or can't be worded accurately, or can't be explained without hundreds or thousands of pages of text even though they're extremely simple and limited in scope. I mean it took me half a paragraph to explain one syllable and its several uses in Japanese; but that one syllable doesn't have several meanings, it has exactly one, and it is simply understood.
On the original topic, the assertion made was that "spiritual" people are idiots and lunatics. In general, people are idiots and lunatics across the board; catholics and muslims and scientologists are in many cases great people, but in many other cases just nutjobs looking for something to cling to to give form to their complete and total psychosis. I've met atheists that I disagree with (they are completely closed on many subjects), but get along fine with otherwise; I've also met ones that are complete assholes acting like they are fundamentally superior to the whole damn universe, where their non-belief in any sort of god or spirituality seems to be an affliction of delusion more than a carefully considered rationalization. This stuff is everywhere.
On a more personal level, I am a very "spiritual" person. I don't spend a lot of time worshipping gods I can't confirm exist, or babbling about the spirits speaking to me from the gray lands, or whatever. I have not rejected that there is a sort of spiritual connection between physical existence and "something else," nor have I completely accepted it. What I do understand is that there is something more than people flatly understand.
Spiritual endeavors such as deep meditation, chakrah balancing, and the like have a very real impact; scientifically we have proven this. The exact mechanism is left to question, however; maybe there's power in the ether around you, or maybe you have a strong psychosomatic control over you body's facilities. We know that people who "fight" live when they should die, and people who "give up on life" die under physical stress they should handle easily. People don't like
It lies in the very end of your statement: exact same moment.
Internet TV is *never* done at the "exact same moment".
Right, and if everyone works 9-5 and gets home and either watches TV between 5-7 or 7-9 ("prime time"), then nobody will be watching the show "at the exact same moment," several frames to several minutes away instead; yet they will all be watching *a* show at the exact same moment, and many will be watching the same show but not at the same point, and besides-- we can't multicast effectively...
This would or could allow shows to be cached locally within an ISP's network, preventing the un-necessary transfer of files repeatedly over the upstream pipe.
And downstream pipe? ISP to Home isn't that big, you know. The network simply doesn't work that way; NetFlix HD streaming is about 3.5Mbit/s, and with one show playing across a city block of 32 houses that's 112Mb/s. One block can oversaturate a 100Mb/s down link. For a 10Gbit/s link, that's 89 blocks.
And that assumes that everyone is going to watch one show at a time and do nothing else -- no downloading, no online gaming, no parents watching skinnemax while kids watch the history channel in their room. That just doesn't happen these days; everyone has 4 TVs in their house!
The current network can't handle it. It takes some massive SONET--OC-192 throws 9.6Gbit/s payload, consider that against the 89 city blocks listed--to push this down. You can't lease lines for this shit; the lease line cost for an OC-3 is $2500/mo, what do you think it'd cost for an OC-12?
Face it, your 8 megs a second is oversold. Your 50 megs a second FIOS is oversold. Supplying 50 megs a second to everyone, even just back to the ISP, is not going to happen in the same way that 128kbit/s wasn't going to happen: it happened alright, and by then we all needed 512kbit. Now we all "get" 3 megs, and we're talking about NEEDING 3 megs but it turns out the lines saturate at everyone in that particular block drawing 700k at the same time... it's 3 megs when nobody else is using it. When we all have 3 megs continuous, we'll be sold 50 megs or 100 megs or a gig of bandwidth, and we'll need 30 megs and won't have it.
Then, thoughts can be illegal?
Then why not keep producing like the rest of everyone else? You know, retire when you're 50 instead of 20.