I doubt that, very much. That's akin to saying that we knew nothing about medicine, either. What was known at that time was probably sparse, inaccurate, and learned through experience. I'm sure people were more sanitary than you think (though terrible by today's standards).
Taking care of the dead as a sanitary measure was something that I expect was learned a very, very long time ago.
... any number of modern laws and religious doctrines... can all be traced back to the principle of "i don't want this done to me!"
Not all of them. At least, not the way most people view religious faith. As a more concrete counter point, I've known people willing to obey religious commandments blindly out of their love for God. No, I really mean it. Self interest has nothing to do with it at that stage.
His argument was incomplete and not well presented. And yet, you still haven't given a reason. That probably means that you really haven't thought about it.
Most people don't kill because they've been told repeatedly that it is a very, very bad thing to do. Personally, I think most people fit here. It becomes a matter of faith, even if it isn't a matter of spirituality. They never stop to think about why killing is bad, they just know that it is. They know that it is because people keep telling them that it is. Faith in established culture, if nothing else.
Some people don't kill because of the legal consequences. These people need to be watched, because they will probably hurt someone at some point.
Some people don't kill because they don't want to live in that type of society. They equate people who kill as people who destroy the freedom or civilization that they enjoy (or want to enjoy). By this definition, they don't want to be a bad person.
And some people don't kill because they fear eternal damnation.
If we don't do it, China and other nations will (and are). If we drill it, not only does our economy keep the oil, but it will be drilled using our regulations, and not the relatively wimpy ones used by many other contries (incl. China).
Again, in case you missed it, our drilling that oil is actually better for the oceans than just leaving it alone.
The FCC has mandated that they all switch to digital broadcast, which requires less bandwidth than analog. I think the remaining bandwidth is what was auctioned off.
I didn't bring up HTTP clients guessing by inspection. I brought up HTTP servers guessing by inspection. Apache can be set up to do that, for example.
My point was that different code may be responsible for verifying that an image is being uploaded (simplistic file extension test) than what determines the mime type (file inspection).
They probably do have a.gif extension. There are several ways for a browser to determine the file type, and I don't think the file extension is the primary way. The HTTP server itself can send a mime type, and many HTTP servers pick a mime type by inspecting the beginning of the file.
That said, I doubt it is as simple as renaming a.jar to.gif before uploading it. If I could guess that line of logic, so could most web black hats.
They're not talking about access to the machine, but to stealing other peoples facebook accounts, etc. You're right that this can be used as an attack vector on the stupid, though. Bright people can still get their myspace page hacked without much trouble (if any bright people had a myspace account; I'll assume there are a rare few).
Who says it wont display an image? An applet can render an image and do nothing else. Most users wouldn't know that it was an applet. If the users can anticipate there being an image in that location (often, not always) then it makes sense to keep the subterfuge going.
That's a terrible argument. I'm sorry, but it is. It's like saying that some Italians are in the mob, so all Italians need to prove on a daily basis that they're not in the mob.
Now it's fair to say that law enforcement and military must constantly be kept in check. Their officers (etc) must live a high standard and believe in the principles of freedom. This is a prerequisite for living in a free society. This does not mean that we should assume our peace officers are guilty until proven innocent (which this thread seems to think).
Why aren't the 'good cops' turning in their corrupt, violent and evil coworkers?
When are bad cops going to act corrupt, and when are they going to act good? Really think about that one for a moment. They'll act corrupt when they think they can get away with it; they'll act good otherwise. What does this mean? They're not likely to act like corrupt unless they think the other cops around them are also corrupt.
We don't get more cases of good cops turning bad ones in simply because they don't know. Yes, there's also the blind-eye syndrome (which is rampant in places), but overall I think it's overstated. I'm also sure that there are far more IA cases than the public finds out about. If a police force can get rid of a bad cop quietly, they definitely will.
I agree with the sentiment, but not the specifics. You say "24/7" implying that they can be monitored off duty. That's just wrong and you know it. Furthermore, COPS don't deserve to be stalked all the time. They should ALWAYS assume they're being recorded, but individual officers should not be followed around by camera crews trying to catch them doing something. That's just vindictive and gets in the way of them doing their job.
Furthermore, in a few states (here in CA) it's illegal to record a conversation unless all parties have consented. In most states, only one party needs to consent to the recording. I would be very surprised if something very similar didn't also apply to video.
Every time a lawyer draws up a contract that is not legally binding, there should be some penalty to them. Perhaps a three-strikes style law is in order. If you have serious legal problems in three contracts that you've drawn up in the last decade, you should have your license to practice law revoked. The "legal" maneuvering done by many companies should be illegal, and not tolerated.
Who said that they were being offered vouchers for the same songs? They implied it, but I don't see anyone saying that every song previously available with DRM be available from Real. The only thing they said is that the songs that are available from Real will be without DRM. There is a huge potential difference there.
Any affected customers want to tell us if they think they can have their entire library transfered over? Does anybody have a clue more than my cynical speculation?
Yes, I realized that your first post was a joke, but I expected that it would only invite further, much less reverent joking. I'm glad you didn't take offense. (please note my use of "minds" plural. It was not directed at you, but the invariable religion trolls here.)
That's not at all what I said. If you want to go there, then yes, the design constraints on the MBR allow most motherboards to prevent any MBR tampering. Let me say that again. If you want to prevent an attacker from swapping your MBR with a malicious one, you should check the BIOS settings of your motherboard. You cannot have this setting set during partitioning of the disk or during some boot loader operations, but after that it does not impact valid behavior in the slightest.
What I did say was that the AC's concern over the closed source nature of MS's MBR was unfounded. In hindsight, he was probably trolling.
Furthermore, science doesn't seek to prove anything.
That's highly debatable. I was required to take a philosophy of science class. About the only thing I can conclude from that class is that there is no consensus to the definition of science. Making theories and taking real world measurements seem to be the only things truly agreed upon.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt that, very much. That's akin to saying that we knew nothing about medicine, either. What was known at that time was probably sparse, inaccurate, and learned through experience. I'm sure people were more sanitary than you think (though terrible by today's standards).
Taking care of the dead as a sanitary measure was something that I expect was learned a very, very long time ago.
... any number of modern laws and religious doctrines... can all be traced back to the principle of "i don't want this done to me!"
Not all of them. At least, not the way most people view religious faith. As a more concrete counter point, I've known people willing to obey religious commandments blindly out of their love for God. No, I really mean it. Self interest has nothing to do with it at that stage.
His argument was incomplete and not well presented. And yet, you still haven't given a reason. That probably means that you really haven't thought about it.
Most people don't kill because they've been told repeatedly that it is a very, very bad thing to do. Personally, I think most people fit here. It becomes a matter of faith, even if it isn't a matter of spirituality. They never stop to think about why killing is bad, they just know that it is. They know that it is because people keep telling them that it is. Faith in established culture, if nothing else.
Some people don't kill because of the legal consequences. These people need to be watched, because they will probably hurt someone at some point.
Some people don't kill because they don't want to live in that type of society. They equate people who kill as people who destroy the freedom or civilization that they enjoy (or want to enjoy). By this definition, they don't want to be a bad person.
And some people don't kill because they fear eternal damnation.
I'm sure there are other reasons. What's yours?
If we don't do it, China and other nations will (and are). If we drill it, not only does our economy keep the oil, but it will be drilled using our regulations, and not the relatively wimpy ones used by many other contries (incl. China).
Again, in case you missed it, our drilling that oil is actually better for the oceans than just leaving it alone.
If real rats can be a vector for a real virus (Black Death) then imagine what kind of vector these rats might be (BLUE screen of DEATH)!
(yes, I know, I know. It was the fleas. But still...)
Don't give my DM any ideas... Please!
The FCC has mandated that they all switch to digital broadcast, which requires less bandwidth than analog. I think the remaining bandwidth is what was auctioned off.
I didn't bring up HTTP clients guessing by inspection. I brought up HTTP servers guessing by inspection. Apache can be set up to do that, for example.
My point was that different code may be responsible for verifying that an image is being uploaded (simplistic file extension test) than what determines the mime type (file inspection).
[T]he war of independence... is still going on in the minds of those who run the country...
What? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read all year.
... whereas governments formed by peaceful consent almost never use either violence or fear...
Examples, please. I'm sure you'll find the nations that you're thinking of were born in blood or oppression. Most countries were, unfortunately.
They probably do have a .gif extension. There are several ways for a browser to determine the file type, and I don't think the file extension is the primary way. The HTTP server itself can send a mime type, and many HTTP servers pick a mime type by inspecting the beginning of the file.
That said, I doubt it is as simple as renaming a .jar to .gif before uploading it. If I could guess that line of logic, so could most web black hats.
They're not talking about access to the machine, but to stealing other peoples facebook accounts, etc. You're right that this can be used as an attack vector on the stupid, though. Bright people can still get their myspace page hacked without much trouble (if any bright people had a myspace account; I'll assume there are a rare few).
Who says it wont display an image? An applet can render an image and do nothing else. Most users wouldn't know that it was an applet. If the users can anticipate there being an image in that location (often, not always) then it makes sense to keep the subterfuge going.
That's a terrible argument. I'm sorry, but it is. It's like saying that some Italians are in the mob, so all Italians need to prove on a daily basis that they're not in the mob.
Now it's fair to say that law enforcement and military must constantly be kept in check. Their officers (etc) must live a high standard and believe in the principles of freedom. This is a prerequisite for living in a free society. This does not mean that we should assume our peace officers are guilty until proven innocent (which this thread seems to think).
Why aren't the 'good cops' turning in their corrupt, violent and evil coworkers?
When are bad cops going to act corrupt, and when are they going to act good? Really think about that one for a moment. They'll act corrupt when they think they can get away with it; they'll act good otherwise. What does this mean? They're not likely to act like corrupt unless they think the other cops around them are also corrupt.
We don't get more cases of good cops turning bad ones in simply because they don't know. Yes, there's also the blind-eye syndrome (which is rampant in places), but overall I think it's overstated. I'm also sure that there are far more IA cases than the public finds out about. If a police force can get rid of a bad cop quietly, they definitely will.
Possible? Yes. I still think you've been watching too many movies.
I agree with the sentiment, but not the specifics. You say "24/7" implying that they can be monitored off duty. That's just wrong and you know it. Furthermore, COPS don't deserve to be stalked all the time. They should ALWAYS assume they're being recorded, but individual officers should not be followed around by camera crews trying to catch them doing something. That's just vindictive and gets in the way of them doing their job.
Furthermore, in a few states (here in CA) it's illegal to record a conversation unless all parties have consented. In most states, only one party needs to consent to the recording. I would be very surprised if something very similar didn't also apply to video.
Agreed.
Every time a lawyer draws up a contract that is not legally binding, there should be some penalty to them. Perhaps a three-strikes style law is in order. If you have serious legal problems in three contracts that you've drawn up in the last decade, you should have your license to practice law revoked. The "legal" maneuvering done by many companies should be illegal, and not tolerated.
Now wait.
Who said that they were being offered vouchers for the same songs? They implied it, but I don't see anyone saying that every song previously available with DRM be available from Real. The only thing they said is that the songs that are available from Real will be without DRM. There is a huge potential difference there.
Any affected customers want to tell us if they think they can have their entire library transfered over? Does anybody have a clue more than my cynical speculation?
An interesting and well thought out post.
Yes, I realized that your first post was a joke, but I expected that it would only invite further, much less reverent joking. I'm glad you didn't take offense. (please note my use of "minds" plural. It was not directed at you, but the invariable religion trolls here.)
That's not at all what I said. If you want to go there, then yes, the design constraints on the MBR allow most motherboards to prevent any MBR tampering. Let me say that again. If you want to prevent an attacker from swapping your MBR with a malicious one, you should check the BIOS settings of your motherboard. You cannot have this setting set during partitioning of the disk or during some boot loader operations, but after that it does not impact valid behavior in the slightest.
What I did say was that the AC's concern over the closed source nature of MS's MBR was unfounded. In hindsight, he was probably trolling.
Furthermore, science doesn't seek to prove anything.
That's highly debatable. I was required to take a philosophy of science class. About the only thing I can conclude from that class is that there is no consensus to the definition of science. Making theories and taking real world measurements seem to be the only things truly agreed upon.
That's just silly. Where then did Jesus's brothers ands sisters come from? (Mark 6:3)
Before you reply, get your minds out of the gutter. Of course Joseph "knew" his wife. I think that was the mangu's point.
Aside from the language chosen, I'm astonished that an AC actually posted something mildly funny!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wiggin
Nice try, didn't work. Godwin's law is being invoked implicitly every time your post is read anyway.