So yeah, let's give these users a repo and tell them it's safe and they can only install programs from there. Oh but wait, now they want a piece of software that isn't in the repo, and again we're in a situation where users have to judge for themselves how legitimate a piece of software is; I've already demonstrated how that usually turns out.
Ah but that's a direct refusal to utilize the software repos as a trusted source. Just because a user refuses to get their software from a trusted source does not constitute a flaw in the trusted source. To give a car analogy, sure you can drive your car without a seatbelt, but it won't surprise anyone if you are seriously injured in an accident that you could have walked away from. That doesn't mean that seatbelts don't work or aren't a good idea.
[A jail] sounds to me like a technical solution to a non-technical problem.
Which makes it no different from any other access control measure in an operating system.
I have some real doubts about that. For example, you can compile all Linux software from source and introduce hardening measures like NX bit, address base randomization, canaries, etc. Buffer overflows are a technical problem and the measures I summarized (and certainly have not exhaustively listed) really do make it technically much more difficult to conduct a buffer overflow type of exploit.
The difference is that most buffer overflows occur in software that the user intended to install and intended to run. That's quite a bit different from a social engineering attack that tricks a user into running software that the user would not run if the user had perfect knowledge of what the software is intended to do. The former is a technical problem and access controls are one appropriate technical solution. The latter is a social problem and technical measures are a stopgap solution, at best, compared to actually educating users.
The actual reason is that the users still haven't learned from the last 9 years of experience.
The other reason is that Windows still doesn't include an easy point-and-click tool to make a jail in which to run an untrusted app. If Windows had this, people wouldn't have to spend 29 EUR on Sandboxie.
That sounds to me like a technical solution to a non-technical problem. Make no mistake, the inability to learn from the last 9 years of active history is firmly within the realm of a non-technical problem.
Maybe that'll work and maybe it won't. If it works, it'll be a band-aid at best, with no hope of solving the underlying problem. If perfectly implemented, the sandbox would only shift the goal of the social engineering attack. Instead of getting clueless users to run untrustworthy executables, it'll have a stronger focus on getting them to give up passwords, personal information, and other information that can be abused with or without a sandbox. Until and unless you solve the problem of ignorant users who fall for social engineering attacks the best sandbox in the world won't be any sort of panacea.
Devils advocate here: is there any reason why a normal non-technical people should be using computers?
There, fixed that for you. If people can't be bothered to learn how to use computers, then they should stay the fuck away from computers.
There are such things as learning experiences, where you make a mistake, pay the price, and learn your lesson. What really amazes me are what I call the "permanent noobs". They're the people who manage to use a system for years and years without ever knowing more about it than when they first started. It's like they hate learning and hate understanding the tools they use, and will actively resent anyone who suggests that they should have picked up a clue or two during their years of experience with a system.
It's understandable that if you are new to something and have little or no experience, then you won't be knowledgable. Expecting otherwise is exceedingly unrealistic. Every expert was once a beginner. But for the people who have had years of time to learn the most basic things, to acquire the most basic good practices, something is wrong with them. This should be classified as a type of learning disability, regarded as a pathology, and treated accordingly.
Devils advocate here: is there any reason why a normal non-technical windows user should be able to run an executable in a directory they are able to write to?
Normal, non-technical windows users often own their own machines; consequently, yes, they should be able to run an executable in a directory they are able to right to.
It's not so much about whether you should be allowed to do with your own property what you wish. Of course you should. It's more like the security model of capabilities. If there is no good reason to allow something to happen then it is better security not to allow it.
This breaks down in Windows because Windows does not have a centralized package manager that handles both the installation and the uninstallation of all new software. The proprietary nature of most Windows software would preclude such a thing. A Linux user can have the full use of their system without ever having to directly download a binary executable and then run that executable just to install or use a piece of software. Instead, they have package managers and repositories which have all but eliminated the issues of third-party malware.
By contrast, on Windows it is far more common to directly download an "Installer.exe" file and then run that installer in the directory into which it was downloaded and with the elevated privileges needed to install software. That introduces problems when such executables come from untrustworthy sources. Introducing undetected malware into a Linux repository is much more difficult and thus has occurred far less frequently than the much easier task of conducting a social engineering attack against a user of an e-mail client.
The way things are done on Windows makes it far more prone to these attacks. The fact that the average Windows user is much less knowledgable than the average *nix user compounds the problem. That's why you have attacks that are about nine years old that are still successful, which is really quite pathetic.
Devils advocate here: is there any reason why a normal non-technical windows user should be able to run an executable in a directory they are able to write to? Maybe the ipod/ipad approach is better for most people.
I have no idea why you were modded "Troll" except that some people have an irrational oversensitivity to any mention of the iPod or iPad. They should get the fuck over it, to be direct about it.
Back on topic, what you mention is a very good idea. It's also not new to Apple products at all. That's the approach Unix has used for a long, long time now. Installed programs on a Unix system are generally root-owned and sit in directories that are also root-owned. For a normal user, both the executable and the directory in which it is located is read-only.
The problem with Windows is the vast amount of software that is poorly designed and wants Admin privileges even though it could be designed to carry out its task without them. This has trained the more point-and-drool type of user (the majority who gravitate to this platform) to just click away any dialogs without seriously questioning why a program is requesting extra access. That is, of course, assuming they are running as a non-privileged user in the first place.
The iPhone (I assume you don't intentionally refer to an mp3 player) approach is more like "you don't need root for anything, let us manage that". The Unix approach is more like "programs don't expect to have root privileges without a very good reason, like your package manager for example". In both cases an e-mail client would be run as a normal user. I'm not so familiar with the inner workings of an iPhone but at least on Unix and Unix-like OSs, the binary executable file would also reside in a root-owned directory not writable to any normal user. Combine that with the generally more clueful user base and it's easy to understand why Unix/Unix-like users just don't have these problems.
It's an instance of the reason why. The actual reason is that the users still haven't learned from the last 9 years of experience. The only bad thing is that their stupidity is not self-contained and can affect the networks and computers of others. I say that because this time, it isn't really a technical flaw in Windows since I don't see any reports of the e-mail attachments being automatically executed. This is more like a social engineering attack. It's one that is not remotely new and has provided numerous examples that the even slightly clueful have already learned from.
> But apparantly all the 12 year olds with Ubuntu has mod points today, and I probably offended their religion.
You really can't understand why you're getting modded down? That comment is essentially a troll.
He understands it in terms of "it's always someone else's fault". That isn't really something you can fix despite how easy it is to demonstrate that it's wrong and a puerile way to look at things.
Not so. At the very least, a 5 digit user ID shows that about 12 years ago, the low digit poster was not (let's say) 8 years old or younger. Or if they were that young, they should probably get the +1 because even if they're wrong it's worth thinking about.
It's really too bad that might be the only valid Wisdom bonus here. I offer my Karma bonus as evidence.
My UID is nearly twice your own, yet I have the same karma bonus. That greatly weakens or destroys your evidence there.
It also doesn't account for the people who lurked with an attitude of "read and learn" prior to finally registering an account. The UID alone doesn't give you any indication of this.
Finally, there are people who just refuse to learn. They are set in their ways. They can be wrong for all of those years. They can refuse to listen. They can also have a low UID.
There's just no substitute for actually reading and understanding a post before you dream of determining its merits. I have no idea why anyone would want all of the excuses designed to justify some way around this. It is as it should be.
By who's definition of healthy? Low fat? Low carb? Vegetarian? Vegan? Kosher? How about we just serve what we all can agree on; Nothing.
That'd really be the way to do it and end the whole bullshit. The school serves no food at all to anyone and the parents pack whatever lunch they intend for their children to have.
For any parents who cannot afford to do so, I'd rather the food-stamp program be expanded to deal with this than some kind of school lunch program. Then if someone is tracked in a database, it is the adult parents who voluntarily requested assistance and not children merely because they are compelled to attend school.
Was told so by others, but kind of supprised how fast they got slavery back into America.
Guess Iowa's potentates want to make sure there property is properly fed.
This is a troll? Why, because the previous slavery in America was based on race and race is a soft spot for you? Get over it. Meanwhile... rest assured, the new economic slavery is not remotely so personal. The only color it cares about is green.
Think about it another way. Property may need careful numbering and identification and inventory control. Why would humans need the same? Why especially would children need the same except that it provides early training? Adult supervision alone isn't enough to meet their needs? Why not, especially not when there are other ways of solving any problem this is meant to address, such as tracking the number of free school lunches served?
You may agree or disagree that this is about treating other humans as little more than slaves merely because of their ("commoner") socioeconomic status. That doesn't make it trolling to suggest that this is an angle to consider. Serfdom of one form or another, subtle or in-your-face, is not exactly a new phenonemon in human societies.
This is used for determining funding levels at schools. The school food programs are the biggest secondary revenue generators in schools. If you can prove that X% of your students are eligible for free lunches, you can qualify for additional federal funds for certain programs. This can easily be millions... in the right districts. So the minor inconvenience of entering a pin (instead of barcoding a card, which is what most schools do) is actually not that bad.
The funding of the schools is a matter strictly between the school and the appropriate agency or bureau. The second this becomes a problem of the students, someone has failed to do their job.
Besides it's not all bad, the school is teaching junior a valuable lesson: to the establishment all he is is a number.
Yeah, that way by the time he or she an adult, there is no real resistence left for the dehumanization that this represents. It has now become a norm and the only thing the person has known for years. Thanks but no thanks. Truly good ideas with inherent virtue don't require a lifetime of training to accept.
At their best, they can produce a momentary sense of gratification shortly followed by a need for more. There's no lasting joy, meaning, or well-being to be found in them.
Brother, that's life. Period. Get your ephemeral joy in because there is no other kind of happiness to be had.
A lot of people feel the way that you do. I used to, in fact.
After you've suffered enough of that, which unfortunately may take years, what you realize is that the joy you derive from doing the right thing, from loving and looking after your fellow human being, from all of those unsolicited and unexpected acts of kindness and understanding, those were the only things that really mattered. Those are the things that the world can't take away from you unless you permit it.
There's something noble and uplifting about serving your fellow human being with no thought of reward or even basic gratitude. There's something "overcoming" about having patience for the next slight, the next sling and arrow that some ignorant individual may hurl your way.
The most amazing thing of all is when people who need a good example gravitate quite naturally into your life without your input or your planning. Then you find that there are many wounded spirits in this world who don't understand the damage that they do. Then you find that a few of them are ready for something better and all they need is someone to represent for them what that means, not by putting on an act, but by being who you really are.
For me, THAT is life. Not the cynical picture that you portray. Gratification is empty and hollow and meaningless by comparison. It is attractive only to those who know nothing better, friend.
Huh? Is there some special cachet around a 5 digit UID?
Some people think it's a valid substitute for actually evaluating the quality of your post. So they might believe you not because your words ring true, but because they think you have some kind of seniority and they're far too easily impressed by that. I don't understand it any better than that but I have seen it happen myself.
It's distantly related to giving undeserved credibility to statements made by a government official in complete ignorance of the fact that when there is power at stake, people have more reasons to lie, not fewer, so their burden of proof should be higher, not lower.
And yet, somehow, you savor praise (and karma!) for your thoughtful and insightful posts. Hypocrisy, thy name is causality.
Praise happens -- that is the decision of anyone who decides to praise and beyond my control. Slashdot karma happens -- that is Rob Malda's design decision for this site and beyond my control. I solicit neither. Unless you think those things should be outlawed so that the government can use physical force or the threat thereof to suppress them, then what does that have to do with me? Hell, even if you ARE suggesting that, it has nothing to do with me.
What I'm really after is quality discussion. Maybe somebody will cause me to consider an idea that I'd have never thought of on my own. Maybe somebody will show me the error of my ways and I can shed a false belief that I didn't know I had. Or maybe someone will reinforce my position and let me see what it looks like from another point of view.
I'd love to know what part of this is so troublesome for you. My bet is that you're not capable of articulating an argument against it, though that might not stop you from trying.
most private pilots aren't the independently wealthy individuals you seem to think we are
My comment about wealth was to be understood within the context of a discussion about John Denver. As a famous, successful musician, he certainly was independently wealthy. Most of the plane crashes that are very well-known tend to involve people who are celebrities or businessmen who don't precisely have money problems, which is what I meant by "these". Right or wrong, the working stiff who can barely afford aviation and has a crash doesn't seem to get discussed years after the event.
Regarding private pilots in more general terms... unless you are a professional pilot working for i.e. the military or a commercial airliner, then you have disposable income. You have merely chosen to allocate it towards aviation. The cost of one personal parachute should be negligible compared to what you would already invest in the airplane, hangar space, training, etc.
You gave me a very good explanation of why parachutes probably would not result in more lives saved. They clearly are not such a great idea. However, if they would be a really good idea, then I don't know about you but personally, I am willing to go into debt if necessary when I firmly believe it's a matter of life and limb.
Otherwise, I found your comment refreshing to say the least. It's clear that you and pilots in general have their priorities straight. There's something noble and admirable about going down with the plane if it means you can protect innocent third parties. Other than the volunteer firefighters I personally know, that isn't the sort of heroism I hear so much of these days. Thank you for that.
Yes. That horrible fade-in, and all the other recent horrible 'enhancements' should be removed.
As a NoScript user who has not added "google.com" to the block list, my first knowledge of this new feature was the Slashdot article. As a bonus, any search result links I click are direct links that do not go through any of Google's redirectors.
The Web, thankfully, is not a passive affair like television. It's like a mutual agreement between what the server offers and what the client decides to render. This is to your advantage. You can take control of how you experience it. It takes only a token effort and I've never regretted doing so.
At least we know your sarcasometer is properly calibrated.:)
I hate to break it to you and to Slashdot in general, but not every response to the underlying sentiment behind the sarcasm is a failure to understand that it was, in fact, sarcasm. The uptake of this idea is low because it might give the peanut gallery a little less to chuckle about.
About Facebook, I've been saying this for a long time now on various other Slashdot stories that mention it. I usually use the term "exhibitionist" to describe what is clearly not a desire that would occur to mentally healthy people with joyful fulfilling lives. The reason I don't participate in sites like Facebook is because I don't need the casual attention of strangers and distant acquaintences in order to feel special and important.
If I had a need to feel special and important at all it would be a sign that I need to check my ego. Those things are a chasing after the wind. At their best, they can produce a momentary sense of gratification shortly followed by a need for more. There's no lasting joy, meaning, or well-being to be found in them. They're as empty as the hollow people who chase after them hoping to find a sense of worth. There's no real fulfillment, just a bunch of fools looking to be filled with the attentions of others.
That's why social networking sites have been a big headline-making craze, a trendy bandwagon, and not just another thing people happen to be doing for the fun of it. It has to be glamorous and talked-about and made into a public spectacle. That's what the people who flock to it have a deep-seated unhealthy need to experience. The trend and the headlines are just rushing in to fill their vacuum. What a sorry substitute for addressing the real problems of the deep sense of alienation, fear, pessimism, divisiveness, selfishness, need for drama, lack of community, and lack of love that so thoroughly characterizes modern society.
What *wasn't* in the NTSB report: the switch was behind him, in a tight space, and he couldn't see over his shoulder clearly enough to tell if the switch was in the proper place.
That WAS in the NTSB report, in fact Denver and a mechanic discussed it, the mechanic attempted to attach a pair of vice-grips as a workaround, and Denver said he'd use the autopilot to ensure straight-and-level if he had to mess with it in flight. He also refused a refuel stating that he'd be flying for an hour.
But the engineer(s) who put the switch behind the pilot's seat are just as much, if not moreso, to blame
Actually, the aircraft wasn't engineered that way. Someone (apparently a previous owner) modified it. Denver was aware of the modification, aware of its shortcomings, had actually made arrangements to fix it permanently, attempted a failed temporary fix with an A&P mechanic, then decided to fly it anyway without making sure both tanks were full (in fact, the A&P interviewed stated that Denver had initially tried to start the engine on a tank that might have been empty, meaning Denver's attempts to change tanks would have been in vain since he switched to the only tank with an unknown quantity of fuel left before takeoff).
Sorry, John Denver was a great singer. But the blame for the crash rests firmly on his shoulders.
This is a perfect example of a "string of failures". Someone made an ill-considered modification to an aircraft that Denver (an experienced pilot) bought. This modification made it difficult to change tanks. Denver knew about the problem, but completely failed to mitigate it by:
1. Not making sure he had enough fuel on board in his chosen primary tank for a short flight,
2. Not making sure he would be able to switch the tanks while in flight,
3. Apparently not ensuring that his alternate tank had any fuel in it at all, so even if he did manipulate the switch he may well have been switching from one empty to another,
4. Insisting on a short flight before he would be taking a trip that would give his A&P plenty of time to fix the problem and relocate the switch where it belonged.
Proper handling of ANY of the four issues above could have turned the disaster into a safe flight (or at least a case of "being down here, wishing you were up there", which isn't usually fatal like "being up there, wishing you were down here" sometimes is).
What's the compelling reason why these independently wealthy individuals who can afford private aviation never seem to spend a few hundred dollars on a good parachute? I don't know about you but if I am alone flying a plane and it's going to crash and there's no hope of stopping it, like it's completely out of fuel, then I'm going to take my chances with a little unplanned skydiving.
Why is yours modded interesting when all you did was make it obvious that you don't understand when something is a joke?
On the contrary... I agreed it was a joke. That's why it didn't deserve an "Informative" mod. How that escaped you when I spelled it out is a mystery to me.
Please be aware that the pedestrian council is not a council at all. Its a Commercial Business owned (and ceo'd) by Harold Scruby. They have been sprouting anti car and anti driver bullshit for years. There is no real reason to listen to this mob, and Im unsure why anyone does.
I hear you, but its status as a corporation makes it even more likely to have some political clout.
Besides, dumb ideas like this need to be called out. Look at all the similar nanny-state laws on the books in many different countries. Mr. Scruby is definitely not the only person who adheres to this philosophy. The problem with people like him is that they don't recognize when they are trying to implement a fundamentally flawed idea. When it fails for any reason, they just assume they aren't trying hard enough.
They should legislate appropriate penalties for people acting so carelessly towards their own welfare
Everything that's wrong about nanny state in one sentence.
Why do some people feel the need to interfere with natural selection?
1) Because they have fevered egos that really get off on finding ways to control people that they don't feel guilty about ("it's for their own good!"). It gives them an excuse to pat themselves on the back and celebrate their own good intentions, further exaggerating their own self-importance and rationalizing their exercise of power. It also lets them portray you as a bad guy if you oppose them, at which point they gain an opportunity to climb up on their high horse and further exaggerate their own self-importance in a different way. Prohibition in the USA was started and (with substances other than alcohol) continues because of people like this.
2) Because they are selfish bastards who have no illusions whatsoever about what they are doing and simply find it to be profitable. If this idea eventually becomes law, then the fines and fees from any citations issued will have to be collected. It certainly wouldn't be the first time state revenues were raised for the supposed purpose of protecting someone or another. Speeding violations generate lots of ticket revenues in the name of safety despite most accidents not being caused by speeding and that's because of people like this.
Most of the people like this have tunnel vision to begin with. For them, there's no worries about natural selection because most of them won't be around anyway to see what happens when another generation or three grows up accepting this as a norm. These are not people who want to take a hard look at the damage they do except in the most minimal way possible and only when it directly affects them.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah but that's a direct refusal to utilize the software repos as a trusted source. Just because a user refuses to get their software from a trusted source does not constitute a flaw in the trusted source. To give a car analogy, sure you can drive your car without a seatbelt, but it won't surprise anyone if you are seriously injured in an accident that you could have walked away from. That doesn't mean that seatbelts don't work or aren't a good idea.
[A jail] sounds to me like a technical solution to a non-technical problem.
Which makes it no different from any other access control measure in an operating system.
I have some real doubts about that. For example, you can compile all Linux software from source and introduce hardening measures like NX bit, address base randomization, canaries, etc. Buffer overflows are a technical problem and the measures I summarized (and certainly have not exhaustively listed) really do make it technically much more difficult to conduct a buffer overflow type of exploit.
The difference is that most buffer overflows occur in software that the user intended to install and intended to run. That's quite a bit different from a social engineering attack that tricks a user into running software that the user would not run if the user had perfect knowledge of what the software is intended to do. The former is a technical problem and access controls are one appropriate technical solution. The latter is a social problem and technical measures are a stopgap solution, at best, compared to actually educating users.
The actual reason is that the users still haven't learned from the last 9 years of experience.
The other reason is that Windows still doesn't include an easy point-and-click tool to make a jail in which to run an untrusted app. If Windows had this, people wouldn't have to spend 29 EUR on Sandboxie.
That sounds to me like a technical solution to a non-technical problem. Make no mistake, the inability to learn from the last 9 years of active history is firmly within the realm of a non-technical problem.
Maybe that'll work and maybe it won't. If it works, it'll be a band-aid at best, with no hope of solving the underlying problem. If perfectly implemented, the sandbox would only shift the goal of the social engineering attack. Instead of getting clueless users to run untrustworthy executables, it'll have a stronger focus on getting them to give up passwords, personal information, and other information that can be abused with or without a sandbox. Until and unless you solve the problem of ignorant users who fall for social engineering attacks the best sandbox in the world won't be any sort of panacea.
Devils advocate here: is there any reason why a normal non-technical people should be using computers?
There, fixed that for you. If people can't be bothered to learn how to use computers, then they should stay the fuck away from computers.
There are such things as learning experiences, where you make a mistake, pay the price, and learn your lesson. What really amazes me are what I call the "permanent noobs". They're the people who manage to use a system for years and years without ever knowing more about it than when they first started. It's like they hate learning and hate understanding the tools they use, and will actively resent anyone who suggests that they should have picked up a clue or two during their years of experience with a system.
It's understandable that if you are new to something and have little or no experience, then you won't be knowledgable. Expecting otherwise is exceedingly unrealistic. Every expert was once a beginner. But for the people who have had years of time to learn the most basic things, to acquire the most basic good practices, something is wrong with them. This should be classified as a type of learning disability, regarded as a pathology, and treated accordingly.
Normal, non-technical windows users often own their own machines; consequently, yes, they should be able to run an executable in a directory they are able to right to.
It's not so much about whether you should be allowed to do with your own property what you wish. Of course you should. It's more like the security model of capabilities. If there is no good reason to allow something to happen then it is better security not to allow it.
This breaks down in Windows because Windows does not have a centralized package manager that handles both the installation and the uninstallation of all new software. The proprietary nature of most Windows software would preclude such a thing. A Linux user can have the full use of their system without ever having to directly download a binary executable and then run that executable just to install or use a piece of software. Instead, they have package managers and repositories which have all but eliminated the issues of third-party malware.
By contrast, on Windows it is far more common to directly download an "Installer.exe" file and then run that installer in the directory into which it was downloaded and with the elevated privileges needed to install software. That introduces problems when such executables come from untrustworthy sources. Introducing undetected malware into a Linux repository is much more difficult and thus has occurred far less frequently than the much easier task of conducting a social engineering attack against a user of an e-mail client.
The way things are done on Windows makes it far more prone to these attacks. The fact that the average Windows user is much less knowledgable than the average *nix user compounds the problem. That's why you have attacks that are about nine years old that are still successful, which is really quite pathetic.
Devils advocate here: is there any reason why a normal non-technical windows user should be able to run an executable in a directory they are able to write to? Maybe the ipod/ipad approach is better for most people.
I have no idea why you were modded "Troll" except that some people have an irrational oversensitivity to any mention of the iPod or iPad. They should get the fuck over it, to be direct about it.
Back on topic, what you mention is a very good idea. It's also not new to Apple products at all. That's the approach Unix has used for a long, long time now. Installed programs on a Unix system are generally root-owned and sit in directories that are also root-owned. For a normal user, both the executable and the directory in which it is located is read-only.
The problem with Windows is the vast amount of software that is poorly designed and wants Admin privileges even though it could be designed to carry out its task without them. This has trained the more point-and-drool type of user (the majority who gravitate to this platform) to just click away any dialogs without seriously questioning why a program is requesting extra access. That is, of course, assuming they are running as a non-privileged user in the first place.
The iPhone (I assume you don't intentionally refer to an mp3 player) approach is more like "you don't need root for anything, let us manage that". The Unix approach is more like "programs don't expect to have root privileges without a very good reason, like your package manager for example". In both cases an e-mail client would be run as a normal user. I'm not so familiar with the inner workings of an iPhone but at least on Unix and Unix-like OSs, the binary executable file would also reside in a root-owned directory not writable to any normal user. Combine that with the generally more clueful user base and it's easy to understand why Unix/Unix-like users just don't have these problems.
The entire UW mail system died yesterday morning.
Maybe this is why ...
It's an instance of the reason why. The actual reason is that the users still haven't learned from the last 9 years of experience. The only bad thing is that their stupidity is not self-contained and can affect the networks and computers of others. I say that because this time, it isn't really a technical flaw in Windows since I don't see any reports of the e-mail attachments being automatically executed. This is more like a social engineering attack. It's one that is not remotely new and has provided numerous examples that the even slightly clueful have already learned from.
> But apparantly all the 12 year olds with Ubuntu has mod points today, and I probably offended their religion. You really can't understand why you're getting modded down? That comment is essentially a troll.
He understands it in terms of "it's always someone else's fault". That isn't really something you can fix despite how easy it is to demonstrate that it's wrong and a puerile way to look at things.
i praise you for two tldr posts in a row
What, you were "too lazy and didn't read" it?
Not so. At the very least, a 5 digit user ID shows that about 12 years ago, the low digit poster was not (let's say) 8 years old or younger. Or if they were that young, they should probably get the +1 because even if they're wrong it's worth thinking about. It's really too bad that might be the only valid Wisdom bonus here. I offer my Karma bonus as evidence.
My UID is nearly twice your own, yet I have the same karma bonus. That greatly weakens or destroys your evidence there.
It also doesn't account for the people who lurked with an attitude of "read and learn" prior to finally registering an account. The UID alone doesn't give you any indication of this.
Finally, there are people who just refuse to learn. They are set in their ways. They can be wrong for all of those years. They can refuse to listen. They can also have a low UID.
There's just no substitute for actually reading and understanding a post before you dream of determining its merits. I have no idea why anyone would want all of the excuses designed to justify some way around this. It is as it should be.
By who's definition of healthy? Low fat? Low carb? Vegetarian? Vegan? Kosher? How about we just serve what we all can agree on; Nothing.
That'd really be the way to do it and end the whole bullshit. The school serves no food at all to anyone and the parents pack whatever lunch they intend for their children to have.
For any parents who cannot afford to do so, I'd rather the food-stamp program be expanded to deal with this than some kind of school lunch program. Then if someone is tracked in a database, it is the adult parents who voluntarily requested assistance and not children merely because they are compelled to attend school.
Was told so by others, but kind of supprised how fast they got slavery back into America.
Guess Iowa's potentates want to make sure there property is properly fed.
This is a troll? Why, because the previous slavery in America was based on race and race is a soft spot for you? Get over it. Meanwhile... rest assured, the new economic slavery is not remotely so personal. The only color it cares about is green.
Think about it another way. Property may need careful numbering and identification and inventory control. Why would humans need the same? Why especially would children need the same except that it provides early training? Adult supervision alone isn't enough to meet their needs? Why not, especially not when there are other ways of solving any problem this is meant to address, such as tracking the number of free school lunches served?
You may agree or disagree that this is about treating other humans as little more than slaves merely because of their ("commoner") socioeconomic status. That doesn't make it trolling to suggest that this is an angle to consider. Serfdom of one form or another, subtle or in-your-face, is not exactly a new phenonemon in human societies.
'the agency'?
I suspect the CIA has better things to do with our time than brainwash our children.
If this is a high priority for the CIA then they will find themselves among plenty of competition.
The funding of the schools is a matter strictly between the school and the appropriate agency or bureau. The second this becomes a problem of the students, someone has failed to do their job.
Yeah, that way by the time he or she an adult, there is no real resistence left for the dehumanization that this represents. It has now become a norm and the only thing the person has known for years. Thanks but no thanks. Truly good ideas with inherent virtue don't require a lifetime of training to accept.
At their best, they can produce a momentary sense of gratification shortly followed by a need for more. There's no lasting joy, meaning, or well-being to be found in them.
Brother, that's life. Period. Get your ephemeral joy in because there is no other kind of happiness to be had.
A lot of people feel the way that you do. I used to, in fact.
After you've suffered enough of that, which unfortunately may take years, what you realize is that the joy you derive from doing the right thing, from loving and looking after your fellow human being, from all of those unsolicited and unexpected acts of kindness and understanding, those were the only things that really mattered. Those are the things that the world can't take away from you unless you permit it.
There's something noble and uplifting about serving your fellow human being with no thought of reward or even basic gratitude. There's something "overcoming" about having patience for the next slight, the next sling and arrow that some ignorant individual may hurl your way.
The most amazing thing of all is when people who need a good example gravitate quite naturally into your life without your input or your planning. Then you find that there are many wounded spirits in this world who don't understand the damage that they do. Then you find that a few of them are ready for something better and all they need is someone to represent for them what that means, not by putting on an act, but by being who you really are.
For me, THAT is life. Not the cynical picture that you portray. Gratification is empty and hollow and meaningless by comparison. It is attractive only to those who know nothing better, friend.
Huh? Is there some special cachet around a 5 digit UID?
Some people think it's a valid substitute for actually evaluating the quality of your post. So they might believe you not because your words ring true, but because they think you have some kind of seniority and they're far too easily impressed by that. I don't understand it any better than that but I have seen it happen myself.
It's distantly related to giving undeserved credibility to statements made by a government official in complete ignorance of the fact that when there is power at stake, people have more reasons to lie, not fewer, so their burden of proof should be higher, not lower.
And yet, somehow, you savor praise (and karma!) for your thoughtful and insightful posts. Hypocrisy, thy name is causality.
Praise happens -- that is the decision of anyone who decides to praise and beyond my control. Slashdot karma happens -- that is Rob Malda's design decision for this site and beyond my control. I solicit neither. Unless you think those things should be outlawed so that the government can use physical force or the threat thereof to suppress them, then what does that have to do with me? Hell, even if you ARE suggesting that, it has nothing to do with me.
What I'm really after is quality discussion. Maybe somebody will cause me to consider an idea that I'd have never thought of on my own. Maybe somebody will show me the error of my ways and I can shed a false belief that I didn't know I had. Or maybe someone will reinforce my position and let me see what it looks like from another point of view.
I'd love to know what part of this is so troublesome for you. My bet is that you're not capable of articulating an argument against it, though that might not stop you from trying.
My comment about wealth was to be understood within the context of a discussion about John Denver. As a famous, successful musician, he certainly was independently wealthy. Most of the plane crashes that are very well-known tend to involve people who are celebrities or businessmen who don't precisely have money problems, which is what I meant by "these". Right or wrong, the working stiff who can barely afford aviation and has a crash doesn't seem to get discussed years after the event.
Regarding private pilots in more general terms... unless you are a professional pilot working for i.e. the military or a commercial airliner, then you have disposable income. You have merely chosen to allocate it towards aviation. The cost of one personal parachute should be negligible compared to what you would already invest in the airplane, hangar space, training, etc.
You gave me a very good explanation of why parachutes probably would not result in more lives saved. They clearly are not such a great idea. However, if they would be a really good idea, then I don't know about you but personally, I am willing to go into debt if necessary when I firmly believe it's a matter of life and limb.
Otherwise, I found your comment refreshing to say the least. It's clear that you and pilots in general have their priorities straight. There's something noble and admirable about going down with the plane if it means you can protect innocent third parties. Other than the volunteer firefighters I personally know, that isn't the sort of heroism I hear so much of these days. Thank you for that.
Damn, that first sentence should read "who has not added 'google.com' to my allow list."
Yes. That horrible fade-in, and all the other recent horrible 'enhancements' should be removed.
As a NoScript user who has not added "google.com" to the block list, my first knowledge of this new feature was the Slashdot article. As a bonus, any search result links I click are direct links that do not go through any of Google's redirectors.
The Web, thankfully, is not a passive affair like television. It's like a mutual agreement between what the server offers and what the client decides to render. This is to your advantage. You can take control of how you experience it. It takes only a token effort and I've never regretted doing so.
At least we know your sarcasometer is properly calibrated. :)
I hate to break it to you and to Slashdot in general, but not every response to the underlying sentiment behind the sarcasm is a failure to understand that it was, in fact, sarcasm. The uptake of this idea is low because it might give the peanut gallery a little less to chuckle about.
About Facebook, I've been saying this for a long time now on various other Slashdot stories that mention it. I usually use the term "exhibitionist" to describe what is clearly not a desire that would occur to mentally healthy people with joyful fulfilling lives. The reason I don't participate in sites like Facebook is because I don't need the casual attention of strangers and distant acquaintences in order to feel special and important.
If I had a need to feel special and important at all it would be a sign that I need to check my ego. Those things are a chasing after the wind. At their best, they can produce a momentary sense of gratification shortly followed by a need for more. There's no lasting joy, meaning, or well-being to be found in them. They're as empty as the hollow people who chase after them hoping to find a sense of worth. There's no real fulfillment, just a bunch of fools looking to be filled with the attentions of others.
That's why social networking sites have been a big headline-making craze, a trendy bandwagon, and not just another thing people happen to be doing for the fun of it. It has to be glamorous and talked-about and made into a public spectacle. That's what the people who flock to it have a deep-seated unhealthy need to experience. The trend and the headlines are just rushing in to fill their vacuum. What a sorry substitute for addressing the real problems of the deep sense of alienation, fear, pessimism, divisiveness, selfishness, need for drama, lack of community, and lack of love that so thoroughly characterizes modern society.
What *wasn't* in the NTSB report: the switch was behind him, in a tight space, and he couldn't see over his shoulder clearly enough to tell if the switch was in the proper place.
That WAS in the NTSB report, in fact Denver and a mechanic discussed it, the mechanic attempted to attach a pair of vice-grips as a workaround, and Denver said he'd use the autopilot to ensure straight-and-level if he had to mess with it in flight. He also refused a refuel stating that he'd be flying for an hour.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX98FA008&rpt=fa
But the engineer(s) who put the switch behind the pilot's seat are just as much, if not moreso, to blame
Actually, the aircraft wasn't engineered that way. Someone (apparently a previous owner) modified it. Denver was aware of the modification, aware of its shortcomings, had actually made arrangements to fix it permanently, attempted a failed temporary fix with an A&P mechanic, then decided to fly it anyway without making sure both tanks were full (in fact, the A&P interviewed stated that Denver had initially tried to start the engine on a tank that might have been empty, meaning Denver's attempts to change tanks would have been in vain since he switched to the only tank with an unknown quantity of fuel left before takeoff).
Sorry, John Denver was a great singer. But the blame for the crash rests firmly on his shoulders.
This is a perfect example of a "string of failures". Someone made an ill-considered modification to an aircraft that Denver (an experienced pilot) bought. This modification made it difficult to change tanks. Denver knew about the problem, but completely failed to mitigate it by:
1. Not making sure he had enough fuel on board in his chosen primary tank for a short flight, 2. Not making sure he would be able to switch the tanks while in flight, 3. Apparently not ensuring that his alternate tank had any fuel in it at all, so even if he did manipulate the switch he may well have been switching from one empty to another, 4. Insisting on a short flight before he would be taking a trip that would give his A&P plenty of time to fix the problem and relocate the switch where it belonged.
Proper handling of ANY of the four issues above could have turned the disaster into a safe flight (or at least a case of "being down here, wishing you were up there", which isn't usually fatal like "being up there, wishing you were down here" sometimes is).
What's the compelling reason why these independently wealthy individuals who can afford private aviation never seem to spend a few hundred dollars on a good parachute? I don't know about you but if I am alone flying a plane and it's going to crash and there's no hope of stopping it, like it's completely out of fuel, then I'm going to take my chances with a little unplanned skydiving.
Why is yours modded interesting when all you did was make it obvious that you don't understand when something is a joke?
On the contrary... I agreed it was a joke. That's why it didn't deserve an "Informative" mod. How that escaped you when I spelled it out is a mystery to me.
Please be aware that the pedestrian council is not a council at all. Its a Commercial Business owned (and ceo'd) by Harold Scruby. They have been sprouting anti car and anti driver bullshit for years. There is no real reason to listen to this mob, and Im unsure why anyone does.
I hear you, but its status as a corporation makes it even more likely to have some political clout.
Besides, dumb ideas like this need to be called out. Look at all the similar nanny-state laws on the books in many different countries. Mr. Scruby is definitely not the only person who adheres to this philosophy. The problem with people like him is that they don't recognize when they are trying to implement a fundamentally flawed idea. When it fails for any reason, they just assume they aren't trying hard enough.
They should legislate appropriate penalties for people acting so carelessly towards their own welfare
Everything that's wrong about nanny state in one sentence.
Why do some people feel the need to interfere with natural selection?
1) Because they have fevered egos that really get off on finding ways to control people that they don't feel guilty about ("it's for their own good!"). It gives them an excuse to pat themselves on the back and celebrate their own good intentions, further exaggerating their own self-importance and rationalizing their exercise of power. It also lets them portray you as a bad guy if you oppose them, at which point they gain an opportunity to climb up on their high horse and further exaggerate their own self-importance in a different way. Prohibition in the USA was started and (with substances other than alcohol) continues because of people like this.
2) Because they are selfish bastards who have no illusions whatsoever about what they are doing and simply find it to be profitable. If this idea eventually becomes law, then the fines and fees from any citations issued will have to be collected. It certainly wouldn't be the first time state revenues were raised for the supposed purpose of protecting someone or another. Speeding violations generate lots of ticket revenues in the name of safety despite most accidents not being caused by speeding and that's because of people like this.
Most of the people like this have tunnel vision to begin with. For them, there's no worries about natural selection because most of them won't be around anyway to see what happens when another generation or three grows up accepting this as a norm. These are not people who want to take a hard look at the damage they do except in the most minimal way possible and only when it directly affects them.