Given the fact that we have people on the House Science Committee who are active bible thumpers and science deniers, you have to ask whether bashing theists is deserved or not.
I think it is.
After the thousandth time you're told you're going to Hell because you don't believe in the 6000 year old universe, it's time to bash back. Religious nutters are dangerous. The only difference between the Taliban and Dominionists is which twisted interpretation of a phrase of whatever prophet of the Abrahamic God tells them to kill apostates, blasphemers, and sinners.
"Christian" Warriors or Taliban. Makes no difference.
>They that is account provider can easily use delays and lockout an account after too many tries.
Not lock out an account.
Temporary ban an IP address. Fail2ban does this. If you're just looking to protect SSH, use Denyhosts.
You don't want to lock out legitimate users. All the big providers like Yahoo and Facebook will let you keep trying at a password 3 times, and then they'll throw a captcha at you for all tries after that with as many tries as you want, because you have to keep solving the captcha for each attempt. Current captcha technology is pretty much bot proof - almost human proof sometimes, it seems (as a user, I hate captcha and knowing someone who is sight impaired, I consider it offensive - we should find something else, something better).
Locking out accounts over bad login attempts generates too many support calls and upset users, because you could DOS attack an account simply by spamming the login with bad passwords. It's been tried. It sucks as a solution. The solution is to make brute-forcing time consuming and requiring human intervention.
Pretty much this. Brute forcing passwords over the Internet is silly and non-productive.
>it's likely they can do other stuff anyway
What, you mean like the Youporn chat registration list that had the usernames and passwords *and* verification email addresses in plaintext? Or like when Yahoo was compromised? Or like dozens of other companies were compromised? Or like when EMC was spear-phished out of RSA tokens?
My concern isn't someone with a hundred Tesla cards cracking passwords. My concern is dumb admins and people falling for social-engineering.
Since God (should he exist) is omnicient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, why does Satan have all this power if God doesn't let him?
Answer, please, if you can.
The god of the old testament especially seems like a petulant kid running his own "Sims Universe" like this guy:
MaxxLarge [TotalFark] 2010-06-11 05:53:28 PM
I was HORRIBLE to my poor Sims.
I'd build GIANT houses with concrete floors, coffin-lining wallpaper, and hallways one tile wide leading in a giant spiral all the way to the center...where a staircase led to a second level with another spiral that reversed itself to the outer wall. The toilet was at one end, and the 'fridge was at the other. No beds, doors, windows, chairs, or bathing facilities. And there'd be four of 'em living in there, all with conflicting personalities, and no way to walk around each other. Then I'd put the time clock on high speed, and watch as all of their misery meters red-lined. Completely hilarious.
After a few days of them whining about the lack of a shower, I'd take the 'fridge just to show 'em what REAL misery was. Then, a few days later, I'd put in a window, and then I'd put an end table just outside with a big, juicy roast turkey on it. The poor little digital bastards had to sit there, clustered around the window, crying about how the flies were eating like kings while they slowly starved to death. They just stood there in their own Windex-blue pee, sobbing and begging for relief that would never come. Eventually, I'd hang up the clown painting, then watch as he popped in and tried in vain to cheer them up. About then is when I'd start the fires.
GOD, I was horrendous. But I'm still giggling like a little girl just remembering it. I'm convinced that being able to take out my frustrations on little computer jerks kept me out of therapy, and made it so I could be nice to meat-people.
"Hey, let's convince Abraham to kill his kid. It'll be hilarious!"
It all began innocently enough on Tuesday. I was sitting in my office on that drizzly afternoon listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desktop, and reading my name on the glass of my office door--"regnaD kciN."
One little, two little, three little endians, four little, five little six little endians, seven little, eight little, nine little endians, ten little endian bytes.
It's your claim that keyboards and mice are buggywhips. Prove it. Prove that direct experience of those who have been poking and swiping at Windows 8 since the dev preview on desktops are wrong.
Capacitive touch was mentioned in the Dynabook paper. Yes, that one. Capacitive touch predates resistive.
Also, NEC had a touchscreen that was neither resisitive nor capacitive. It had a grid of IR LEDs and photodiodes at the edges of the screen and detected where your finger was by what photodiode you blocked. It never ever had to be calibrated. It was nearly indestructable, too.
> which was also met with much criticism when it was introduced in a world of keyboard-centric software.
You know, I lived through that era and the era before that (the one where there were no microcomputers) and i knew of nobody who criticized the mouse.
I *did* know a lot of people who criticized the Macintosh for lacking a command line altogether, though, and the Lisa for being the expensive and slow machine it was, with rectangular pixels and the really weird floppies. I think you're confusing things. (Yes, the Lisa was slow. We had a later one in an office with the 3.5 inch floppies that ran our COGO program. You started it up and went to go make coffee. When you had coffee all set up, the machine was booted).
> It's not poking at the screen all day: it's poking at the screen where it makes sense and where/when touch is more convenient.
I am not some kid who has only known one kind of computer type through my life. My first experience with a computer was sitting at a paper TTY at the University of RI playing with my dad's homework running on the IBM 370. I have seen computers large and small and input methods from card stacks to the most frou-frou GUI that the industry has seen. I have farted around with 8 since the Dev Preview, within hours of its release. It's *not* convenient to be reaching up to touch the screen when you're sitting at a desk. It simply isn't. It's klunky.
As the size and distance of the screen and verticality increases, the klunkier it becomes. Orientation means something. Back before the days of CAD, drawing boards were canted at around 20-45 degrees. Nobody draws on a vertical surface. Touching a vertical surface to make sweeping gestures (akin to drawing) is a pain in the ass. Imagine an E size screen, vertically in front of you (because displays have been getting larger over time, not smaller) and you're required to touch the upper right or upper left or top part of the screen as 8 requires you to do so in metro mode.
Don't BS me.
Touch has its place. Trying to shoehorn it onto the desktop and laptop is one of the most misguided things I've ever seen, and then to call people who have tried it and criticize it based on their direct experience as "uninformed" at the very least, well, I have not enough middle fingers.
I didn't say that touch is bad. I said it has its place. We could have been using touch in conjunction with keyboards, mice, and other input devices on office desktops for 30 years or more (Touchscreens actually go back a decade or so before that, and light pens even before that), but we haven't. There was no explosion of touch and light pens on the desktop. And as soon as the mouse showed up in large numbers, light pens pretty much disappeared, with LCD display technology putting the final nail in the light-pen coffin.
Because people actually dislike having to poke at a vertical surface all stupid day.
As the guy up in the thread there said, it's not because of Apple and Jobs that we hate touch on vertical surfaces, the hate goes back *much* farther than that.
It's funny how the criticisms of touch get brushed aside and people like you and SINternet insult the people criticizing.
"You haven't used it long enough!" "You're a luddite!" "You're lazy!" "It's really great, you're just old!" "Look, this 3 year old can open a program! If you don't like it, you're stupider than a 3 year old!"
And on and on it goes.
Good job selling us on this. Really. Good. Job.
> New things can take some getting used to
Hey, this isn't marmite in this sandwich. It smells like shit! Hey, wait...
Touchscreens have been around for decades. If pointing your arm at a vertical surface was such a hot idea for 8 hours a day, why have we not seen touchscreens being used everywhere for the last 30 years? NEC had an excellent touchscreen in the mid 80s. This isn't new technology and writing articles presenting it as new tech doesn't make it new.
Gorilla arm exists. Fatigue exists. Keyboards and other stuff are better input devices than touchscreens and probably always will be, except for the times you *can't* have a keyboard or mouse/tablet/trackball/etc., like a factory floor, restaurant, bar, hospital cart in sugery, etc, where dirt, grime, bodily fluids are a threat to operation, or where ease of portability trumps having a better input device, like tablets or phones (styluses are passe).
If touch was so superior for every day use, we'd already be using it.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the fact that we have people on the House Science Committee who are active bible thumpers and science deniers, you have to ask whether bashing theists is deserved or not.
I think it is.
After the thousandth time you're told you're going to Hell because you don't believe in the 6000 year old universe, it's time to bash back. Religious nutters are dangerous. The only difference between the Taliban and Dominionists is which twisted interpretation of a phrase of whatever prophet of the Abrahamic God tells them to kill apostates, blasphemers, and sinners.
"Christian" Warriors or Taliban. Makes no difference.
--
BMO
>They that is account provider can easily use delays and lockout an account after too many tries.
Not lock out an account.
Temporary ban an IP address. Fail2ban does this. If you're just looking to protect SSH, use Denyhosts.
You don't want to lock out legitimate users. All the big providers like Yahoo and Facebook will let you keep trying at a password 3 times, and then they'll throw a captcha at you for all tries after that with as many tries as you want, because you have to keep solving the captcha for each attempt. Current captcha technology is pretty much bot proof - almost human proof sometimes, it seems (as a user, I hate captcha and knowing someone who is sight impaired, I consider it offensive - we should find something else, something better).
Locking out accounts over bad login attempts generates too many support calls and upset users, because you could DOS attack an account simply by spamming the login with bad passwords. It's been tried. It sucks as a solution. The solution is to make brute-forcing time consuming and requiring human intervention.
--
BMO
Pretty much this. Brute forcing passwords over the Internet is silly and non-productive.
>it's likely they can do other stuff anyway
What, you mean like the Youporn chat registration list that had the usernames and passwords *and* verification email addresses in plaintext? Or like when Yahoo was compromised? Or like dozens of other companies were compromised? Or like when EMC was spear-phished out of RSA tokens?
My concern isn't someone with a hundred Tesla cards cracking passwords. My concern is dumb admins and people falling for social-engineering.
--
BMO
Ok, this one always makes me laugh.
Since God (should he exist) is omnicient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, why does Satan have all this power if God doesn't let him?
Answer, please, if you can.
The god of the old testament especially seems like a petulant kid running his own "Sims Universe" like this guy:
"Hey, let's convince Abraham to kill his kid. It'll be hilarious!"
--
BMO
Look up the thread where I reference the TED talk.
--
BMO
--
BMO
Clearly he has his endians mixed up.
One little, two little, three little endians, four little, five little six little endians, seven little, eight little, nine little endians, ten little endian bytes.
--
BMO
http://blog.ted.com/2009/08/25/wireless_electr/
>2009
--
BMO
What the fuck am I reading?
--
BMO
Yes, if you are are on the board of a company, you have to file with the SEC whether you are acquiring or selling stocks.
I don't think Ballmer wants to go to jail.
He has enough money on his own now that if he just simply leaves, he doesn't have to worry about having to short the stock.
Remove thine fucking tinfoil.
--
BMO
>Could it be possible that he is shorting his own company's stock?
He has to disclose this, and if he was, it would be in the news because there are people who read SEC filings for fun and profit, so no.
--
BMO
> Now we are also littering in inter-stellar space.
>Do you know how freaking big the ticket for this will be?
Arlo Guthrie might even make a song about it.
--
BMO
> Linux distros I used definitely don't have that.
Then it's time to stop faffing around with shitty non-configurable desktop environments and sudo apt-get install kde-full in Ubuntu.
Linux is about choices. Make them instead of whining.
--
BMO
Well, that's the advantage of virtual machines.
Severe bondage and discipline for Windows OSes with no safeword.
--
BMO
>Let me know when Ubuntu can do something simple like change the amount of lines scrolled with the mouse wheel.
http://i.imgur.com/tfca6.png
Look how silly you are. Look.
--
BMO
...in virtual machines, because honestly, everything Vista and above is so freakin' huge.
And to what benefit all that resource suckage adds up to, I'm still not sure.
--
BMO
>The owner of the device is the entity that controls the keys.
THIS.
--
BMO
It's too bad you posted as AC. This needs more visibility.
--
BMO
Cars are mostly superior to horses.
It's your claim that keyboards and mice are buggywhips. Prove it. Prove that direct experience of those who have been poking and swiping at Windows 8 since the dev preview on desktops are wrong.
--
BMO
Oh yeah, I forgot...
>capacitive touch
Capacitive touch was mentioned in the Dynabook paper. Yes, that one. Capacitive touch predates resistive.
Also, NEC had a touchscreen that was neither resisitive nor capacitive. It had a grid of IR LEDs and photodiodes at the edges of the screen and detected where your finger was by what photodiode you blocked. It never ever had to be calibrated. It was nearly indestructable, too.
--
BMO
> which was also met with much criticism when it was introduced in a world of keyboard-centric software.
You know, I lived through that era and the era before that (the one where there were no microcomputers) and i knew of nobody who criticized the mouse.
I *did* know a lot of people who criticized the Macintosh for lacking a command line altogether, though, and the Lisa for being the expensive and slow machine it was, with rectangular pixels and the really weird floppies. I think you're confusing things. (Yes, the Lisa was slow. We had a later one in an office with the 3.5 inch floppies that ran our COGO program. You started it up and went to go make coffee. When you had coffee all set up, the machine was booted).
> It's not poking at the screen all day: it's poking at the screen where it makes sense and where/when touch is more convenient.
I am not some kid who has only known one kind of computer type through my life. My first experience with a computer was sitting at a paper TTY at the University of RI playing with my dad's homework running on the IBM 370. I have seen computers large and small and input methods from card stacks to the most frou-frou GUI that the industry has seen. I have farted around with 8 since the Dev Preview, within hours of its release. It's *not* convenient to be reaching up to touch the screen when you're sitting at a desk. It simply isn't. It's klunky.
As the size and distance of the screen and verticality increases, the klunkier it becomes. Orientation means something. Back before the days of CAD, drawing boards were canted at around 20-45 degrees. Nobody draws on a vertical surface. Touching a vertical surface to make sweeping gestures (akin to drawing) is a pain in the ass. Imagine an E size screen, vertically in front of you (because displays have been getting larger over time, not smaller) and you're required to touch the upper right or upper left or top part of the screen as 8 requires you to do so in metro mode.
Don't BS me.
Touch has its place. Trying to shoehorn it onto the desktop and laptop is one of the most misguided things I've ever seen, and then to call people who have tried it and criticize it based on their direct experience as "uninformed" at the very least, well, I have not enough middle fingers.
--
BMO
>depreciated
It's like I'm really on /g/.
--
BMO
Where did I introduce the false dichotomy?
I didn't say that touch is bad. I said it has its place. We could have been using touch in conjunction with keyboards, mice, and other input devices on office desktops for 30 years or more (Touchscreens actually go back a decade or so before that, and light pens even before that), but we haven't. There was no explosion of touch and light pens on the desktop. And as soon as the mouse showed up in large numbers, light pens pretty much disappeared, with LCD display technology putting the final nail in the light-pen coffin.
Because people actually dislike having to poke at a vertical surface all stupid day.
As the guy up in the thread there said, it's not because of Apple and Jobs that we hate touch on vertical surfaces, the hate goes back *much* farther than that.
--
BMO
It's funny how the criticisms of touch get brushed aside and people like you and SINternet insult the people criticizing.
"You haven't used it long enough!"
"You're a luddite!"
"You're lazy!"
"It's really great, you're just old!"
"Look, this 3 year old can open a program! If you don't like it, you're stupider than a 3 year old!"
And on and on it goes.
Good job selling us on this. Really. Good. Job.
> New things can take some getting used to
Hey, this isn't marmite in this sandwich. It smells like shit! Hey, wait...
"Just take smaller bites!"
--
BMO
Touchscreens have been around for decades. If pointing your arm at a vertical surface was such a hot idea for 8 hours a day, why have we not seen touchscreens being used everywhere for the last 30 years? NEC had an excellent touchscreen in the mid 80s. This isn't new technology and writing articles presenting it as new tech doesn't make it new.
Gorilla arm exists. Fatigue exists. Keyboards and other stuff are better input devices than touchscreens and probably always will be, except for the times you *can't* have a keyboard or mouse/tablet/trackball/etc., like a factory floor, restaurant, bar, hospital cart in sugery, etc, where dirt, grime, bodily fluids are a threat to operation, or where ease of portability trumps having a better input device, like tablets or phones (styluses are passe).
If touch was so superior for every day use, we'd already be using it.
--
BMO