...And then someone will make a product that fools the caller-id spoofing preventer.
I don't see how it would be too easy to legally sell or possess the product...What's its legitimate use? I really don't think "The technique could mask the identity of a bill collector or enable a private investigator to fool someone into answering the phone on the false belief it was a friend or relative." would fly.
"Having a gun and presenting it to an attacker does nothing. It does not prevent that person from injuring or killing you, it does not deter a home invasion, it does not make a unsafe neighborhood any safer."
Even if presenting it doesn't, shooting the attacker can save your life, end or prevent a home invasion, and make the neighborhood safer. That's why I have the gun in the first place.
I understand the need to start eliminating weakness, as it's spreading like a plague, but letting combat solve all disputes would virtually end justice. If two people feel their honor compels them to hack each other apart, I wouldn't stop them, but if one is a thief or a murderer, he shouldn't be able to escape by winning a duel against the person he robbed or a relative of the person he killed.
Fantasy witchcraft/magic isn't Biblical witchcraft/magic... Unfortunately, the word "witchcraft" causes a lot of knee-jerk reactions in fundamentalist circles.
Even "magic" as a whole wasn't presented as evil in Narnia. The White Witch's powers came from an evil source and were used for evil, Aslan's came from God (more or less) and were used for good, and the wizard's in Voyage of the Dawn Treader came from himself and were used for whatever he wished.
Pretty slow by today's standards (still better than my k6-2 at 350 Mhz), but, yes, there's nothing incredible about making a computer with those specs run Linux. Making different things run Linux is more of an inside joke or geek art. It's amusing, though not amazing.
He underwent surgery in 1997. That doesn't mean that it was the first year he couldn't chew or eat normal food. The wording "and since then" is the mistake, I would think, because it makes it seem as though 1997 were the first year.
I don't agree with the post you're replying to (software pirates aren't burglars), but if a thief breaks into a house, they have only themselves to blame if they get shot by the owner, get electrocuted by a security mechanism, or trip over the cat and break their neck.
Now, if the owner has the thief cornered and gets him to surrender, THEN shoots him, the owner is in the wrong. But while the thief is still a potential threat, or if the thief is in the process of escaping with stolen items, he's fair game. The owner of the house isn't acting as judge, jury, or executioner...He's acting as someone who doesn't want to get robbed, killed, raped, or any combination thereof.
During the Clintonista years I was hearing a similar message from my more "hard-core" right-wing friends....who were discussing becoming renegades. It's blustering, and most people that talk about it won't go through with it (much like suicide). The ones that actually think it's the solution go through with it quietly (Johnny Depp and his ilk don't count, they're just grabbing attention).
I'm fairly disgusted with Washington DC right now, but I don't plan to leave. I'd be very surprised if someone could point out a nation to flee to that would actually be an improvement. I can only hope, and try to encourage, that we break out of this snare of a two-party system (and for the love of God, don't turn things over to the Greens).
Yes, they were. That's why I stopped considering myself a Republican shortly after September 11th. No, I don't consider myself a Democrat, because most of them support this crap too.
The Republican Party appeals to (roughly) one half of America, the Democrats to the other half. When it really counts, they both act in the best interest of the Government.
The freedoms that one party claims to idealize will be meaningless without the freedoms the other claims to idealize. Owning a firearm won't mean anything when there are cameras at every corner. Free speech won't mean anything if you can be whisked away the moment you seem like a real danger. Being able to say a prayer at work or school won't mean anything if what you're truly forced to place your faith in is the state.
Replacing the "S" in something one finds expensive with a "$" isn't just used in "Micro$oft". I've seen it used in context that wasn't even computer related (in discussion of cars, for example)...It's been around longer than MS has. It's not a comment about the quality, it's a comment about the price (though when it's combined with "windoze", "winblows", etc, I agree that it seems childish).
Well, the reporter isn't necessarily under that misconception. Remember, lots of people that read the news are barely literate; he may just be clearing things up for the idiots who think there's no more danger from the worms.
"However, if you gunned down my family, but there was no evidence of you coming after me, then my actions to kill you are in vengeance, and therefore murder also. Revenge should be equally punishable."
This is a bit off the original topic, but killing someone who gunned down a whole family shouldn't be punishable, period. Whether revenge was the motive or not is meaningless; they're removing a menace to society from the world.
Frankly, I'd be lenient on someone who killed for a "revenge" cause, if the provocation had been serious. If the person they killed was a killer on the run, I'd let them walk free, maybe with a medal.
I agree, making them available for recovering alcoholics and smokers would seem to be the best use. As long as they aren't actually forced on anyone, save maybe people who've committed major crimes while under the influence.
Of course the religious right isn't the only group. I'd be surprised if very many politicians disagree with it at all.
How many politicians outside the UK equivalent of the Libertarian and Green parties aren't willing to do pretty much anything to fight the Evil Drug Menace? There are very few here.
I agree with you overall, but what exactly constitutes "bad guys"? Everyone hates spammers and virus spreaders, but there are many people who would expand on that.
Say there's a site promoting racism, that isn't urging its members to violence, just spouting off. Quite a few vigilantes will want to go after that site, but quite a few will also consider the site permissible due to online freedom of speech. The vigilantes of the latter sort would look at the former sort as criminals.
What about people who believe pornographic site are wrong? Violence/Grossout sites? Homosexual sites? Homophobic sites?
When vigilantes who feel they're justified for religious or political reasons get thrown into the mix, it could get ugly.
Yes, it would have made more sense for the person to have just emailed those that run the system first (or did he?).
But, there's still a problem with the analogy. If all the neighbors were trusting your friend to keep things safe for them in his house, and he always left the door unlocked, it would be your responsibility to tell them.
Well, twins and isolated young children often develop their own language...to an extent. Communicating is instinctive; refined and specific methods of doing it (talking versus growling, grunting, humming, etc) must be taught. I guess a few especially bright people decided to add certain things, and were able to get others to accept them.
Of course, I'm not a psychologist or an anthropologist, though I've read a decent amount on the subject.
Slashdot Mirror
...And then someone will make a product that fools the caller-id spoofing preventer.
I don't see how it would be too easy to legally sell or possess the product...What's its legitimate use? I really don't think "The technique could mask the identity of a bill collector or enable a private investigator to fool someone into answering the phone on the false belief it was a friend or relative." would fly.
...Do you also think Bill Gatus is a "misspelling"?
It's (supposed to be) humorous.
"Having a gun and presenting it to an attacker does nothing. It does not prevent that person from injuring or killing you, it does not deter a home invasion, it does not make a unsafe neighborhood any safer."
Even if presenting it doesn't, shooting the attacker can save your life, end or prevent a home invasion, and make the neighborhood safer. That's why I have the gun in the first place.
I don't know if UH would let me replace the current walls with glass.
I understand the need to start eliminating weakness, as it's spreading like a plague, but letting combat solve all disputes would virtually end justice. If two people feel their honor compels them to hack each other apart, I wouldn't stop them, but if one is a thief or a murderer, he shouldn't be able to escape by winning a duel against the person he robbed or a relative of the person he killed.
Fantasy witchcraft/magic isn't Biblical witchcraft/magic... Unfortunately, the word "witchcraft" causes a lot of knee-jerk reactions in fundamentalist circles.
Even "magic" as a whole wasn't presented as evil in Narnia. The White Witch's powers came from an evil source and were used for evil, Aslan's came from God (more or less) and were used for good, and the wizard's in Voyage of the Dawn Treader came from himself and were used for whatever he wished.
Pretty slow by today's standards (still better than my k6-2 at 350 Mhz), but, yes, there's nothing incredible about making a computer with those specs run Linux. Making different things run Linux is more of an inside joke or geek art. It's amusing, though not amazing.
He underwent surgery in 1997. That doesn't mean that it was the first year he couldn't chew or eat normal food. The wording "and since then" is the mistake, I would think, because it makes it seem as though 1997 were the first year.
Doesn't someone usually post a similar list, too? :D
Of course. Technologically primitive doesn't necessarily mean socially primitive...and they're only the former out of choice anyway.
I don't agree with the post you're replying to (software pirates aren't burglars), but if a thief breaks into a house, they have only themselves to blame if they get shot by the owner, get electrocuted by a security mechanism, or trip over the cat and break their neck.
Now, if the owner has the thief cornered and gets him to surrender, THEN shoots him, the owner is in the wrong. But while the thief is still a potential threat, or if the thief is in the process of escaping with stolen items, he's fair game. The owner of the house isn't acting as judge, jury, or executioner...He's acting as someone who doesn't want to get robbed, killed, raped, or any combination thereof.
You mean this?
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/cjd/cjd.htm
During the Clintonista years I was hearing a similar message from my more "hard-core" right-wing friends....who were discussing becoming renegades. It's blustering, and most people that talk about it won't go through with it (much like suicide). The ones that actually think it's the solution go through with it quietly (Johnny Depp and his ilk don't count, they're just grabbing attention).
I'm fairly disgusted with Washington DC right now, but I don't plan to leave. I'd be very surprised if someone could point out a nation to flee to that would actually be an improvement. I can only hope, and try to encourage, that we break out of this snare of a two-party system (and for the love of God, don't turn things over to the Greens).
Yes, they were. That's why I stopped considering myself a Republican shortly after September 11th. No, I don't consider myself a Democrat, because most of them support this crap too.
The Republican Party appeals to (roughly) one half of America, the Democrats to the other half. When it really counts, they both act in the best interest of the Government.
The freedoms that one party claims to idealize will be meaningless without the freedoms the other claims to idealize. Owning a firearm won't mean anything when there are cameras at every corner. Free speech won't mean anything if you can be whisked away the moment you seem like a real danger. Being able to say a prayer at work or school won't mean anything if what you're truly forced to place your faith in is the state.
He was being witty; it was a pun on their name. The questioning of their grammar was part of the joke.
I'd have marked it as Funny due to the Freudian slip, myself.
Replacing the "S" in something one finds expensive with a "$" isn't just used in "Micro$oft". I've seen it used in context that wasn't even computer related (in discussion of cars, for example)...It's been around longer than MS has. It's not a comment about the quality, it's a comment about the price (though when it's combined with "windoze", "winblows", etc, I agree that it seems childish).
I don't know why you got modded as Troll, because you stated the truth in honest and to-the-point terms...
Oh, wait...
Well, the reporter isn't necessarily under that misconception. Remember, lots of people that read the news are barely literate; he may just be clearing things up for the idiots who think there's no more danger from the worms.
"However, if you gunned down my family, but there was no evidence of you coming after me, then my actions to kill you are in vengeance, and therefore murder also. Revenge should be equally punishable."
This is a bit off the original topic, but killing someone who gunned down a whole family shouldn't be punishable, period. Whether revenge was the motive or not is meaningless; they're removing a menace to society from the world.
Frankly, I'd be lenient on someone who killed for a "revenge" cause, if the provocation had been serious. If the person they killed was a killer on the run, I'd let them walk free, maybe with a medal.
I agree, making them available for recovering alcoholics and smokers would seem to be the best use. As long as they aren't actually forced on anyone, save maybe people who've committed major crimes while under the influence.
Of course the religious right isn't the only group. I'd be surprised if very many politicians disagree with it at all.
How many politicians outside the UK equivalent of the Libertarian and Green parties aren't willing to do pretty much anything to fight the Evil Drug Menace? There are very few here.
I agree with you overall, but what exactly constitutes "bad guys"? Everyone hates spammers and virus spreaders, but there are many people who would expand on that.
Say there's a site promoting racism, that isn't urging its members to violence, just spouting off. Quite a few vigilantes will want to go after that site, but quite a few will also consider the site permissible due to online freedom of speech. The vigilantes of the latter sort would look at the former sort as criminals.
What about people who believe pornographic site are wrong? Violence/Grossout sites? Homosexual sites? Homophobic sites?
When vigilantes who feel they're justified for religious or political reasons get thrown into the mix, it could get ugly.
Yes, it would have made more sense for the person to have just emailed those that run the system first (or did he?).
But, there's still a problem with the analogy. If all the neighbors were trusting your friend to keep things safe for them in his house, and he always left the door unlocked, it would be your responsibility to tell them.
Well, twins and isolated young children often develop their own language...to an extent. Communicating is instinctive; refined and specific methods of doing it (talking versus growling, grunting, humming, etc) must be taught. I guess a few especially bright people decided to add certain things, and were able to get others to accept them.
Of course, I'm not a psychologist or an anthropologist, though I've read a decent amount on the subject.