In many (Most?) states, selling a substance AS a drug is still illegal, even if the drug is fake. Selling oregano is not illegal, selling fake marijuana is. Selling dish soap is not illegal. Selling fake cocaine is.
I do work in the software industry. I'm not complaining that there is a bug. I understand that you don't do a lot of review of existing code that has already left quality control. I am just pointing out why it is very likely that if the bug is in 2000, it is also very likely in XP. The reason is that I, and every responsible developer I know (when management allows), when faced with a security bug in code that is used across multiple products, will go and make the fix in all affected products.
I'm still trying to figure out Dateline isn't violating the law. If they are deputized, then I would think that there would be serious problems with entrapment. If they are not deputized, then they are offering sex with minors to adults. As I understand it, that would be illegal, just the same as selling oregano to an undercover cop, or offering prostitution services, even if you have no intent of going through with it.
You actually didn't provide any evidence that the problem doesn't affect XP or Vista, you just suggested that the two newer version should be trusted immediately after finding out that 2000 has a bug in an unlikely to be updated part of the system. The non-troll way of highlighting this information would be:
That is a problem. I am eagerly awaiting the tests of XP and Vista to see if this was fixed for them.
You could probably even slip a little bias in there without being called a troll with:
They are going to test with XP and Vista aren't they? After all, it should be trivial to test this on the newer systems if the cryptography hasn't been changed. I mean what kind of security researcher just assumes the functionality of a security system?
Of course, it would be a little silly to assume that this does not affect at least XP, as 2000 was still under maintenance when XP was released, so if the bug was found during the development of XP, it should have been fixed in 2000. It would look far worse for Microsoft if they KNEW about a security hole in 2000 while it was still under maintanace, and did not bother to back port the fix from XP.
I don't know if it is or is not, but I believe there was a movie called 'Demon Seed' with that plot similar to that, so that might be an avenue to find your book.
[Troll]
That's the problem with Windows. It doesn't Just Work(tm). You have to know these cryptic menus to edit databases just to keep your new USB drive from running whatever application happens to be on it. Maybe one day Microsoft could start doing some real usability testing and get Windows to be as easy for a new user as Linux.
[/Troll]
Great, so you support HR denying jobs to people who post that they had a great time that the barmitsva, or that their child just got straight As in school. After all, since
Nor do I believe that as an employer anything you choose to reveal about yourself should not be used in a decision whether or not to hire you.
You clearly feel that religion and parental status are fair game in refusing job applicants. I can honestly say that if I were your employer, and you had any authority over any other employees, I would be looking at replacing you as soon as possible, as you have now publicly stated that you feel anti-discrimination laws don't apply to you.
I agree. The other thing that people forget is that children often have access to vastly superior resources. Take for example the classic example of children learning languages easier than adults. When people point that out, they generally fail to notice that children tend to learn their language via total immersion and virtually everyone around them is happy to be a 24/7 personal tutor on the language. While most children can get by in their first language by 2 or 3 years only, they tend not to be what we would call fluent until 5 or 6. Give me a couple of full time language tutors and 5 years of total immersion with no need to remember my native tongue, and I will learn the new language too.
Which is why you should keep paying $30 for cables. I have never had a problem with the $1 cables, so I keep the other $29 for something else. Your experiences may be different, but your warning sounds like a lot of FUD. Of course it is worries like yours that keeps people paying $30 for a USB cable.
You mean like witch dunking? You know where you bring someone as close to drowning as possible without killing them so that they confess to whatever the tortur... er... wet boar... um... interrogator??? tells them too.
"Te Bush administration is also trying to make the argument in court that the constitution does not protect the privacy of email."
Which is why we need to all be using the 100% compatible system that uses all of the same applications, and protocols, but is called Electronic Papers, and Effects. This way it is clear that they are covered under the 4th amendment. Or at least get the major application writers to describe email as electron papers and effects, so that non-tech savvy judges can understand what it is, and that they should be protected.
The format war has been a very good thing for consumers. First, it has cause people who would normally not care, to ask what the difference between the formats are. This gives a very good opportunity to explain the DRM, since that is one of the two main differences. Secondly it has kept the movies on DVD from being discontinued. At the time that there is a 90% adoption rate on the next gen disks, you can be sure that the will try to force the last 10% by just not releasing movies on DVD. We don't use DVDs in my house for watching movies.
No, I would not assume that "you" means your entire environment, and I do not accept the carbon footprint being the real meaning, as once we fall into the, mode of interpreting what we think he really meant, we might as well pull out the bible, and start looking for passages that we can interpret to mean that we should buy hybrid cars. Remember, this is supposed to be a college level seminar that is supposed to be using solid clear science to convince people of global warming. When you are dealing with science, you don't leave people to figure out what you REALLY meant. We are not talking about a casual conversation after all.
Just for fun, since that is were we have moved to, I will argue the habitat line. I will also stretch a term. My habitat is the planet earth, and includes the atmosphere, so the only carbon footprint I am leaving is what escapes into space, although one could also stretch the term to mean our entire solar system , if not the whole universe. Any idea how much carbon we release through human activity out into space? I would assume that we have very little that has left the solar system, and none out of our galaxy. So, rest assured that my carbon foot print is 0. I'm just concerned with the entire galaxy, instead of being so short sighted as to only think of my metaphorical back yard.
The citation is the movie "An Inconvenient Truth". I even gave you a link to a clip of the movie that specifically states the quote. I don't know what you are babbling on about Wikipedia for. The video clip is absolute proof of the quote. If you think that the video is faked, then the only way you will believe it is if you source the video yourself. Just rent "An Inconvenient Truth", and watch the screen just before the ending credits. What would you accept as a valid citation for the quote if you wont accept the movie itself as evidence of what was said in the movie?
The quote is:
"In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero."
It is not:
"You can live your life in a carbon neutral way."
Let me state the quote one more time, as you seem to have a hard time reading it:
"In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero."
So, are you asking for a citation that Gore actually made the statement? Are you asking for a citation that breathing is a carbon emission? Or are you asking for a citation that not breathing leads to death?
Take a walk into a 99 cent store sometime. Most of them now carry USB and Firewire cables at... You guessed it... 99 Cents. It is hard to believe that people are spending upward of $20 for a cable that obviously can be sold for $1 at a profit.
I would rather have a machine build my house. Have you seen the quality of house building over the last 20 years? It is very very bad. We drive cars, eat candy bars, and have unrealistic fantasies about have sex with 20 year old russion housekeepers on mattresses that are all largely built by robots. (not the housekeepers) Why would you think that somehow we would not see the same kinds of improvements in house building that we see in other fields where automation has become mainstream?
Of course, some people have always complained about automation in new areas. It isn't until they start reaping the rewards that they come to accept it. I would even say that robots have been extremely common in American households for a very long time. The automatic clothes washer is a very good example. I don't know a single person that hires a sexy 20 year old Russian girl to hand wash their clothes. Every person I know loads their cloths up in their cloths washing robot, and takes them out when they are done.
That is why it is important to TEACH the children not to put things that are not food in their mouths. Left to their own devices, they will put all sorts of dangerous things there.
Honestly the best way I have found to keep my child safe is to first have taught him what 'dangerous' means. This requires pointing out to him when he does something dangerous, and gets hurt, that he got hurt from doing dangerous things. Then let him make choices on whether to dangerous things or not. Every child is going to dangerous things. When our child wants to do something dangerous, we evaluate just how dangerous, and if it is only going to hurt, and not permanently injure him, we will explain that it is dangerous and he might get hurt. We then let him decide if he wants to risk it. When he does get hurt, after proper comforting, we talk about it, and ask him if it was worth it. You might be amazed at how good he has become at making good decisions on risk. For example, he is fully aware that he risks falling down and getting hurt while playing tag, but has always said that it is worth it after an injury. He has decided that jumping from the back of the couch to the floor is not worth the risk, but that that doing the same thing with our tri-fold foam mats put out makes the risk worthwhile again.
The other piece is to teach them how to asses and mitigate the risks involved in an activity. Many parents do this, but most focus too finely on the specific task at hand. E.g. They make their kids where helmets while bike riding, or look both ways before crossing the street. A better plan is to talk about risk in general, and use the specific task as an example. This way the child learns how to lessen risk with new activities while your not around, and when to just walk away. So, if your kid REALLY wants to see what marbles in his mouth feels like, don't just tell them no. Tell them that it is dangerous, and come up with a plan on how to perform the experiment with as little risk as possible. For example, have them do it with adult supervision. Don't let them run around while they do it. Be prepared to tip them upside down and dig the marbles out if necessary. And if you are really paranoid, do it in the car outside of a hospital. Don't make the kid go hide somewhere to try out the experiment where they won't be found until it is too late. Of course all of this is good advice for adults as well, but is often not done for their own safety either.
This works well for things that are really messy too. When my son wants to know what will happen if he blows into the straw for his apple juice, I'm not going to tell him no. I'm going to take him outside and let him try it, because one way or the other his is going to do the experiment. He would rather do it with my encouragement than have me reprimanding him.
I was responding to the previous poster that said the chemical make up was not important, and that young kids shouldn't have small toys. I disagree with that poster, and I agree with you entirely.
The chemical make up is the important part because kids put their hands in their mouths. I would go even farther, and say it is just as import for adults, as adults are often eating in situation where hand washing, while a good idea, is impractical. As adults, we make the same assumptions about risk for ourselves. If we just changed the antifreeze in our car, and spilled it all over our hands, we might choose to skip eating those potato ships, while if we have been sitting in meetings all day, and someone offers us a mint, we might be inclined to pick it up with our unwashed hands and pop it in our mouth.
You are also correct in the statement that this toy is a particularly big problem in that it is designed to dissolve, thus transferring the chemicals to the child's (Or Adults) hands.
This is a toy that my wife had actually considered getting for our son, so all I can say is:
Are you saying the the quote is false? As, the [Citation Needed] is linked in the post.
Are you saying that when you exhale, you don't release carbon into the atmosphere? If so, you need to take a biology class.
Or, are you saying that you can survive for hours without breathing? If so, I would be very impressed by seeing a demonstration.
Ahh... but they are not pointless. By having the integrated peripherals, the manufacturer can sell to a wider audience with a single design. This leads to lower production costs, as well as making it cheaper for retail, as as they don't have to carry a bunch of different boards. Since the peripherals can be turned off, there is no negative for the customer that wants to use a card for the device, but there is a positive for the ones that are less picky.
I know I don't long for the days when the only port on the back of a PC was for a keyboard. Remember, mouse, usb, serial and perallel ports are all integrated peripherals also.
Let me chime in a parent that appears to have a very different attitude towards raising children, and who wouldn't think twice about giving their 3 year old a toy with a bunch of small beads. In fact my kid does have a tub of beads that he uses for a toy.
It really is not hard for a small child to be safely allowed to play with small toys. It just requires the parent to pay attention to their child. Paying attention to your child is unfortunately a very unpopular activity amongst parents these days, so toy manufacturers must label their toys as if the child will be using them unsupervised, and has had a neglected childhood. At 3, I don't worry that my child will swallow toys because he has been taught that you don't put thing in your mouth that are not food. Of course the only way that he could learn this is by being exposed to small toys while being supervised.
The current trend is to not expose kids to things until they are already experienced with those things. This leads to kids being retarded. People learn by experimenting, and depriving children of small objects will have a negative impact on their learning. In fact, I would have to ask, how bad a parent must be to have a 7 year old that cannot be trusted to play with beads without eating them.
Gore is an idiot. The real "Inconvenient Truth" is that following Gore's advice will kill you within minutes. I'm not convinced that mass suicide is really the right answer.
Slashdot Mirror
In many (Most?) states, selling a substance AS a drug is still illegal, even if the drug is fake. Selling oregano is not illegal, selling fake marijuana is. Selling dish soap is not illegal. Selling fake cocaine is.
I do work in the software industry. I'm not complaining that there is a bug. I understand that you don't do a lot of review of existing code that has already left quality control. I am just pointing out why it is very likely that if the bug is in 2000, it is also very likely in XP. The reason is that I, and every responsible developer I know (when management allows), when faced with a security bug in code that is used across multiple products, will go and make the fix in all affected products.
I'm still trying to figure out Dateline isn't violating the law. If they are deputized, then I would think that there would be serious problems with entrapment. If they are not deputized, then they are offering sex with minors to adults. As I understand it, that would be illegal, just the same as selling oregano to an undercover cop, or offering prostitution services, even if you have no intent of going through with it.
That is a problem. I am eagerly awaiting the tests of XP and Vista to see if this was fixed for them.
You could probably even slip a little bias in there without being called a troll with:
They are going to test with XP and Vista aren't they? After all, it should be trivial to test this on the newer systems if the cryptography hasn't been changed. I mean what kind of security researcher just assumes the functionality of a security system?
Of course, it would be a little silly to assume that this does not affect at least XP, as 2000 was still under maintenance when XP was released, so if the bug was found during the development of XP, it should have been fixed in 2000. It would look far worse for Microsoft if they KNEW about a security hole in 2000 while it was still under maintanace, and did not bother to back port the fix from XP.
I don't know if it is or is not, but I believe there was a movie called 'Demon Seed' with that plot similar to that, so that might be an avenue to find your book.
[Troll]
That's the problem with Windows. It doesn't Just Work(tm). You have to know these cryptic menus to edit databases just to keep your new USB drive from running whatever application happens to be on it. Maybe one day Microsoft could start doing some real usability testing and get Windows to be as easy for a new user as Linux.
[/Troll]
Nor do I believe that as an employer anything you choose to reveal about yourself should not be used in a decision whether or not to hire you.
You clearly feel that religion and parental status are fair game in refusing job applicants. I can honestly say that if I were your employer, and you had any authority over any other employees, I would be looking at replacing you as soon as possible, as you have now publicly stated that you feel anti-discrimination laws don't apply to you.
That was awsome. You had me going with the all things intuitive, AND you actually gave useful information. Bravo.
I agree. The other thing that people forget is that children often have access to vastly superior resources. Take for example the classic example of children learning languages easier than adults. When people point that out, they generally fail to notice that children tend to learn their language via total immersion and virtually everyone around them is happy to be a 24/7 personal tutor on the language. While most children can get by in their first language by 2 or 3 years only, they tend not to be what we would call fluent until 5 or 6. Give me a couple of full time language tutors and 5 years of total immersion with no need to remember my native tongue, and I will learn the new language too.
Which is why you should keep paying $30 for cables. I have never had a problem with the $1 cables, so I keep the other $29 for something else. Your experiences may be different, but your warning sounds like a lot of FUD. Of course it is worries like yours that keeps people paying $30 for a USB cable.
You mean like witch dunking? You know where you bring someone as close to drowning as possible without killing them so that they confess to whatever the tortur... er... wet boar... um... interrogator??? tells them too.
"Te Bush administration is also trying to make the argument in court that the constitution does not protect the privacy of email."
Which is why we need to all be using the 100% compatible system that uses all of the same applications, and protocols, but is called Electronic Papers, and Effects. This way it is clear that they are covered under the 4th amendment. Or at least get the major application writers to describe email as electron papers and effects, so that non-tech savvy judges can understand what it is, and that they should be protected.
Oops, accidentally deleted the end. We always rip them to the hard drive, and watch from there. We can't do that with HD-DVD or Blu-ray yet.
The format war has been a very good thing for consumers. First, it has cause people who would normally not care, to ask what the difference between the formats are. This gives a very good opportunity to explain the DRM, since that is one of the two main differences. Secondly it has kept the movies on DVD from being discontinued. At the time that there is a 90% adoption rate on the next gen disks, you can be sure that the will try to force the last 10% by just not releasing movies on DVD. We don't use DVDs in my house for watching movies.
No, I would not assume that "you" means your entire environment, and I do not accept the carbon footprint being the real meaning, as once we fall into the, mode of interpreting what we think he really meant, we might as well pull out the bible, and start looking for passages that we can interpret to mean that we should buy hybrid cars. Remember, this is supposed to be a college level seminar that is supposed to be using solid clear science to convince people of global warming. When you are dealing with science, you don't leave people to figure out what you REALLY meant. We are not talking about a casual conversation after all.
Just for fun, since that is were we have moved to, I will argue the habitat line. I will also stretch a term. My habitat is the planet earth, and includes the atmosphere, so the only carbon footprint I am leaving is what escapes into space, although one could also stretch the term to mean our entire solar system , if not the whole universe. Any idea how much carbon we release through human activity out into space? I would assume that we have very little that has left the solar system, and none out of our galaxy. So, rest assured that my carbon foot print is 0. I'm just concerned with the entire galaxy, instead of being so short sighted as to only think of my metaphorical back yard.
The citation is the movie "An Inconvenient Truth". I even gave you a link to a clip of the movie that specifically states the quote. I don't know what you are babbling on about Wikipedia for. The video clip is absolute proof of the quote. If you think that the video is faked, then the only way you will believe it is if you source the video yourself. Just rent "An Inconvenient Truth", and watch the screen just before the ending credits. What would you accept as a valid citation for the quote if you wont accept the movie itself as evidence of what was said in the movie?
The quote is:
"In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero."
It is not:
"You can live your life in a carbon neutral way."
Let me state the quote one more time, as you seem to have a hard time reading it:
"In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero."
So, are you asking for a citation that Gore actually made the statement? Are you asking for a citation that breathing is a carbon emission? Or are you asking for a citation that not breathing leads to death?
Take a walk into a 99 cent store sometime. Most of them now carry USB and Firewire cables at... You guessed it... 99 Cents. It is hard to believe that people are spending upward of $20 for a cable that obviously can be sold for $1 at a profit.
I would rather have a machine build my house. Have you seen the quality of house building over the last 20 years? It is very very bad. We drive cars, eat candy bars, and have unrealistic fantasies about have sex with 20 year old russion housekeepers on mattresses that are all largely built by robots. (not the housekeepers) Why would you think that somehow we would not see the same kinds of improvements in house building that we see in other fields where automation has become mainstream?
Of course, some people have always complained about automation in new areas. It isn't until they start reaping the rewards that they come to accept it. I would even say that robots have been extremely common in American households for a very long time. The automatic clothes washer is a very good example. I don't know a single person that hires a sexy 20 year old Russian girl to hand wash their clothes. Every person I know loads their cloths up in their cloths washing robot, and takes them out when they are done.
Daleks are not robots. They are cyborgs.
That is why it is important to TEACH the children not to put things that are not food in their mouths. Left to their own devices, they will put all sorts of dangerous things there.
Honestly the best way I have found to keep my child safe is to first have taught him what 'dangerous' means. This requires pointing out to him when he does something dangerous, and gets hurt, that he got hurt from doing dangerous things. Then let him make choices on whether to dangerous things or not. Every child is going to dangerous things. When our child wants to do something dangerous, we evaluate just how dangerous, and if it is only going to hurt, and not permanently injure him, we will explain that it is dangerous and he might get hurt. We then let him decide if he wants to risk it. When he does get hurt, after proper comforting, we talk about it, and ask him if it was worth it. You might be amazed at how good he has become at making good decisions on risk. For example, he is fully aware that he risks falling down and getting hurt while playing tag, but has always said that it is worth it after an injury. He has decided that jumping from the back of the couch to the floor is not worth the risk, but that that doing the same thing with our tri-fold foam mats put out makes the risk worthwhile again.
The other piece is to teach them how to asses and mitigate the risks involved in an activity. Many parents do this, but most focus too finely on the specific task at hand. E.g. They make their kids where helmets while bike riding, or look both ways before crossing the street. A better plan is to talk about risk in general, and use the specific task as an example. This way the child learns how to lessen risk with new activities while your not around, and when to just walk away. So, if your kid REALLY wants to see what marbles in his mouth feels like, don't just tell them no. Tell them that it is dangerous, and come up with a plan on how to perform the experiment with as little risk as possible. For example, have them do it with adult supervision. Don't let them run around while they do it. Be prepared to tip them upside down and dig the marbles out if necessary. And if you are really paranoid, do it in the car outside of a hospital. Don't make the kid go hide somewhere to try out the experiment where they won't be found until it is too late. Of course all of this is good advice for adults as well, but is often not done for their own safety either.
This works well for things that are really messy too. When my son wants to know what will happen if he blows into the straw for his apple juice, I'm not going to tell him no. I'm going to take him outside and let him try it, because one way or the other his is going to do the experiment. He would rather do it with my encouragement than have me reprimanding him.
I was responding to the previous poster that said the chemical make up was not important, and that young kids shouldn't have small toys. I disagree with that poster, and I agree with you entirely.
The chemical make up is the important part because kids put their hands in their mouths. I would go even farther, and say it is just as import for adults, as adults are often eating in situation where hand washing, while a good idea, is impractical. As adults, we make the same assumptions about risk for ourselves. If we just changed the antifreeze in our car, and spilled it all over our hands, we might choose to skip eating those potato ships, while if we have been sitting in meetings all day, and someone offers us a mint, we might be inclined to pick it up with our unwashed hands and pop it in our mouth.
You are also correct in the statement that this toy is a particularly big problem in that it is designed to dissolve, thus transferring the chemicals to the child's (Or Adults) hands.
This is a toy that my wife had actually considered getting for our son, so all I can say is:
Procrastination Saves The Day Again!
I'm not sure what you are saying...
Are you saying the the quote is false? As, the [Citation Needed] is linked in the post.
Are you saying that when you exhale, you don't release carbon into the atmosphere? If so, you need to take a biology class.
Or, are you saying that you can survive for hours without breathing? If so, I would be very impressed by seeing a demonstration.
Ahh... but they are not pointless. By having the integrated peripherals, the manufacturer can sell to a wider audience with a single design. This leads to lower production costs, as well as making it cheaper for retail, as as they don't have to carry a bunch of different boards. Since the peripherals can be turned off, there is no negative for the customer that wants to use a card for the device, but there is a positive for the ones that are less picky.
I know I don't long for the days when the only port on the back of a PC was for a keyboard. Remember, mouse, usb, serial and perallel ports are all integrated peripherals also.
Let me chime in a parent that appears to have a very different attitude towards raising children, and who wouldn't think twice about giving their 3 year old a toy with a bunch of small beads. In fact my kid does have a tub of beads that he uses for a toy.
It really is not hard for a small child to be safely allowed to play with small toys. It just requires the parent to pay attention to their child. Paying attention to your child is unfortunately a very unpopular activity amongst parents these days, so toy manufacturers must label their toys as if the child will be using them unsupervised, and has had a neglected childhood. At 3, I don't worry that my child will swallow toys because he has been taught that you don't put thing in your mouth that are not food. Of course the only way that he could learn this is by being exposed to small toys while being supervised.
The current trend is to not expose kids to things until they are already experienced with those things. This leads to kids being retarded. People learn by experimenting, and depriving children of small objects will have a negative impact on their learning. In fact, I would have to ask, how bad a parent must be to have a 7 year old that cannot be trusted to play with beads without eating them.
In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero.
Al Gore