But, when putting in my PIN, I typically rest several fingers on different numbers, move my hand around, and punch my PIN in that way, obscuring what I'm doing (not the typical one finger, one press approach).
I do it too -- I start at the top row, one finger per button, and then slide my hand down the keypad making contact with every button but only putting pressure on the one button that needs pushing. I repeat the process for each digit but make sure to slide my hand across the entire keypad each time. It didn't take much practice to get good at it, it still takes a little bit longer than just punching the numbers in directly, but not enough to matter.
I guess some cowardly little turds who spend their time trolling and winding other people have mod points today.
I think this post pretty much sums up your level of clarity of thought here. Anyone up-modding your early post should see this one before nodding along in agreement.
The correct answer "depends on jurisdiction," but in most jurisdictions, witnessing a felony without reporting it is itself a felony. So, no, you are wrong about that.
I'm pretty sure you are wrong about that. But if you would like to provide a citation that shows otherwise I would love to see it.
It is only a felony if someone asks you for it in the first place.
Even if that happens, well you thought it had been accidentally deleted but when your whiz-kid nephew was poking around at it 6 months later, he was able to recover it. That poindexter is such a smart kid!
That would be an interesting and a not too hard a project, I am assuming. So this in turn would imply that there would already be an option in the kernel to do it right? So why not improve the performance of gaming or computation systems by recompiling the kernel to do this?
I suspect they are using some form of real-time extensions to the linux kernel. One thing they all share in common is little to no OS functionality is available to applications that are running real-time because, it is almost always the case that as soon as you ask the kernel to do something for you, all bets are off as to when it will get done or even when you will get scheduled back on to your cpu.
So, in order for a game to take advantage it would need to isolate out whatever parts of the code are performance and dead-line critical so they wouldn't need to interact with the OS. And then the user would have to install and boot a linux kernel with the real-time stuff turned out.
Also, FWIW, real-time is not about speeding up computation, it is about hitting your deadlines exactly when they need to be hit - not too soon, not too late. In many cases you trade off computational performance in exchange for the ability to meet those deadlines.
All it takes is to normal-click and the pause for like a second while you hold the mouse button down which isn't such a rare thing for many users to do, especially the older ones with less pliable minds who sometimes have to take a second or two to figure out what they are doing. It seems eminently discoverable to me, because, well, that's how I discovered it.
The point of protest/demonstration doesn't seem to me to be to cause pain or even inconvenience. It's to make visible your opinion.
And inconvenience is one way of going about it. Sit-in's being one of the most common. We saw a big one recently in the Wisconsin capital building for about a month, that inconvenienced a lot of regular people, not just politicians, who just wanted to go about their business in peace.
What color is the sky on your planet? The USA is seeing record-high numbers of people without jobs.
Not for the well educated. As a class the recession has barely touched them.
The first option is to search everyone. This is getting flak because it is stupid. The second option is to search nobody, but profile instead. This offends people who insist on their right to stay anonymous.
Or we can just cut that shit out all together. The TSA has not caught a single terrorist. They haven't even deterred a single terrorist because it's not like terrorists just give up and go home, they pick an easier target and there have been no significant alternate targets - no malls, no movie theaters, no sports arenas, not even a derailed train which even a "lone wolf" could pull off easily enough. The only reason we haven't had airplanes blowing up right and left is because the threat is miniscule. Lets stop throwing away our money, dignity and freedom and get on with life.
Do you dispute the basic math that tracking 2nd and 3rd order associations grows exponentially?
For sure I do. The number of potenial first order connections between n people is n^2 not 2^n.
What part of 2nd and 3rd do you fail to understand?
Seriously, who do you think are fooling with that shit? You can't back up one damn thing you said in this entire thread. Do you think that shit actually convinces anyone of your argument? Seems more like the actions of person with an ego so fragile that they have to make up lies in order to feel good about themselves in a freaking anonymous environment. You'd be hard pressed to paint a worse portrait of yourself than that.
You are the one making assertions. So far nada, zip, zilch.
I fly regularly through Ben Gurion and it is one of the easiest airports to go through among the ones I regularly visit.
Congrats on being one of the chosen people.
Fully referenced made up statement: "costs grow up exponentially".
Uh yeah, it was referenced. Do you dispute the basic math that tracking 2nd and 3rd order associations grows exponentially?
Meanwhile, you are the one who asserted that costs would grow linearly. You made that assertion first. I see we are the point where you've realized everything you've claimed is just hand-waving and aren't willing to own any of it. I guess that's as good a basis for designing airport security in the US as using the TSA was. I mean hurrah for simplistic and anecdotal analysis, that always works out great!
All regulators are being captured. Captured regulators don't do their job. Problem is I think that the politicians WANT the regulators to be captured.
It's not just the politicians. The regulators want it too. Even the non-government ones. Look at Standard & Poors - they are effectively a non-government regulator of the financial services market. But they sold out to the big investment houses like Gold Man-Sacks and rated their CDO's AAA when they were garbage just to keep the money flowing in to S&P.
"We don't want protesters interfering with the actual running of the system. Feel free to protest, but don't do it where people are actually trying to use the transportation system."
As someone who actually uses BART to get around, I very much appreciate them doing this.
Tough noogies. You live in a free society and freedom ain't free. One of the costs of that freedom is suffering the right of people to protest. The entire point of protesting is to get up in the way of regular people and make them notice. If BART were 100% private property, you'd have an argument. But being a government subsidised form of public transportation putting up with the occasional group of people doing their civic duty is part of your civic duty.
Again with the uncited claims. I say you are lying. At a bare minimum every single israeli passenger walks through a metal detector. Furthermore they are all subject to 'profiling' which is very much racially based but not solely racial. Israel is happy to be a racist society, we aren't israel.
It is actually quite within scale. Population in Israel is 1/50th of the USA. GDP is 1/100th. So whatever they do we can do something that is 200x bigger.
It doesn't work like that. The costs grow exponentially with size if not faster - for example, israel's screening requires highly-trained people. In the US there is a lot more opportunity for smart people, and airport screening isn't a very sexy job. You can't just pay the same and expect to get the same level of abilities. Plus, israel's system relies on intelligence gathering about each passenger, setting aside the social costs of such a surveillance society, simply tracking 2nd and 3rd order associations between people gets exponentially harder as the number of people grow.
It only takes one to kill you, sure, but traditionally farmers change thousands of them at a time. Now we're only changing a few of them. Fewer chances that a carcinogenic one is going to be increased. How is that less safe?
For one thing they were cross-breeding plants that were generally both human edible to begin with. The GMO guys are deliberately splicing together food crops with genes from non-food crops.
For another thing, traditionally farmers did their own crops, so one deadly mutant wasn't going to end up in the daily meals of hundreds of millions of people - good cross-breeds would still take decades to be widely adopted by other farmers as the new breed proved it self.
Really if the terrorist can impersonate a pilot he has no need for a weapon at all.
He only needs to impersonate a pilot far enough to get past security, he doesn't need to get into the cockpit. Once past security there is nothing stopping such a person from just handing off a briefcase full of explosives to the guy who will actually board a plane.
Say they are improperly rushed through because they need to get to their plane?
That's basically what this CrewPass thing does.
Wouldn't work you say? That's what they do in Israel.
Really? I'd like to see a cite for exactly how they do it, I suspect you are glossing the details. But you know what? Even if true and pilots in Israeli don't get searched there it isn't likely to be feasible here. All of the Israeli airports combined do about the same number of passengers per year as O'Hare does alone in 4 months. The scale of the comparison isn't even close.
Good now you understand that I totally understood your argument from post 1.
You are wrong. Quality is what matters, not quantity. See my original example where the levels of single metabolite out of a thousand is all it takes to kill you. In other words, focusing on the numbers doesn't prove anything either way.
I think that neither one carries much risk, given that testing has been done in both cases.
I suggest you look into the kind of testing that gets done for GMO crops. All the GMO fanboism in this thread caused me to go looking. So far, what I've found is that testing is minimal. It looks like Monsanto's testing of their GMO corn (which is in practically every American's diet and has been for about a decade now) seems to be nothing more than limited animal testing for no more than 90 days. Furthermore there have been exactly zero epidemiological studies of the effects of GMO corn (or any other GMO foodstuffs) on the population in general and actual human feeding trials of any GMO products have been extremely limited, so far I've only found one.
Apparently the FDA recently created new GMO testing requirements, at least for actual animals like salmon, I don't know about crops and I'd be surprised if stuff already on the market wasn't grandfathered -- known carcinogenic pesticides on the market back in 1972 were grandfathered when DDT was banned. But even these new testing requirements seem to be pretty lax, but I have yet to find the exact requirements to say for sure.
You're missing my point: MORE METABOLITES ARE CHANGED WITH NATURAL METHODS.
No, I got it the first time. You believe that all metabolites are of equal risk, so the more difference there is, the higher the risk. Is that a fair restatement of your premise?
I see no reason to assume that the small number of metabolites changed with GMO would be the toxic ones.
No more reason to assume that the small number of metabolites changed would not be the toxic ones. The fact is that a criteria that is just simply counting the changes does not say anything one way or the other about the nature of the changes. Its like saying this bucket of oranges is identical to that bucket of avocados because the number of fruits in each is the same.
What controls? Like the 90 days of testing Monsanto did on their gmo corn? Or the zero days of testing that the FDA requires for new gmo foods? Or the lone(!) human feeding study of gmo foods? Or how about the zero epidemiological studies of general gmo food consumption?
I got into this argument for one reason -- to show that the "it's natural so it must be safe" argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. But after seeing the massive fanboism here you all have caused me to do just the barest minimum of research on your claims and what I found has convinced me that this GMO stuff is seriously under-tested. That's pretty fucked up for something that over 90% of the US population unwittingly consumes on a regular basis.
Boo fucking Hoo. Some people might possibly have health problems we can't foresee in ten years is your reasoning to stop the advancement of biology and nutrition science
So, let me get this straight. A million people die of cancer 15 years down the road because of an unintended side-effect of say, GMO corn, and you think that's no big deal?
Out here in the real world us human beings have to take risks to get anywhere in life.
Yeah, why don't we do away with the FDA completely? Just put anything and everything on the market and let people decide on their own, amiright?
So far in the Genetically Modified Foods debate, I've been arguing that, since the genes spliced into GMOs are genes that already exist in nature, GMOs really aren't the nightmarish cancer-causing foodstuffs people make them out to be
The problem with that line of reasoning is that we've had hundreds of thousands of years to figure out what plants are safe to eat. When you mix-and-match genes, be they totally artificial or transplants from other species, you don't know what the outcome will be. It's entirely possible that this brand new combination will produce un-expected side-effects.
Obvious side-effects like producing massive quantities of arsenic will get noticed before it ever leaves the lab. But something more subtle that doesn't manifest in any symptoms until ten years later and then only in certain people, perhaps those with a certain type of allergy, could easily become wide-spread in our food supply, affecting millions of people long after it was too late to do anything about it.
Just because its "natural" doesn't mean it's safe.
Slashdot Mirror
But, when putting in my PIN, I typically rest several fingers on different numbers, move my hand around, and punch my PIN in that way, obscuring what I'm doing (not the typical one finger, one press approach).
I do it too -- I start at the top row, one finger per button, and then slide my hand down the keypad making contact with every button but only putting pressure on the one button that needs pushing. I repeat the process for each digit but make sure to slide my hand across the entire keypad each time. It didn't take much practice to get good at it, it still takes a little bit longer than just punching the numbers in directly, but not enough to matter.
Modded down 2 points already.
I guess some cowardly little turds who spend their time trolling and winding other people have mod points today.
I think this post pretty much sums up your level of clarity of thought here. Anyone up-modding your early post should see this one before nodding along in agreement.
The correct answer "depends on jurisdiction," but in most jurisdictions, witnessing a felony without reporting it is itself a felony. So, no, you are wrong about that.
I'm pretty sure you are wrong about that. But if you would like to provide a citation that shows otherwise I would love to see it.
Their apples definitely taste like chicken. Comes from sitting too close to the fryer.
Withholding evidence is not only a felony,
It is only a felony if someone asks you for it in the first place.
Even if that happens, well you thought it had been accidentally deleted but when your whiz-kid nephew was poking around at it 6 months later, he was able to recover it. That poindexter is such a smart kid!
That would be an interesting and a not too hard a project, I am assuming. So this in turn would imply that there would already be an option in the kernel to do it right? So why not improve the performance of gaming or computation systems by recompiling the kernel to do this?
I suspect they are using some form of real-time extensions to the linux kernel. One thing they all share in common is little to no OS functionality is available to applications that are running real-time because, it is almost always the case that as soon as you ask the kernel to do something for you, all bets are off as to when it will get done or even when you will get scheduled back on to your cpu.
So, in order for a game to take advantage it would need to isolate out whatever parts of the code are performance and dead-line critical so they wouldn't need to interact with the OS. And then the user would have to install and boot a linux kernel with the real-time stuff turned out.
Also, FWIW, real-time is not about speeding up computation, it is about hitting your deadlines exactly when they need to be hit - not too soon, not too late. In many cases you trade off computational performance in exchange for the ability to meet those deadlines.
as it is the feature is totally undiscoverable,
All it takes is to normal-click and the pause for like a second while you hold the mouse button down which isn't such a rare thing for many users to do, especially the older ones with less pliable minds who sometimes have to take a second or two to figure out what they are doing. It seems eminently discoverable to me, because, well, that's how I discovered it.
NO! NO! Protesting is not about bothering regular people.
Public spaces are for everybody, they are not single-purpose. Don't like it? Stick to private property.
Regular people are then entitled to mow you down, or advocate mowing you down.
Yes, because assault is the moral equivalent of inconvenience. What is wrong with you?
The point of protest/demonstration doesn't seem to me to be to cause pain or even inconvenience. It's to make visible your opinion.
And inconvenience is one way of going about it. Sit-in's being one of the most common. We saw a big one recently in the Wisconsin capital building for about a month, that inconvenienced a lot of regular people, not just politicians, who just wanted to go about their business in peace.
What color is the sky on your planet? The USA is seeing record-high numbers of people without jobs.
Not for the well educated. As a class the recession has barely touched them.
The first option is to search everyone. This is getting flak because it is stupid. The second option is to search nobody, but profile instead. This offends people who insist on their right to stay anonymous.
Or we can just cut that shit out all together. The TSA has not caught a single terrorist. They haven't even deterred a single terrorist because it's not like terrorists just give up and go home, they pick an easier target and there have been no significant alternate targets - no malls, no movie theaters, no sports arenas, not even a derailed train which even a "lone wolf" could pull off easily enough. The only reason we haven't had airplanes blowing up right and left is because the threat is miniscule. Lets stop throwing away our money, dignity and freedom and get on with life.
Do you dispute the basic math that tracking 2nd and 3rd order associations grows exponentially?
For sure I do. The number of potenial first order connections between n people is n^2 not 2^n.
What part of 2nd and 3rd do you fail to understand?
Seriously, who do you think are fooling with that shit? You can't back up one damn thing you said in this entire thread. Do you think that shit actually convinces anyone of your argument? Seems more like the actions of person with an ego so fragile that they have to make up lies in order to feel good about themselves in a freaking anonymous environment. You'd be hard pressed to paint a worse portrait of yourself than that.
Right, because yours are full of references.
You are the one making assertions.
So far nada, zip, zilch.
I fly regularly through Ben Gurion and it is one of the easiest airports to go through among the ones I regularly visit.
Congrats on being one of the chosen people.
Fully referenced made up statement: "costs grow up exponentially".
Uh yeah, it was referenced. Do you dispute the basic math that tracking 2nd and 3rd order associations grows exponentially?
Meanwhile, you are the one who asserted that costs would grow linearly. You made that assertion first. I see we are the point where you've realized everything you've claimed is just hand-waving and aren't willing to own any of it. I guess that's as good a basis for designing airport security in the US as using the TSA was. I mean hurrah for simplistic and anecdotal analysis, that always works out great!
All regulators are being captured. Captured regulators don't do their job. Problem is I think that the politicians WANT the regulators to be captured.
It's not just the politicians. The regulators want it too. Even the non-government ones. Look at Standard & Poors - they are effectively a non-government regulator of the financial services market. But they sold out to the big investment houses like Gold Man-Sacks and rated their CDO's AAA when they were garbage just to keep the money flowing in to S&P.
No, paragraph 2:
"We don't want protesters interfering with the actual running of the system. Feel free to protest, but don't do it where people are actually trying to use the transportation system."
As someone who actually uses BART to get around, I very much appreciate them doing this.
Tough noogies. You live in a free society and freedom ain't free. One of the costs of that freedom is suffering the right of people to protest. The entire point of protesting is to get up in the way of regular people and make them notice. If BART were 100% private property, you'd have an argument. But being a government subsidised form of public transportation putting up with the occasional group of people doing their civic duty is part of your civic duty.
90% of passengers in Israel don't get searched.
Again with the uncited claims. I say you are lying. At a bare minimum every single israeli passenger walks through a metal detector. Furthermore they are all subject to 'profiling' which is very much racially based but not solely racial. Israel is happy to be a racist society, we aren't israel.
It is actually quite within scale. Population in Israel is 1/50th of the USA. GDP is 1/100th. So whatever they do we can do something that is 200x bigger.
It doesn't work like that. The costs grow exponentially with size if not faster - for example, israel's screening requires highly-trained people. In the US there is a lot more opportunity for smart people, and airport screening isn't a very sexy job. You can't just pay the same and expect to get the same level of abilities. Plus, israel's system relies on intelligence gathering about each passenger, setting aside the social costs of such a surveillance society, simply tracking 2nd and 3rd order associations between people gets exponentially harder as the number of people grow.
It only takes one to kill you, sure, but traditionally farmers change thousands of them at a time. Now we're only changing a few of them. Fewer chances that a carcinogenic one is going to be increased. How is that less safe?
For one thing they were cross-breeding plants that were generally both human edible to begin with. The GMO guys are deliberately splicing together food crops with genes from non-food crops.
For another thing, traditionally farmers did their own crops, so one deadly mutant wasn't going to end up in the daily meals of hundreds of millions of people - good cross-breeds would still take decades to be widely adopted by other farmers as the new breed proved it self.
Really if the terrorist can impersonate a pilot he has no need for a weapon at all.
He only needs to impersonate a pilot far enough to get past security, he doesn't need to get into the cockpit. Once past security there is nothing stopping such a person from just handing off a briefcase full of explosives to the guy who will actually board a plane.
Say they are improperly rushed through because they need to get to their plane?
That's basically what this CrewPass thing does.
Wouldn't work you say? That's what they do in Israel.
Really? I'd like to see a cite for exactly how they do it, I suspect you are glossing the details. But you know what? Even if true and pilots in Israeli don't get searched there it isn't likely to be feasible here. All of the Israeli airports combined do about the same number of passengers per year as O'Hare does alone in 4 months. The scale of the comparison isn't even close.
Sure,
Good now you understand that I totally understood your argument from post 1.
You are wrong. Quality is what matters, not quantity. See my original example where the levels of single metabolite out of a thousand is all it takes to kill you. In other words, focusing on the numbers doesn't prove anything either way.
I think that neither one carries much risk, given that testing has been done in both cases.
I suggest you look into the kind of testing that gets done for GMO crops. All the GMO fanboism in this thread caused me to go looking. So far, what I've found is that testing is minimal. It looks like Monsanto's testing of their GMO corn (which is in practically every American's diet and has been for about a decade now) seems to be nothing more than limited animal testing for no more than 90 days. Furthermore there have been exactly zero epidemiological studies of the effects of GMO corn (or any other GMO foodstuffs) on the population in general and actual human feeding trials of any GMO products have been extremely limited, so far I've only found one.
Apparently the FDA recently created new GMO testing requirements, at least for actual animals like salmon, I don't know about crops and I'd be surprised if stuff already on the market wasn't grandfathered -- known carcinogenic pesticides on the market back in 1972 were grandfathered when DDT was banned. But even these new testing requirements seem to be pretty lax, but I have yet to find the exact requirements to say for sure.
You're missing my point: MORE METABOLITES ARE CHANGED WITH NATURAL METHODS.
No, I got it the first time. You believe that all metabolites are of equal risk, so the more difference there is, the higher the risk. Is that a fair restatement of your premise?
I see no reason to assume that the small number of metabolites changed with GMO would be the toxic ones.
No more reason to assume that the small number of metabolites changed would not be the toxic ones. The fact is that a criteria that is just simply counting the changes does not say anything one way or the other about the nature of the changes. Its like saying this bucket of oranges is identical to that bucket of avocados because the number of fruits in each is the same.
DO you know why I'm not worried? Controls,
What controls? Like the 90 days of testing Monsanto did on their gmo corn? Or the zero days of testing that the FDA requires for new gmo foods? Or the lone(!) human feeding study of gmo foods? Or how about the zero epidemiological studies of general gmo food consumption?
I got into this argument for one reason -- to show that the "it's natural so it must be safe" argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. But after seeing the massive fanboism here you all have caused me to do just the barest minimum of research on your claims and what I found has convinced me that this GMO stuff is seriously under-tested. That's pretty fucked up for something that over 90% of the US population unwittingly consumes on a regular basis.
Boo fucking Hoo. Some people might possibly have health problems we can't foresee in ten years is your reasoning to stop the advancement of biology and nutrition science
So, let me get this straight. A million people die of cancer 15 years down the road because of an unintended side-effect of say, GMO corn, and you think that's no big deal?
Out here in the real world us human beings have to take risks to get anywhere in life.
Yeah, why don't we do away with the FDA completely? Just put anything and everything on the market and let people decide on their own, amiright?
So far in the Genetically Modified Foods debate, I've been arguing that, since the genes spliced into GMOs are genes that already exist in nature, GMOs really aren't the nightmarish cancer-causing foodstuffs people make them out to be
The problem with that line of reasoning is that we've had hundreds of thousands of years to figure out what plants are safe to eat. When you mix-and-match genes, be they totally artificial or transplants from other species, you don't know what the outcome will be. It's entirely possible that this brand new combination will produce un-expected side-effects.
Obvious side-effects like producing massive quantities of arsenic will get noticed before it ever leaves the lab. But something more subtle that doesn't manifest in any symptoms until ten years later and then only in certain people, perhaps those with a certain type of allergy, could easily become wide-spread in our food supply, affecting millions of people long after it was too late to do anything about it.
Just because its "natural" doesn't mean it's safe.