Whenever the car starts, generate a random ID that's statistically certain to be unique.
I'll do you one better - role it roughly every 60 seconds - but randomize the amount of time between iterations. All these collision avoidance systems don't even need 15 seconds - people pass each other on the highway in less time than that, so if the system can deal with a 'new' car every 60 seconds then its going to be broken for plenty of normal cases.
As for turning off "the ajax crap", well, we'll all just get off your lawn now... but I doubt the rest of the internet is going to oblige.
If slashdot -- the largest website specifically for the kind of people who do care about the potential for the security blowback of using javascript -- doesn't understand their core userbase enough to make their website functional without javascript, then they can pretty much count on losing that core userbase and ultimately becoming irrelevant.
99% of the time javascript is form over function (or worse, developers over-engineering because they never learned basic design principles) - there is nothing about Slashdot's functionality that could put it into that 1% where javascript is essential.
If we wanted to just compare those two claims (which is not the question at hand), the Rwandan death toll would have to be 10x greater than the death toll for the example that I provided. Which it is not.
Again, what part of being pedantically correct doesn't really amount to much did you fail to understand the first time?
That was in the past and has largely died down and was pretty much confined to Puerto Rico.
Ok, then lets look at Europe where Europol numbers show that less 1% of all terrorist attacks are by muslims - the vast majority of them over the last few years have been separatists, just like those puerto ricans.
A Puerto Rican terrorist is infinitely less likely to blow up Chicago O'Hare airport than a Muslim terrorist.
Given that we've had 1 terrorist attack on that scale in the last decade that is a patently innumerate conclusion you've made.
No, just a citation that shows that someone else did the research. You made quite an extravagant claim and I didn't believe that you had any firm support for it. It appears that I was correct.
Lol at "did the research" - didn't even know what Rwanda was and the best counter example you came up with was high-end estimates over a period of multiple decades by a government that at (a) stretches the definition of "recent" and (b) still only knocked down the single 90-day ratio of Rwanda to 4x. All it appears is that being pedantically correct doesn't really amount to much.
Okay, this is still not a citation for your claim that "At least 10x more people killed by christians than any other group." For example, I could point to estimates for Saddam Hussein's ethnic cleansing in 1991, alone, of (estimated) 100,000 Kurds and 130,000 Shiites, to counter your single data point.
Really? You expect me to produce an itemised list? Rwanda dwarfs anything else in recent history but there are plenty of smaller conflicts you can add in to take up the slack.
I would say that a good question is: "Which group, in the last 50 years, has targeted and killed more people who they believe pose no threat to them." Not that I know the answer or care. But that the question has to be defined in some objective manner, and no one here has yet done so.
Since the answer to THAT question is essentially nobody, it isn't helpful either.
Thanks for the reply, but I don't see how this is a citation for your response to the question "Who in your opinion has carried out most massacres in recent memory?" Would my stating "Indonesia" be a refutation of your citation?
Ok, see the Rwandan Genocide - over 800,000 people killed. I can't believe you are ignorant of it, but I guess you must be.
You're both wrongly assuming that the probability of A given B is the same as the probability of B given A; i.e., that because most terrorists are muslims, most muslims are terrorists. It SHOULD be obvious that this isn't true. In general, P(A|B) != P(B|A).
The only reason we are talking 'terrorism not killing' is because you've circularly defined suicide attacks to be all we are talking about. The OP didn't say 'terrorism' he said blowing up a bunch of innocent people. If you really want to talk about 'terrorism not killing' then, in America at least, Puerto Ricans commit nearly 20x more acts of terrorism than do muslims.
Certainly the majority of suicide bomb attacks have been carried out by Muslims.
And this gets back to the point about wtf does it matter if they are suicide attacks or just regular attacks?
I'll bite though. Who in your opinion has carried out most massacres in recent memory?
Actually your question is far afield from my point, but I'll take you up on it because it is quite easy. Christians. At least 10x more people killed by christians than any other group.
Yes clearly that is the part of the behavior OP has a problem with.
Well, since that's the only thing common to some muslim attacks it must be. Or do you really think that the majority massacres in recent memory were committed by muslims?
Why is it that every time some crazy fucker blows up himself and a whole bunch of innocent people he turns out to be a Muslim. Coincidence?
So, your problem is with the fact that crazy fucker kills himself too? You would prefer that he massacre a bunch of innocent people but not suffer the same fate himself?
lol.. Blah, blah, blah. So your measurement of content is saying the least. Well, that explains your intelligence problem. Now go cry about being modded down and act like you don't understand the obvious again.. Whah.....
I've been informed by one of your friends that you have a mental disability. Given that, its not fun to tweak you. So I will now stop and I will even permit you to get the last word to make up for my cruelty.
Don't blame X-Files, I think most of us went through that phase.
Indeed, its called being a teenager. Or more accurately -- getting some experience under your belt. Experience is the reference we all use to navigate life.
There are a number of ways to store settings accessable only by the app that created them.
Really? Name one. I'd genuinely like to hear it, because the anti-virus guys have been trying for decades and they don't seem to have a solution that is robust.
I got you all worked up because of your own ignorance. Who's dancing now monkey?
You are, with another 10:1 provoked response. All that verbiage and no one reads it. Not even me. I keep winning and you are helpless to control your own fail. Dance for me once more, I command it!
Only two people know that post was modded "troll" me and the modder - slashdot doesn't show that moderation type to anyone else. My reply deliberately misrepresented it as an "overrated" mod, not "troll" as a dumbass trap. Look who it caught!
So yes, you admitted to doing EXACTLY the same thing you are bitching about here - trying to bring someone else down in order to make yourself feel good.
What a sad little life you must live - so full of impotent rage, so easily made to dance for my amusement. I command you: dance another dance of denial and shame-hiding, make me laugh some more!
1. Skype shouldn't have the ability to install an extension without explicit user agreement. I believe this is Mozilla's fault, it has been abused by others as well. Fix the extension installation process.
No, its the OS's fault. As Mozilla is just another application with the same level of privileged access to the user's configuration settings as any other application, anything that Mozilla can do to stop auto-installers can be undone by the very same auto-installers. If Skype really wanted to, the next version of their auto-installer could turn off this "kill-switch" too.
Lollers. Slave to your id I provoke you into writing at least 10x as many words in response. When does the dumass realize he is nothing more than my dancing monkey? I am starting to think you are mentally ill though, after all you did admit to living in your mother's basement and worshipping a drug addict. Dance monkey! Dance for me!
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever the car starts, generate a random ID that's statistically certain to be unique.
I'll do you one better - role it roughly every 60 seconds - but randomize the amount of time between iterations. All these collision avoidance systems don't even need 15 seconds - people pass each other on the highway in less time than that, so if the system can deal with a 'new' car every 60 seconds then its going to be broken for plenty of normal cases.
As for turning off "the ajax crap", well, we'll all just get off your lawn now... but I doubt the rest of the internet is going to oblige.
If slashdot -- the largest website specifically for the kind of people who do care about the potential for the security blowback of using javascript -- doesn't understand their core userbase enough to make their website functional without javascript, then they can pretty much count on losing that core userbase and ultimately becoming irrelevant.
99% of the time javascript is form over function (or worse, developers over-engineering because they never learned basic design principles) - there is nothing about Slashdot's functionality that could put it into that 1% where javascript is essential.
If we wanted to just compare those two claims (which is not the question at hand), the Rwandan death toll would have to be 10x greater than the death toll for the example that I provided. Which it is not.
Again, what part of being pedantically correct doesn't really amount to much did you fail to understand the first time?
That was in the past and has largely died down and was pretty much confined to Puerto Rico.
Ok, then lets look at Europe where Europol numbers show that less 1% of all terrorist attacks are by muslims - the vast majority of them over the last few years have been separatists, just like those puerto ricans.
A Puerto Rican terrorist is infinitely less likely to blow up Chicago O'Hare airport than a Muslim terrorist.
Given that we've had 1 terrorist attack on that scale in the last decade that is a patently innumerate conclusion you've made.
No, just a citation that shows that someone else did the research. You made quite an extravagant claim and I didn't believe that you had any firm support for it. It appears that I was correct.
Lol at "did the research" - didn't even know what Rwanda was and the best counter example you came up with was high-end estimates over a period of multiple decades by a government that at (a) stretches the definition of "recent" and (b) still only knocked down the single 90-day ratio of Rwanda to 4x. All it appears is that being pedantically correct doesn't really amount to much.
Okay, this is still not a citation for your claim that "At least 10x more people killed by christians than any other group." For example, I could point to estimates for Saddam Hussein's ethnic cleansing in 1991, alone, of (estimated) 100,000 Kurds and 130,000 Shiites, to counter your single data point.
Really? You expect me to produce an itemised list?
Rwanda dwarfs anything else in recent history but there are plenty of smaller conflicts you can add in to take up the slack.
I would say that a good question is: "Which group, in the last 50 years, has targeted and killed more people who they believe pose no threat to them." Not that I know the answer or care. But that the question has to be defined in some objective manner, and no one here has yet done so.
Since the answer to THAT question is essentially nobody, it isn't helpful either.
Thanks for the reply, but I don't see how this is a citation for your response to the question "Who in your opinion has carried out most massacres in recent memory?" Would my stating "Indonesia" be a refutation of your citation?
Ok, see the Rwandan Genocide - over 800,000 people killed. I can't believe you are ignorant of it, but I guess you must be.
You're both wrongly assuming that the probability of A given B is the same as the probability of B given A; i.e., that because most terrorists are muslims, most muslims are terrorists. It SHOULD be obvious that this isn't true. In general, P(A|B) != P(B|A).
All bigotry boils down to innumeracy.
We're talking about terrorism, not killing.
The only reason we are talking 'terrorism not killing' is because you've circularly defined suicide attacks to be all we are talking about.
The OP didn't say 'terrorism' he said blowing up a bunch of innocent people.
If you really want to talk about 'terrorism not killing' then, in America at least, Puerto Ricans commit nearly 20x more acts of terrorism than do muslims.
Rwanda.
Genghis Kahn? Huh...I tried to look him up, but couldn't find anything out about him.
He worked at Borland. He was Phillipe's brother.
Certainly the majority of suicide bomb attacks have been carried out by Muslims.
And this gets back to the point about wtf does it matter if they are suicide attacks or just regular attacks?
I'll bite though. Who in your opinion has carried out most massacres in recent memory?
Actually your question is far afield from my point, but I'll take you up on it because it is quite easy.
Christians. At least 10x more people killed by christians than any other group.
Yes clearly that is the part of the behavior OP has a problem with.
Well, since that's the only thing common to some muslim attacks it must be.
Or do you really think that the majority massacres in recent memory were committed by muslims?
Why is it that every time some crazy fucker blows up himself and a whole bunch of innocent people he turns out to be a Muslim. Coincidence?
So, your problem is with the fact that crazy fucker kills himself too?
You would prefer that he massacre a bunch of innocent people but not suffer the same fate himself?
It's just a prostitute hired by a 3rd party to the sex act. You've never heard of getting someone a hooker for their birthday?
Either way, it's someone engaging in sex acts because they were paid to do it.
If that were the legal definition, then all the people in porno films would be convicted of prostitution.
for as long as I've known about them they've always been the garbage of the Arab world.
Except for all the other arab television stations.
lol..
Blah, blah, blah.
So your measurement of content is saying the least. Well, that explains your intelligence problem. Now go cry about being modded down and act like you don't understand the obvious again.. Whah.....
I've been informed by one of your friends that you have a mental disability.
Given that, its not fun to tweak you.
So I will now stop and I will even permit you to get the last word to make up for my cruelty.
Don't blame X-Files, I think most of us went through that phase.
Indeed, its called being a teenager.
Or more accurately -- getting some experience under your belt.
Experience is the reference we all use to navigate life.
There are a number of ways to store settings accessable only by the app that created them.
Really? Name one. I'd genuinely like to hear it, because the anti-virus guys have been trying for decades and they don't seem to have a solution that is robust.
I got you all worked up because of your own ignorance. Who's dancing now monkey?
You are, with another 10:1 provoked response.
All that verbiage and no one reads it. Not even me.
I keep winning and you are helpless to control your own fail.
Dance for me once more, I command it!
I didn't admit to anything.
Only two people know that post was modded "troll" me and the modder - slashdot doesn't show that moderation type to anyone else.
My reply deliberately misrepresented it as an "overrated" mod, not "troll" as a dumbass trap. Look who it caught!
So yes, you admitted to doing EXACTLY the same thing you are bitching about here - trying to bring someone else down in order to make yourself feel good.
What a sad little life you must live - so full of impotent rage, so easily made to dance for my amusement.
I command you: dance another dance of denial and shame-hiding, make me laugh some more!
You know it's interesting. I'm not the one crying about posts being modded down after trolling people.
Haha. Monkey boy admits to abusing mod points in futile attempt to release impotent anger.
Keep dancing for me monkey boy. Herp a derp.
1. Skype shouldn't have the ability to install an extension without explicit user agreement. I believe this is Mozilla's fault, it has been abused by others as well. Fix the extension installation process.
No, its the OS's fault. As Mozilla is just another application with the same level of privileged access to the user's configuration settings as any other application, anything that Mozilla can do to stop auto-installers can be undone by the very same auto-installers. If Skype really wanted to, the next version of their auto-installer could turn off this "kill-switch" too.
It would appear then that you think wrong.
Lollers.
Slave to your id I provoke you into writing at least 10x as many words in response.
When does the dumass realize he is nothing more than my dancing monkey?
I am starting to think you are mentally ill though, after all you did admit to living in your mother's basement and worshipping a drug addict.
Dance monkey! Dance for me!