While you are at it, you should grab a copy of TinyXP and give that a chance at the demo too. Sure its an illegal bittorrent or whatever, but it is the best XP distribution I've ever used if efficiency, speed and a small disk foot print are major requirements.
I'm typically talking about a case where the car behind me would like to be going 80+, and I'm passing at 70 a car to my right going 65.
The only way for you to know that they would like to be going 80+ is because they were going 80+ before they got to you. If you pulled out in front of someone going 80+ and didn't give yourself enough time to overtake and then return back to your lane before the guy going 80+ catches up to you, then you were driving dangerously. Doesn't matter if the guy going 80+ is driving dangerously too, that's not an excuse for anyone else's behavior on the road.
Yeah, how dare they not take a complete stranger's word alone that this credit card is legitimately theirs when trying to make a high-dollar purchase. Damn the man!
I know you think you are being clever, but you are completely and utterly wrong. The merchant agreement for all major credit cards in the USA require one of two things:
1) Without significant reason to suspect fraud, merchants are forbidden to require any form of id in order to complete a transaction with a credit card. Simply being a high-dollar purchase is not sufficient reason to suspect fraud. This requirement is standard for VISA and MasterCard merchant contracts.
2) Or any requirement for ID must be consistent across all cards that the merchant accepts - that's in the AMEX and Discover merchant contracts, which makes them equivalent to the VISA and MasterCard contracts for nearly all merchants.
These merchant agreements are online and accessible to the general public at their respective card issuer websites. You are welcome to confirm these points yourself.
They went home and ordered it online for 50% less.
No one gets my photo id to make a purchase. None of your business. Visa says my card is good, you don't treat me like a criminal and expect to make a sale.
The problem with Reddit isn't JavaScript but rather their markdown implementation. And the security threat here isn't to the user whose system is running the JS, but instead to the Reddit site.
Yes that's what makes this case special. Most javascript security problems are externalities to the websites that over-use javascript - they don't normally suffer the consequences of enabling javascript in the browser - the users do. This time the website is paying the price for their poor decisions. Finally the gander is getting goosed.
If you're using an up-to-date & secure browser, there's typically minimal risk to enabling JavaScript. That JavaScript can sometimes be used to do mischievous things...
No. Javascript vulnerabilities come in two flavors - exploited bugs and deliberate abuses. All of the web-tracking systems enhance their tracking of people via javascript, simply blocking cookies from 3rd party sites hasn't been sufficient to protect users from such deliberate abuses for many years now. Then there are the increasingly more common zero-day exploits that are installed via other vulnerabilities in a web-server that no amount of "regular updates" will protect users from.
There is a reason NoScript is the #2 most popular firefox plugin with over 54 million downloads - that reason is because javascript is a huge vulnerability, people know it and are trying to do something about it.
Slashdot doesn't require Javascript. If it's turned off, you get sent to the classic POST form of yesteryear.
There are other parts to slashdot. Last time I tried to change my preferences it was completely unnavigable without javascript and just barely functional, but still a major PITA to use, with javascript. That experience was what prompted me to change my sig.
Hmmm. How many people here have actually read up about all the drugs they take?
And how many OSS users actually take the time to inspect the code and compile their own software? The point is that the mere ability for anyone to the research, be it software or medicine, keeps the market much more competitive and thus beneifts the consumer that it would otherwise.
The whole "ERs will treat anyone, so shut up about not having insurance!" argument has never, ever made sense to me.
Plus it sure seems like the same group of people making that argument are also the ones arguing that illegal aliens are responsible for putting hospitals out of business for not paying for their ER treatment. Both false, as you pointed out - ERs are only legally required to provide enough treatment to stabilize, not cure.
The primary reason people get insurance through their employer is because of the tax breaks to employers. That really has little to do with the way the insurance business puts together pools of risks.
No, it really does have a lot to do with it. The pools directly correspond to the employees within each company. Companies with a lot of gray-hairs have higher insurance premiums for their plans than companies with a lot of 20-somethings.
McCain's plan was extremely risky. (The guy IS a craps player after all, so he enjoys taking enormous risks. Just look at the Palin decision in that light for a minute). It MIGHT have worked if everything behaved the way we want it to. But it also could have failed catastrophically and we'd be worse off than we were before.
That's nice and all but adds zero information content to the discussion.
Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car
on
The Fresca Rebellion
·
· Score: 1
There could only be a very, very small minority of highways in the world where it would be legal to cycle and there is a minimum speed requirement. In fact, having never seen one, I am not convinced that there are any. The majority of highways in the world have no minimum speed, and those that do (e.g. motorways) are unlikely to permit cycling.
In many states in the US local traffic laws require that a vehicle which is causing on obstruction to traffic, such as one traveling significantly below the average speed on that roadway, must pull over and allow the obstructed traffic to pass. I don't think I've ever seen a bicyclist do that, even when there have been 10+ cars backed up behind one cyclist going 5mph.
His point wasn't that he couldn't get catastrophic only insurance, his point was that because of the way the insurance pools work, he had to pay a LOT more for as a self-employed individual than he and a large employer would pay when you join a much larger pool that large businesses can get into.
That's misleading. The primary reason that we have such "insurance pools" in the first place is because of legislation that gives a favorable tax break to employers who provide health insurance coverage versus individuals purchasing them on their own. I would never have voted for McCain, but his proposal to eliminate that tax break and thus level the playing field was one of the few things that he actually got right.
Not necessarily. Wandering around in the open is probably a lot more dangerous than being holed up in a lair - especially if your sensory organs are optimized for night and it is day or vice versa. Plus, animals and people are very highly attuned to certain noises while asleep - basically if it sounds like something is approaching or entering the lair most animals will quickly transition from sleep to fully awake.
No they weren't, and the CEO's dealing were a separate event. But you do ahead an use you confirmation bias to blindly see and follow non existent patterns.
Qwest did exactly that! They refused without a specific court order.
And in return Qwest was shut out of hundreds of millions of previously locked-in government contracts leading the CEO to go to prison on insider trading charges for making statements based on the expected revenues from those previously locked-in contracts.
We don't need more RMS but more people like Shuttleworth. Pragmatically minded, not focused only on ideals.
Right. There are definitely not enough people to go around. Damn those idealists, sucking up all the available people, keeping them from getting anything done.
There is no such thing as a "free market extremist", but that's beside the point
Of course there is. In Russia's case it was a bunch of "advisors" from the likes of Lehman Bros that didn't see the need for an orderly transition, instead believing simply cutting-over to a free market based system would be sufficient to overcome the inertia of the previous system. Unintended consequences be damned.
Maybe it's a competitive advantage and they don't want to advertise all the details of what lets them produce a device cheaper and faster than their competitors. Really, the Linux community needs to stop seeing adversaries around every corner.
Because using linux as an embedded OS was such a keenly revolutionary idea that no one else in the marketplace would ever consider the possibility on their own. Right.
Maybe there is a plausible explanation, but that sure ain't it.
But those plus cash in the bank are more than a defense, they are a tactical advantage.
And when it starts affecting the longevity on the resume, it doesn't matter how good you are. Employers will see short-term job hopping and wonder if the reason isn't you.
At which point it is time to become a contractor. We hop jobs all the time because it is expected, good skills let us charge top-dollar and top-dollar rates put money in the bank so we can afford to say no to the bullshit jobs.
Exactly my thought too. But so much of the opposition to illegal immigration is based on tribalistic knee-jerk responses it means you can't even trust that the people who sound rational really are rational or are just playing back "talking points" they learned at "how-to-argue-against-illegal-immigration-and-not-sound-racist.com."
Slashdot Mirror
While you are at it, you should grab a copy of TinyXP and give that a chance at the demo too.
Sure its an illegal bittorrent or whatever, but it is the best XP distribution I've ever used if efficiency, speed and a small disk foot print are major requirements.
I'm typically talking about a case where the car behind me would like to be going 80+, and I'm passing at 70 a car to my right going 65.
The only way for you to know that they would like to be going 80+ is because they were going 80+ before they got to you.
If you pulled out in front of someone going 80+ and didn't give yourself enough time to overtake and then return back to your lane before the guy going 80+ catches up to you, then you were driving dangerously. Doesn't matter if the guy going 80+ is driving dangerously too, that's not an excuse for anyone else's behavior on the road.
Yeah, how dare they not take a complete stranger's word alone that this credit card is legitimately theirs when trying to make a high-dollar purchase. Damn the man!
I know you think you are being clever, but you are completely and utterly wrong.
The merchant agreement for all major credit cards in the USA require one of two things:
1) Without significant reason to suspect fraud, merchants are forbidden to require any form of id in order to complete a transaction with a credit card. Simply being a high-dollar purchase is not sufficient reason to suspect fraud. This requirement is standard for VISA and MasterCard merchant contracts.
2) Or any requirement for ID must be consistent across all cards that the merchant accepts - that's in the AMEX and Discover merchant contracts, which makes them equivalent to the VISA and MasterCard contracts for nearly all merchants.
These merchant agreements are online and accessible to the general public at their respective card issuer websites. You are welcome to confirm these points yourself.
They said they'd be back (guess how that went).
They went home and ordered it online for 50% less.
No one gets my photo id to make a purchase. None of your business.
Visa says my card is good, you don't treat me like a criminal and expect to make a sale.
Ahh, the old "its ok to steal to feed your family" nonsense. I thought as a species we decided that reasoning doesn't get you off the morality hook?
Hardly. But then the argument is usually a lot more nuanced than that.
The problem with Reddit isn't JavaScript but rather their markdown implementation. And the security threat here isn't to the user whose system is running the JS, but instead to the Reddit site.
Yes that's what makes this case special. Most javascript security problems are externalities to the websites that over-use javascript - they don't normally suffer the consequences of enabling javascript in the browser - the users do. This time the website is paying the price for their poor decisions. Finally the gander is getting goosed.
If you're using an up-to-date & secure browser, there's typically minimal risk to enabling JavaScript. That JavaScript can sometimes be used to do mischievous things...
No. Javascript vulnerabilities come in two flavors - exploited bugs and deliberate abuses. All of the web-tracking systems enhance their tracking of people via javascript, simply blocking cookies from 3rd party sites hasn't been sufficient to protect users from such deliberate abuses for many years now. Then there are the increasingly more common zero-day exploits that are installed via other vulnerabilities in a web-server that no amount of "regular updates" will protect users from.
There is a reason NoScript is the #2 most popular firefox plugin with over 54 million downloads - that reason is because javascript is a huge vulnerability, people know it and are trying to do something about it.
Slashdot doesn't require Javascript. If it's turned off, you get sent to the classic POST form of yesteryear.
There are other parts to slashdot. Last time I tried to change my preferences it was completely unnavigable without javascript and just barely functional, but still a major PITA to use, with javascript. That experience was what prompted me to change my sig.
Q: What's the difference between a computer salesman and a used car salesman?
A: The used car salesman knows when he is lying.
Hmmm. How many people here have actually read up about all the drugs they take?
And how many OSS users actually take the time to inspect the code and compile their own software?
The point is that the mere ability for anyone to the research, be it software or medicine, keeps the market much more competitive and thus beneifts the consumer that it would otherwise.
The whole "ERs will treat anyone, so shut up about not having insurance!" argument has never, ever made sense to me.
Plus it sure seems like the same group of people making that argument are also the ones arguing that illegal aliens are responsible for putting hospitals out of business for not paying for their ER treatment. Both false, as you pointed out - ERs are only legally required to provide enough treatment to stabilize, not cure.
The primary reason people get insurance through their employer is because of the tax breaks to employers. That really has little to do with the way the insurance business puts together pools of risks.
No, it really does have a lot to do with it. The pools directly correspond to the employees within each company. Companies with a lot of gray-hairs have higher insurance premiums for their plans than companies with a lot of 20-somethings.
McCain's plan was extremely risky. (The guy IS a craps player after all, so he enjoys taking enormous risks. Just look at the Palin decision in that light for a minute). It MIGHT have worked if everything behaved the way we want it to. But it also could have failed catastrophically and we'd be worse off than we were before.
That's nice and all but adds zero information content to the discussion.
There could only be a very, very small minority of highways in the world where it would be legal to cycle and there is a minimum speed requirement. In fact, having never seen one, I am not convinced that there are any. The majority of highways in the world have no minimum speed, and those that do (e.g. motorways) are unlikely to permit cycling.
In many states in the US local traffic laws require that a vehicle which is causing on obstruction to traffic, such as one traveling significantly below the average speed on that roadway, must pull over and allow the obstructed traffic to pass. I don't think I've ever seen a bicyclist do that, even when there have been 10+ cars backed up behind one cyclist going 5mph.
His point wasn't that he couldn't get catastrophic only insurance, his point was that because of the way the insurance pools work, he had to pay a LOT more for as a self-employed individual than he and a large employer would pay when you join a much larger pool that large businesses can get into.
That's misleading. The primary reason that we have such "insurance pools" in the first place is because of legislation that gives a favorable tax break to employers who provide health insurance coverage versus individuals purchasing them on their own. I would never have voted for McCain, but his proposal to eliminate that tax break and thus level the playing field was one of the few things that he actually got right.
Sleeping is basically a good chance to get eaten.
Not necessarily. Wandering around in the open is probably a lot more dangerous than being holed up in a lair - especially if your sensory organs are optimized for night and it is day or vice versa. Plus, animals and people are very highly attuned to certain noises while asleep - basically if it sounds like something is approaching or entering the lair most animals will quickly transition from sleep to fully awake.
No they weren't, and the CEO's dealing were a separate event.
But you do ahead an use you confirmation bias to blindly see and follow non existent patterns.
Yeah, sure.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_5719566,00.html
The contracts Qwest was locked out of were the contracts to move/route phone lines to central locations to make it easier to tap.
So, GovNet was only for CALEA? Gee, that's not what Richard Clarke said when he announced it.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_5719566,00.html
In fact, the CEO's dealing were completely separate from this and the jury did not buy his excuses when the evidence was laid on the table.
Funny, he never had a chance to present the evidence in the first place. Why is it that you think a jury even heard it, much less didn't buy it?
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/Feb/25/court-reinstates-nacchios-insider-trading-convicti/
Qwest did exactly that! They refused without a specific court order.
And in return Qwest was shut out of hundreds of millions of previously locked-in government contracts leading the CEO to go to prison on insider trading charges for making statements based on the expected revenues from those previously locked-in contracts.
We don't need more RMS but more people like Shuttleworth. Pragmatically minded, not focused only on ideals.
Right. There are definitely not enough people to go around.
Damn those idealists, sucking up all the available people, keeping them from getting anything done.
Does the word "cloud" have any particular meaning?
Yes. The speaker wants to customers to make it rain.
Yep - and we can burn our official flag, too. Although nobody does it anymore - once it was declared legal the act lost all of its shock value.
People still do it. The news just doesn't have an orgasm about it.
http://blog.dailycal.org/photo/2009/09/14/flag-burning/
http://www.inlandnewstoday.com/story.php?s=10259
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2009/09/flag_burning_at_westlake.php
Would it be right for Palm to use the iPhone barcode for the Pre? Clearly not.
Would it be right for Apple to use the Mozilla user-agent for Safari?
There is no such thing as a "free market extremist", but that's beside the point
Of course there is. In Russia's case it was a bunch of "advisors" from the likes of Lehman Bros that didn't see the need for an orderly transition, instead believing simply cutting-over to a free market based system would be sufficient to overcome the inertia of the previous system. Unintended consequences be damned.
Maybe it's a competitive advantage and they don't want to advertise all the details of what lets them produce a device cheaper and faster than their competitors. Really, the Linux community needs to stop seeing adversaries around every corner.
Because using linux as an embedded OS was such a keenly revolutionary idea that no one else in the marketplace would ever consider the possibility on their own.
Right.
Maybe there is a plausible explanation, but that sure ain't it.
Real talent, knowledge and skills are no defense.
But those plus cash in the bank are more than a defense, they are a tactical advantage.
And when it starts affecting the longevity on the resume, it doesn't matter how good you are. Employers will see short-term job hopping and wonder if the reason isn't you.
At which point it is time to become a contractor. We hop jobs all the time because it is expected, good skills let us charge top-dollar and top-dollar rates put money in the bank so we can afford to say no to the bullshit jobs.
Exactly my thought too. But so much of the opposition to illegal immigration is based on tribalistic knee-jerk responses it means you can't even trust that the people who sound rational really are rational or are just playing back "talking points" they learned at "how-to-argue-against-illegal-immigration-and-not-sound-racist.com."