s i've been down this road of dueling statistics with gun ownership advocates. its a short retarded road which does not illuminate and entrenches people in their preestablished bias but the tragic scenarios certainly are more numerous than the heroic ones. i don't see how you could disagree with that
You appear to be the kind of person who believes a gun must be fired in order to be used, because I don't see how you could agree with that otherwise.
You don't want to look at any significant numbers, you would rather argue about hypothetical numbers that you define arbitrarily and you think *that* is going to somehow illuminate and break people from their pre-established bias? Damn!
This action isn't an interruption of thier task, it is their task. If that isn't enough to keep them on their toes then they need to find a new line of work.
And that's the problem - it is not an interruption. Unless we plan on breeding idiot-savants for the job, no human can do that reliably all day long. We are just not wired that way to do the same repetitive task over and over and then notice the 1 out of 100 or 1 out of 1000 exception. It doesn't matter if a nuke will go off if the person fails, they will still fail.
Someone else can impersonate the passport holder, but only if they have the passport holder's face.
It is called "identity shopping" and not they do no need to have his face. They only need to look vaguely like the original holder because, as everyone with a driver's license knows, that the picture on your photo-id is rarely all that great of a picture.
As more biometrics are added, they'll also need the passport holder's fingerprints, iris -- maybe someday they'll need the passport holder's DNA.
Boy, that's a day to look forward to. But even that's not foolproof, have you seen the movie GATTACA? If DNA should ever become a requirement, there will be plenty of ways to impersonate that too, especially when you consider that people constantly shed their DNA into the space around them every second of their lives.
Then that's a flaw of the user, not the system. You could argue that adding a machine to the process would cause people to become complacent,
No, a system that does not take into account natural human behavior is flawed, not the humans. Your attitude is what leads to counterproductive 'security' like the UAC on Vista.
The total value of "distressed" mortgages in this country = $150 billion The total value of credit default swaps = $62 trillion
Which one do you think is causing the real problems in our economy?
You know it really isn't as simple as comparing the size of each market.
CDS's only need to payout when a loan becomes delinquent and: a) Many CDS's have nothing to do with mortgages, they cover business loans (only a 'handful' have gone delinquent) b) Many CDS's pay out to 3rd parties who were essentially gambling c) Many CDS's are written on top of other CDS's (i.e. they are leveraged)
So, all in all it looks like a ton of money, but its possible to unwind a lot of them without any money needing to change hands (a) or the people who lose the money really shouldn't have been involved in the first place (b) or only causing a very narrow 'domino effect' (c). The fear with CDS's is it as an unknown for just how a,b,c are going to play out as anything else.
Just like we have to do already, with the fucking stupid "this video is not available in your country because we're scared of the world outside the United States".
WTF? Nobody is 'scared' its because the company with the video on their website has only paid for a license to distribute within the USA. Its the MAFIAA and their draconian copyright laws is all.
Did you REALLY think somebody was 'scared' ? What whacky thought process could ever have caused you to arrive at that conclusion? And even worse - how the hell did you get modded +5 informative for it?
If we hadn't had things like CRA and community activist groups painting banks that didn't paint lots of bad loans into 'underserved' areas as racists, then we might not have had quite so many bad loans.
This wasn't the only cause, but definitely a big factor.
"It is wrong to cut scenes from a film -just as it is to rip pages from a book--simply because we don't like the way something was portrayed or said, then resell it with the original title and creator's name still on it."
Seriously - since when has anyone (even the RIAA!) ever indicated that malicious mis-attribution of works was even remotely a problem?
That was the official primary argument from the MPAA against those places selling castrated (aka Ned Flanders) versions of DVDs - the MPAA claimed that people might accidentally buy them and then assume that the castrated version was the version intended by the director thus maligning the director's integrity and true artistic vision.
Of course it was a total bullshit argument, but they certainly tried to make it into a 'principled stand.'
The indictment seeks a court order outlawing further use of the name, which would allow any police officer 'who sees a Mongol wearing this patch... to stop that gang member and literally take the jacket right off his back'..."
Some douche licker apparently never heard of the right of first sale.
Weak. Your comparison is like comparing credit cards to debit cards. If your credit card is stolen, you have the full force of federal law restricting your losses to a max of $50. If your debit card is stolen, you have the full force the issuing bank's promises, not even contractually binding promises, to restrict your losses to a max of $50 and don't even think about getting reimbursed for NSF fees and any other fallout from checks that bounced after your account was drained.
Only fools and those with no money competency would choose a debit card over a credit card. Similarly only a fool is going to chose a vendor who makes promises over a vendor who is contractually obligated with federal law backing the contract.
Seems ironic to me that we have the international law-enforcement agencies as well as a ton of cross-border data and system sharing agreements all intended to stop people from crossing the borders themselves. They want information about us to be world wide but they don't want us to be world wide.
The weakness with linux is in the LVM or EVMS layer. They both suck in that they are not enterprise ready (ie multi TB filesystems, 100+ MB/s sustained read/write) in that they cause unexplained IO hicups, lockups and kernel panics. LVM/EVMS certainly work fine for Joe Blow's HTPC, or a paltry 100GB database but they fall down when under serious load.
LVM has been rock-solid for me with a ~7TB and 2 2TB ext3 filesystems (24 500GB disks) over the course of a year and a half. No problems migrating extents all over the place when I needed to swap disks in and out. Almost identical to HPUX in functionality, but without the sizing constraints.
But, when I tried xfs for kicks I found out that a 7TB filesystem means you need 7GB of RAM to fsck it - impossible on a 32-bit system, I also had a week where I it all went in the shitter because I ran free-space to zero and started getting OS panics and data corruption.
I'm definitely considering jfs for the next generation, my main complaint with ext3 has been ridiculously slow deletes and fsck's. Problems I have read don't exist with jfs.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not the social cost you are looking for.
Social cost. I thought that was obvious.
s i've been down this road of dueling statistics with gun ownership advocates. its a short retarded road which does not illuminate and entrenches people in their preestablished bias
but the tragic scenarios certainly are more numerous than the heroic ones. i don't see how you could disagree with that
You appear to be the kind of person who believes a gun must be fired in order to be used, because I don't see how you could agree with that otherwise.
You don't want to look at any significant numbers, you would rather argue about hypothetical numbers that you define arbitrarily and you think *that* is going to somehow illuminate and break people from their pre-established bias? Damn!
Wow, you've made an amazing discovery: Nothing is perfect!
The discovery I've made is that the price we are paying for imperfection keeps going up.
This action isn't an interruption of thier task, it is their task. If that isn't enough to keep them on their toes then they need to find a new line of work.
And that's the problem - it is not an interruption. Unless we plan on breeding idiot-savants for the job, no human can do that reliably all day long. We are just not wired that way to do the same repetitive task over and over and then notice the 1 out of 100 or 1 out of 1000 exception. It doesn't matter if a nuke will go off if the person fails, they will still fail.
Someone else can impersonate the passport holder, but only if they have the passport holder's face.
It is called "identity shopping" and not they do no need to have his face. They only need to look vaguely like the original holder because, as everyone with a driver's license knows, that the picture on your photo-id is rarely all that great of a picture.
As more biometrics are added, they'll also need the passport holder's fingerprints, iris -- maybe someday they'll need the passport holder's DNA.
Boy, that's a day to look forward to. But even that's not foolproof, have you seen the movie GATTACA? If DNA should ever become a requirement, there will be plenty of ways to impersonate that too, especially when you consider that people constantly shed their DNA into the space around them every second of their lives.
Then that's a flaw of the user, not the system. You could argue that adding a machine to the process would cause people to become complacent,
No, a system that does not take into account natural human behavior is flawed, not the humans. Your attitude is what leads to counterproductive 'security' like the UAC on Vista.
The total value of "distressed" mortgages in this country = $150 billion
The total value of credit default swaps = $62 trillion
Which one do you think is causing the real problems in our economy?
You know it really isn't as simple as comparing the size of each market.
CDS's only need to payout when a loan becomes delinquent and:
a) Many CDS's have nothing to do with mortgages, they cover business loans (only a 'handful' have gone delinquent)
b) Many CDS's pay out to 3rd parties who were essentially gambling
c) Many CDS's are written on top of other CDS's (i.e. they are leveraged)
So, all in all it looks like a ton of money, but its possible to unwind a lot of them without any money needing to change hands (a) or the people who lose the money really shouldn't have been involved in the first place (b) or only causing a very narrow 'domino effect' (c). The fear with CDS's is it as an unknown for just how a,b,c are going to play out as anything else.
Just like we have to do already, with the fucking stupid "this video is not available in your country because we're scared of the world outside the United States".
WTF? Nobody is 'scared' its because the company with the video on their website has only paid for a license to distribute within the USA. Its the MAFIAA and their draconian copyright laws is all.
Did you REALLY think somebody was 'scared' ? What whacky thought process could ever have caused you to arrive at that conclusion? And even worse - how the hell did you get modded +5 informative for it?
What is it? Is it fifty or eighty percent? Cause it does matter.
Don't be a fink, read the damn link.
If we hadn't had things like CRA and community activist groups painting banks that didn't paint lots of bad loans into 'underserved' areas as racists, then we might not have had quite so many bad loans.
This wasn't the only cause, but definitely a big factor.
No, it was a relatively small factor. 50-80% of subprime loans were made by companies to which CRA didn't apply. In fact, CRA only applied to 1 of the top 25 subprime lenders. Furthermore, less than a third of CRA loans are in the category of subprime - most of them have fixed interest rates better than subprime and consequently default rates are below average too.
Classic.
Looks like he bit off more than he could chew, eh?
But if what you buy is declared illegal, is it still legal to posses?
Irrelevant because nobody is "declaring illegal" the trademark.
"It is wrong to cut scenes from a film -just as it is to rip pages from a book--simply because we don't like the way something was portrayed or said, then resell it with the original title and creator's name still on it."
http://www.dga.org/news/pr_expand.php3?281
Was the great depression even "that bad" or are the stories of stock traders jumping out of windows greatly exaggerated ?
From what I've been reading, it sounds like that would probably be the best thing for the economy.
Seriously - since when has anyone (even the RIAA!) ever indicated that malicious mis-attribution of works was even remotely a problem?
That was the official primary argument from the MPAA against those places selling castrated (aka Ned Flanders) versions of DVDs - the MPAA claimed that people might accidentally buy them and then assume that the castrated version was the version intended by the director thus maligning the director's integrity and true artistic vision.
Of course it was a total bullshit argument, but they certainly tried to make it into a 'principled stand.'
Lick my stick you twit:
http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/1995/1195Bulletin/US_FirstsaleCollectMark.html
The indictment seeks a court order outlawing further use of the name, which would allow any police officer 'who sees a Mongol wearing this patch... to stop that gang member and literally take the jacket right off his back'..."
Some douche licker apparently never heard of the right of first sale.
They also had to cut stereo bluetooth audio, why would t-mobile want to cut that?
So you would have to buy one phone for each ear.
Weak. Your comparison is like comparing credit cards to debit cards. If your credit card is stolen, you have the full force of federal law restricting your losses to a max of $50. If your debit card is stolen, you have the full force the issuing bank's promises, not even contractually binding promises, to restrict your losses to a max of $50 and don't even think about getting reimbursed for NSF fees and any other fallout from checks that bounced after your account was drained.
Only fools and those with no money competency would choose a debit card over a credit card. Similarly only a fool is going to chose a vendor who makes promises over a vendor who is contractually obligated with federal law backing the contract.
MS sells support contracts just like everyone else. It is not a money sink, else they would not sell them.
Seems ironic to me that we have the international law-enforcement agencies as well as a ton of cross-border data and system sharing agreements all intended to stop people from crossing the borders themselves. They want information about us to be world wide but they don't want us to be world wide.
The weakness with linux is in the LVM or EVMS layer. They both suck in that they are not enterprise ready (ie multi TB filesystems, 100+ MB/s sustained read/write) in that they cause unexplained IO hicups, lockups and kernel panics. LVM/EVMS certainly work fine for Joe Blow's HTPC, or a paltry 100GB database but they fall down when under serious load.
LVM has been rock-solid for me with a ~7TB and 2 2TB ext3 filesystems (24 500GB disks) over the course of a year and a half. No problems migrating extents all over the place when I needed to swap disks in and out. Almost identical to HPUX in functionality, but without the sizing constraints.
But, when I tried xfs for kicks I found out that a 7TB filesystem means you need 7GB of RAM to fsck it - impossible on a 32-bit system, I also had a week where I it all went in the shitter because I ran free-space to zero and started getting OS panics and data corruption.
I'm definitely considering jfs for the next generation, my main complaint with ext3 has been ridiculously slow deletes and fsck's. Problems I have read don't exist with jfs.
The GPL is restrictive as it is /because/ it ensures freedom for users. It is the /developers/ that the GPL bugs.
+1 truth