SELinux is far too weak in reality Come again? I've got a long list of stuff I'd wish SELinux were better in, but "weak" isn't anywhere on it and I think of myself as knowing quite a bit about it. What exactly do you mean by "weak" ?
To hack into a system, you merely have to find ONE hole. That's it. That depends on the system and the hole. On an SELinux, or Trusted Solaris, etc. system, that would have to be a kernel exploit, otherwise all you get is a small corner of the system.
On a standard windos or Linux system, that's mostly true.
The bad guys have access to all the same tools you have. That was 20 years ago. Today, malware is being developed for profit, for the russian mafia or some other organized crime. Unless you're a top security researcher, the bad guys have access to more and better tools than you have.
Excellent. It's great to work with the people who show consideration for others, because - and that's why the whole damn law needed to be passed at all - the majority doesn't.
I'll make a proposal to my local representative and tell him that at least one smoker is ok with it.
And yes, I'm serious. No, I don't think it has a chance, but maybe it makes a lawmaker think.
Notes usually sucks, but mostly because it was configured badly. Outlook always sucks, because it's configured badly by default and you can't change it.
There are several apps for OS X which provide exactly what you want - a centralized update mechanism. It's not in the built-in one, that's right, but it's available.
AppFresh or something is one example that I know of.
Some of these are justified - Adobe Reader sucks, there's no excuse why it takes a minute to load while a tap on the spacebar on OS X brings up a preview of the same PDF instantly, and many other PDF readers load in a tenth that time.
Apple Update - I don't have a beef with that.
Windos Update - is a study on how not to do it. It'll pop up even if you're running a fullscreen application at that time, some of which don't handle that gracefully. It'll tell you every few minutes that it wants to reboot, no matter how often you tell it to go stand in the corner. Really annoying freak.
Norton - yeah, if you've not already replaced it with any of the free and better alternatives, then you deserve the pain.
Sony crap - oh yes. They even forgot to mention that nothing in the docs tells you what does what, so you're left guessing as to which of these might be, you know, important driver packages, and which are just crap they added because someone in marketing thought it's a nifty idea.
Outlook - YES, FINALLY! Outlook is one of those things where I'm all for the death penalty. Outlook is the worst disaster for corporate productivity this side of the galactic core. It's also the worst e-mail client I've ever used, and that's a fairly long list. Outlook is enterprise messaging gone horribly wrong, in more ways than you thought possible. I'm SOO glad they put it on the list.
Flash - I find that one a bit unfair. Flash can be a cool tool, but it's often abused in ways that would be illegal if it were a human being. I'm not sure Adobe alone is to blame for that.
Any civilization that wants to communicate across the galaxy is going to use something (and I don't know what that something would be) other than a particle that can't travel faster than light. Unless, of course, there isn't anything FTL. In that case, you'd use whatever lightspeed method is the best, and that's exactly what this report researched.
True, CoH and CoV had some interesting ideas. I like the "sidekick" system a lot, for example.
But, as far as actual gameplay goes, it's still grind, kill X monsters, kill more monsters, kill even more monsters, kill some more monsters. The differences and advances are still in the details, not the gameplay.
The only MMORPG I know that comes close to being innovative is Tale from the Desert. Except that in most areas it's still grinding.
If any MMORPG designer listens: I don't want to grind. For repetitive, boring work, there is, well, work. And you get paid for that instead of the other way around. And you can study to avoid it and get a more interesting job. I'd love to have that option in an MMORPG.
My girlfriend was in the closed beta for AoC, and I've seen several of the demo beta versions of WAR.
Without breaking any NDAs, I can say that neither will live up to the hype. Conan looks good and has some very interesting ideas in it, but for the most parts it's simply another MMORPG. Warhammer has already lost its hardcore crowd with the last versions, because all the typical-computer-game "look ma', new graphics card" colourful shiny glowing effects - that's not the Warhammer world most of us grew up with, which is dark and dirty. They made it too much like WoW, and unless they can beat WoW at its own game, that's where they'll look a lot like their orc in the trailer.
I'm still waiting for that innovative MMORPG. You know, the one that's not simply like all the others, but has new ideas, new concepts, a new gameplay. The one that teaches us that "MMORPG" is not necessarily synonymous with "EQ/WoW clone".
It's a matter of tolerance, for crying out loud. I'm a smoker. Ok, from that angle, I can accept that. See, you're a smoker and I'm a hitter. I just enjoy hitting people. At night, in a bar, with a few friends - ah, it's so relaxing to just hit them in the face. The health damage is much lower than passive smoking, by the way.
You wouldn't mind being hit in the face if you happen to sit near me in a bar, would you?
Now you're going to tell in detail how that's really not the same thing. On the purely "tolerance" and "let me enjoy my stuff, even if it's a bit at your expense" level, it is.
So, let's join forces. Let the two of us suggest a change in the law: Smoking is allowed everywhere, as long as the smoker is willing to accept one (1) good smash in the face from every non-smoker who is bothered by it.
Well, no one is holding a gun to your head to make you patronize a place that allows smoking, nor are they forcing anyone to work there. Freedom of choice? Remember that? Freedom of choice requires that there is a choice. If there is smoke everywhere, in every restaurant, then there is no such choice, and hence no freedom of choice.
If you want to participate in social life, as a non-smoker you are forced to attend places where people smoke. You don't have a choice, and if you don't have choices, the usual "the market will decide" aka "then don't go there" mechanism doesn't work. At all.
I've read this argument dozens of times and it doesn't get true by repeating it more often, sorry. The whole "let people decide" is a strawman, bullshit, idiotic nonsense non-argument. It pre-supposes that there is a decision to be made, but there really isn't.
Real-life example: If you're young then your essential saturday-night places are clubs and pubs. Until recently (here in Germany) you would be very, very hard-pressed to find even a single non-smoking club in even the largest cities. I live in the 2nd largest city of Germany and to my knowledge there isn't one here.
So your choice was not, ever to go to either a smoking or a non-smoking club. That choice simply never existed. All the protests and crying of the tobacco lobby always suggested there were such a choice, but there never was, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this would have changed without a law.
The real choice was "go where they smoke" or "don't go at all". Where "don't go at all" also means "don't meet your friends", "don't be cool", "don't be in", "don't be with your clique", "don't meet nice boys/girls" and a whole lot of other things that people in their late teens/early twenties value quite highly.
The whole "a business owner should be allowed to decide" argument rests on the assumption that with that choice, there would be non-smoking clubs and pubs. But that is simply not true. The assumption is false, and hence the argument is misleading.
First they took away our right to have a smoke in peace, And which amendment, exactly, did I miss there?
Personally, I think we desperately need some real anti-smoking laws. And by that I mean you can smoke whatever and wherever and how much you want - as long as you can guarantee that your smoke stays away from me.
I'm starting to find some whole wheat breads that are not done with processed flour AND have either molasses, brown sugar or regular sugar, but, you gotta look hard. Bread is probably the easiest food to make yourself. I own one of those bread machines. In the evening I put in flour and water and whatever else the recipe needs (sometimes yeast, sometimes honey, or herbs or sourdough), set the timer, and when I wake up next morning I have fresh bread.
Take a look for those and you can make the bread you want, and know exactly what went in there.
In addition, the various financial donations allow most of Africa's dictators to spend most of their cash on weapons and enriching themselves and their cousins - instead of building a school-system, a health- and social security system. Everything you said is true. This part just needs some additional info: There's a very simple, rational explanation for this. The problem with investing in the infrastructure is that it doesn't give benefits right away, but takes away ressources right away. The pattern in poor countries for almost a century now has been that if you do that, you are overthrown by some arm of your military before the benefits come rolling in.
Thus, your only rational choice as a dictator is to do what everyone else does: Invest in the military, police and the rest of your control apparatus, and if there's anything left after that, do some very careful, slow improvements to your country.
Otherwise, someone who's more self-interested than you are will replace you.
Muscle uses a lot of energy. People with a muscular build NEED a lot more food than fat people, because fat doesn't consume energy, muscles do. Nobody said fat consumes energy.
But the muscles of fat people consume more energy moving all that weight around than the muscles of slim people use to move their bodies.
Yeah, exceptions, blabla - this was a global study meaning you are abstracting away from the individual case and work with averages.
And on average, moving around 200 kg takes a lot more energy than moving around 80 kg.
There, I said it. I'm not even sorry. There is way too much "tolerance" these days for stuff that people are responsible for.
I'm all for having an open mind and being tolerant and nice to everyone for everything they had no say in - their gender, race, skin-hair-eye-colour, whatever.
I'm sick and tired of this whole "tolerance" bullshit when it comes to stuff that people choose - smoking, drinking, religion or being fat. And yes, it's a choice unless you're in the 0.1% where it's a medical condition (I'm willing to argue on religion, though. Some evidence says it's a mental condition with a genetic pre-disposition part).
People choose to be fat. Not necessarily consciously, as in "hey, let's get fat", of course. And tolerance towards obesity has a major impact. If every fat child were ridiculed and laughed at, there would be less of them. It's not the only factor, not by far, but hey, let's give the fat bastards some incentives to work on themselves!
As someone who is (trying to, and sometimes succeeding) to use video conferencing in a business setting, my advise is this:
Your #1 priority is that the stuff works. No hassle, no fiddling around, none of the "just edit line #192 in/etc/something/other.conf" stuff. It has to work then and there with the push of a button.
Anything that can't guarantee this is unsuited. Maybe you can get it to work with a little messing around in a minute or two, but you can be sure that at least one remote partner can't. If it's any more complicated than turning it on and pushing "connect", there will be trouble. If there is trouble, acceptance falls. Once acceptance is low, you can forget about it, even if by then it works flawlessly.
Faith, without doubt, isn't faith. Faith is making a jump over logic to a conclusion you wouldn't have normally arrived at. It's an admission that we don't know everything. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Faith is not and admission of ignorance. Science is an admission that we don't know everything, but we're trying to learn as much as we can. Faith is the assumption that some things are true simply because they are. Well, because they're written in a book, or revealed in some way or the other, but essentially "because we say so".
Contrary to your statement, faith claims to know everything. Maybe not every detail, but the very core element of religious faith, for example, is that the ultimate answer to everything is always "god". No matter what chain of reasoning and causation you follow, you will always end up there.
The human endeavour that really leaves room for "I don't know" is science, because it's the only place where that answer is perfectly acceptable, honest and welcome.
This guy is arguing on astronomy which, last time I checked, just happens to be a science. You know, science as in "scientific method"? That's not a coincidence the same way "bank" and "banking" can mean a place to sit and the movement of a plane even though they share syllables.
Slashdot Mirror
On a standard windos or Linux system, that's mostly true.
Excellent. It's great to work with the people who show consideration for others, because - and that's why the whole damn law needed to be passed at all - the majority doesn't.
I'll make a proposal to my local representative and tell him that at least one smoker is ok with it.
And yes, I'm serious. No, I don't think it has a chance, but maybe it makes a lawmaker think.
Apparently I did.
Notes usually sucks, but mostly because it was configured badly. Outlook always sucks, because it's configured badly by default and you can't change it.
No.
:-)
It's a workaround.
But one that works exceptionally well.
Nonsense.
There are several apps for OS X which provide exactly what you want - a centralized update mechanism. It's not in the built-in one, that's right, but it's available.
AppFresh or something is one example that I know of.
Some of these are justified - Adobe Reader sucks, there's no excuse why it takes a minute to load while a tap on the spacebar on OS X brings up a preview of the same PDF instantly, and many other PDF readers load in a tenth that time.
Apple Update - I don't have a beef with that.
Windos Update - is a study on how not to do it. It'll pop up even if you're running a fullscreen application at that time, some of which don't handle that gracefully. It'll tell you every few minutes that it wants to reboot, no matter how often you tell it to go stand in the corner. Really annoying freak.
Norton - yeah, if you've not already replaced it with any of the free and better alternatives, then you deserve the pain.
Sony crap - oh yes. They even forgot to mention that nothing in the docs tells you what does what, so you're left guessing as to which of these might be, you know, important driver packages, and which are just crap they added because someone in marketing thought it's a nifty idea.
Outlook - YES, FINALLY! Outlook is one of those things where I'm all for the death penalty. Outlook is the worst disaster for corporate productivity this side of the galactic core. It's also the worst e-mail client I've ever used, and that's a fairly long list. Outlook is enterprise messaging gone horribly wrong, in more ways than you thought possible. I'm SOO glad they put it on the list.
Flash - I find that one a bit unfair. Flash can be a cool tool, but it's often abused in ways that would be illegal if it were a human being. I'm not sure Adobe alone is to blame for that.
In any other population, about a quarter would be classified as an epidemic.
For windos, we shrug and say "yeah, what'd you expect?".
Think about that.
True, CoH and CoV had some interesting ideas. I like the "sidekick" system a lot, for example.
But, as far as actual gameplay goes, it's still grind, kill X monsters, kill more monsters, kill even more monsters, kill some more monsters. The differences and advances are still in the details, not the gameplay.
The only MMORPG I know that comes close to being innovative is Tale from the Desert. Except that in most areas it's still grinding.
If any MMORPG designer listens: I don't want to grind. For repetitive, boring work, there is, well, work. And you get paid for that instead of the other way around. And you can study to avoid it and get a more interesting job. I'd love to have that option in an MMORPG.
My girlfriend was in the closed beta for AoC, and I've seen several of the demo beta versions of WAR.
Without breaking any NDAs, I can say that neither will live up to the hype. Conan looks good and has some very interesting ideas in it, but for the most parts it's simply another MMORPG. Warhammer has already lost its hardcore crowd with the last versions, because all the typical-computer-game "look ma', new graphics card" colourful shiny glowing effects - that's not the Warhammer world most of us grew up with, which is dark and dirty. They made it too much like WoW, and unless they can beat WoW at its own game, that's where they'll look a lot like their orc in the trailer.
I'm still waiting for that innovative MMORPG. You know, the one that's not simply like all the others, but has new ideas, new concepts, a new gameplay. The one that teaches us that "MMORPG" is not necessarily synonymous with "EQ/WoW clone".
You wouldn't mind being hit in the face if you happen to sit near me in a bar, would you?
Now you're going to tell in detail how that's really not the same thing. On the purely "tolerance" and "let me enjoy my stuff, even if it's a bit at your expense" level, it is.
So, let's join forces. Let the two of us suggest a change in the law: Smoking is allowed everywhere, as long as the smoker is willing to accept one (1) good smash in the face from every non-smoker who is bothered by it.
I'm for it.
Because it doesn't work that way in real life.
If you want to participate in social life, as a non-smoker you are forced to attend places where people smoke. You don't have a choice, and if you don't have choices, the usual "the market will decide" aka "then don't go there" mechanism doesn't work. At all.
I've read this argument dozens of times and it doesn't get true by repeating it more often, sorry. The whole "let people decide" is a strawman, bullshit, idiotic nonsense non-argument. It pre-supposes that there is a decision to be made, but there really isn't.
Real-life example: If you're young then your essential saturday-night places are clubs and pubs. Until recently (here in Germany) you would be very, very hard-pressed to find even a single non-smoking club in even the largest cities. I live in the 2nd largest city of Germany and to my knowledge there isn't one here.
So your choice was not, ever to go to either a smoking or a non-smoking club. That choice simply never existed. All the protests and crying of the tobacco lobby always suggested there were such a choice, but there never was, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this would have changed without a law.
The real choice was "go where they smoke" or "don't go at all". Where "don't go at all" also means "don't meet your friends", "don't be cool", "don't be in", "don't be with your clique", "don't meet nice boys/girls" and a whole lot of other things that people in their late teens/early twenties value quite highly.
The whole "a business owner should be allowed to decide" argument rests on the assumption that with that choice, there would be non-smoking clubs and pubs. But that is simply not true. The assumption is false, and hence the argument is misleading.
Personally, I think we desperately need some real anti-smoking laws. And by that I mean you can smoke whatever and wherever and how much you want - as long as you can guarantee that your smoke stays away from me.
We non-smokers are way too damn accepting.
Take a look for those and you can make the bread you want, and know exactly what went in there.
Thus, your only rational choice as a dictator is to do what everyone else does: Invest in the military, police and the rest of your control apparatus, and if there's anything left after that, do some very careful, slow improvements to your country.
Otherwise, someone who's more self-interested than you are will replace you.
But the muscles of fat people consume more energy moving all that weight around than the muscles of slim people use to move their bodies.
Yeah, exceptions, blabla - this was a global study meaning you are abstracting away from the individual case and work with averages.
And on average, moving around 200 kg takes a lot more energy than moving around 80 kg.
There, I said it. I'm not even sorry. There is way too much "tolerance" these days for stuff that people are responsible for.
I'm all for having an open mind and being tolerant and nice to everyone for everything they had no say in - their gender, race, skin-hair-eye-colour, whatever.
I'm sick and tired of this whole "tolerance" bullshit when it comes to stuff that people choose - smoking, drinking, religion or being fat. And yes, it's a choice unless you're in the 0.1% where it's a medical condition (I'm willing to argue on religion, though. Some evidence says it's a mental condition with a genetic pre-disposition part).
People choose to be fat. Not necessarily consciously, as in "hey, let's get fat", of course. And tolerance towards obesity has a major impact. If every fat child were ridiculed and laughed at, there would be less of them. It's not the only factor, not by far, but hey, let's give the fat bastards some incentives to work on themselves!
As someone who is (trying to, and sometimes succeeding) to use video conferencing in a business setting, my advise is this:
/etc/something/other.conf" stuff. It has to work then and there with the push of a button.
Your #1 priority is that the stuff works. No hassle, no fiddling around, none of the "just edit line #192 in
Anything that can't guarantee this is unsuited. Maybe you can get it to work with a little messing around in a minute or two, but you can be sure that at least one remote partner can't. If it's any more complicated than turning it on and pushing "connect", there will be trouble. If there is trouble, acceptance falls. Once acceptance is low, you can forget about it, even if by then it works flawlessly.
Not if the correlation is that strong, no.
Most MS "partners" eventually got bitten by their deals, so the clock is ticking for OLPC.
Faith is not and admission of ignorance. Science is an admission that we don't know everything, but we're trying to learn as much as we can. Faith is the assumption that some things are true simply because they are. Well, because they're written in a book, or revealed in some way or the other, but essentially "because we say so".
Contrary to your statement, faith claims to know everything. Maybe not every detail, but the very core element of religious faith, for example, is that the ultimate answer to everything is always "god". No matter what chain of reasoning and causation you follow, you will always end up there.
The human endeavour that really leaves room for "I don't know" is science, because it's the only place where that answer is perfectly acceptable, honest and welcome.
Maybe you should've RTFA.
This guy is arguing on astronomy which, last time I checked, just happens to be a science. You know, science as in "scientific method"? That's not a coincidence the same way "bank" and "banking" can mean a place to sit and the movement of a plane even though they share syllables.