Right. I don't understand pedantic, arbitrary rules. I suspect the motivation for them is purely control, and/or inflexibility.
Rules of style are simply the codification of the knowledge of experts so that people who aren't experts can do a reasonable job without thinking about it all that much. People who are experts have the experience and domain knowledge to know when breaking the rules can produce better results.
You, as a self-declared non-expert, are free to disagree with such rules all you want, but the one argument that carries no water is that they are arbitrary - that is simply a statement about your ignorance not about the value of writing style rules.
It's no surprise you would say that since your entire reason for joining the discussion was to claim that it's all a bunch of arbitrary rules, that clarity and precision are meaningless concepts when it comes to writing. So as long as you refuse to accept that it isn't just style of course you'll never understand it the value of it. It just a mere matter of programming.
That is only the case because congress has put ridiculously onerous pension funding requirements on the USPS. They have to fund pensions for people they haven't even hired yet. It is ridiculous how badly congress has fucked over the USPS - not only did they force them to prefund pensions, but then congress went and raided those pensions as if they were part of the US general fund. If congress had not done all that shit, the USPS would be deep in the black today.
The Gates Foundation uses their clout as the largest charity in the world to push for stronger IP laws. So Zuck is just trying to get in on some of that sweet, sweet charity power for his own interests.
. Do you really believe that people making millions upon millions of dollars have movies full of "accidents" or unintentional messages and content? That is not a realistic thought process, yet many have it.
In China, many people felt that the movie Avatar was social commentary about the occupation of Tibet. It got to the point where the government cancelled all 2D showings (about 4500 screens) leaving only the 3D version to play in much smaller number of theaters. Who really knows what was in Cameron's head, but it sure seems unlikely that Tibet was the focus of the movie. Just because some films are propaganda doesn't mean that everything in a film is propaganda.
Wikileaks is about exposing hidden truth. Assange would be a hypocrite to go along with a production that he feels hides the truth.
Assange might be wrong about what constitutes truth in this situation because, unlike something as straight-forward as publishing secret documents, some truths are a matter of perspective. Nevertheless, you can't reasonably expect Assange to go along with something he believes is not truthful.
Comparisons to facebook miss the point. Facebook is about making money and while they may have lofty corporatespeak goal - they are a publicly traded company and therefore can't honestly aspire to anything more than the almighty dollar.
Only a pathological authoritarian would equate Philby with Snowden. And only a licker of jackboots would equate "soviet awards" with the Sakharov Prize. That's more than just snippy, that's outright boorishness.
Edward Snowden must feel so proud of his newly adopted homeland.
As if hiding from a blood-thirsty mob in a ditch constitutes an endorsement of ditch-living.
Snowden's first goal was to expose the NSA. His second is to remain alive and unimprisoned, and sadly his only options for that appear to be oppressive states. That's not an indictment of Snowden, it is an indictment of the so-called "free world."
Because there is no userland, all the applications are running with kernel priveleges. That means a flaw in any of those programs can interfere with the whole software stack, whereas with userland protection the individual processes are isolated from each other by the OS.
You are not talking about security, you are talking about memory protection. The thing is - a process that stomps on another processes memory in this model would get a memory fault and die under the normal model. The end result is the same either way.
Easy solution: cut off your nose to spite your face.
That's funny, I think going with netflix is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Go with the pirate bay and you get a wider selection, no worries about streaming hiccups and no DRM. All around a better solution.
> Yeah, and? For one, you need a much more powerful laser.
I did more than what you said and it didn't work the way you said. Your leaving out details is your fault, not mine.
If you aren't willing to specify how much wattage is necessary then you have no standing to whine that the laser isn't powerful enough.
Same thing with the focusing lens - you want to add specifications after the fact, it may be true but you were completely disingenuous by leaving out the requirements.- after all you literally said "just shoot a high power laser."
I'm sure a judge would just love that line of logic, and not give you the maximum penalty after you basically admit you did it deliberately in an attempt to avoid the law.
That logic can only go so far, at some point it becomes the equivalent of if you don't help the police then you are trying to avoid the law. Where is that line? In the cases of speed and red-light cameras the states have circumvented the people's 6th amendment right to confront their accuser by making them civil violations. Seems to me that cuts both ways, if it isn't a crime then there was no intent to avoid the law.
Just shoot a high power laser on a very short duration wherever this quality is found, and you'll burn out the CCD of any nearby digital camera
As someone who has directly shined a 300mw laser directly into a security camera for about 30 seconds from less than 10 feet away, I am going to call bullshit because it didn't damage the camera at all. It did bind it while the laser was on it, but that was it.
300mw isn't the highest power laser there is by a long shot, but it is already way above the 5mw limit considered safe, but even lasers have beam spread such that shining a multi-watt laser from "miles away" is going to massively reduce the energy density.
NoScript is an awesome plugin, especially from a security viewpoint, but there is still a lot of information a web site can relay to advertisers without using scripts.
If you like NoScript - check out RequestPolicy - think of it as an inverse hosts file - instead of blocking individual trackers you whitelist sites instead. Not only that, but the whitelisting is on a per web-server basis, e.g. you can let ESPN's include stuff from doubleclick without letting any other sites include stuff from doubleclick.
It makes the interweb soo much faster and protects against fingerprinting because your browser never even connects to the fingerpinter much less hands over any identifying information.
And this isn't going to stop ads... it just going to stop them from tracking you.
Realistically this won't stop them from tracking you either, it will just escalate the arms race. Which isn't necessarily bad, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking this is going to make tracking stop.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. I don't understand pedantic, arbitrary rules. I suspect the motivation for them is purely control, and/or inflexibility.
Rules of style are simply the codification of the knowledge of experts so that people who aren't experts can do a reasonable job without thinking about it all that much. People who are experts have the experience and domain knowledge to know when breaking the rules can produce better results.
You, as a self-declared non-expert, are free to disagree with such rules all you want, but the one argument that carries no water is that they are arbitrary - that is simply a statement about your ignorance not about the value of writing style rules.
This is a matter of taste, not grammar.
It's no surprise you would say that since your entire reason for joining the discussion was to claim that it's all a bunch of arbitrary rules, that clarity and precision are meaningless concepts when it comes to writing. So as long as you refuse to accept that it isn't just style of course you'll never understand it the value of it. It just a mere matter of programming.
That's probably why he used the passive voice. He didn't want to focus on the authors, but the articles.
"There are thousands of articles purporting to explain Bitcoin..."
The point: the sentence I proposed wasn't passive, as you stated.
A distinction without a difference. You made it worse, regardless of googled pedantry.
Lol, you just googled that didn't you?
The error you've made is to add "people" that wasn't part of the orignal.
LOL, it wouldn't be any better, because that's passive too.
That is only the case because congress has put ridiculously onerous pension funding requirements on the USPS. They have to fund pensions for people they haven't even hired yet. It is ridiculous how badly congress has fucked over the USPS - not only did they force them to prefund pensions, but then congress went and raided those pensions as if they were part of the US general fund. If congress had not done all that shit, the USPS would be deep in the black today.
http://postalemployeenetwork.com/news/2011/08/the-big-lie-about-postal-bankruptcy/
The Gates Foundation uses their clout as the largest charity in the world to push for stronger IP laws. So Zuck is just trying to get in on some of that sweet, sweet charity power for his own interests.
http://hyperlogos.org/blog/drink/Why-Gates-Foundation-Evil
. Do you really believe that people making millions upon millions of dollars have movies full of "accidents" or unintentional messages and content? That is not a realistic thought process, yet many have it.
In China, many people felt that the movie Avatar was social commentary about the occupation of Tibet. It got to the point where the government cancelled all 2D showings (about 4500 screens) leaving only the 3D version to play in much smaller number of theaters. Who really knows what was in Cameron's head, but it sure seems unlikely that Tibet was the focus of the movie. Just because some films are propaganda doesn't mean that everything in a film is propaganda.
http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/stories/avatar-movie-chinese-reactions-long-lines-shanghai.html
Wikileaks is about exposing hidden truth. Assange would be a hypocrite to go along with a production that he feels hides the truth.
Assange might be wrong about what constitutes truth in this situation because, unlike something as straight-forward as publishing secret documents, some truths are a matter of perspective. Nevertheless, you can't reasonably expect Assange to go along with something he believes is not truthful.
Comparisons to facebook miss the point. Facebook is about making money and while they may have lofty corporatespeak goal - they are a publicly traded company and therefore can't honestly aspire to anything more than the almighty dollar.
Only a pathological authoritarian would equate Philby with Snowden. And only a licker of jackboots would equate "soviet awards" with the Sakharov Prize. That's more than just snippy, that's outright boorishness.
Edward Snowden must feel so proud of his newly adopted homeland.
As if hiding from a blood-thirsty mob in a ditch constitutes an endorsement of ditch-living.
Snowden's first goal was to expose the NSA. His second is to remain alive and unimprisoned, and sadly his only options for that appear to be oppressive states. That's not an indictment of Snowden, it is an indictment of the so-called "free world."
Only in a system with different users.
Because there is no userland, all the applications are running with kernel priveleges. That means a flaw in any of those programs can interfere with the whole software stack, whereas with userland protection the individual processes are isolated from each other by the OS.
You are not talking about security, you are talking about memory protection. The thing is - a process that stomps on another processes memory in this model would get a memory fault and die under the normal model. The end result is the same either way.
it falls down badly on the security front for real workloads.
One "app" is rarely "one program."
Take web services, for example.
Not seeing how security is an issue in your example. Presumably they all run as the same userid anyway.
And yet when Bradley Manning makes an eerily similar statement plenty of people are willing to take it as proof positive that he was a bad guy.
Given that this is a special-purpose OS, intended for one-app per VM situations I think it is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make.
Easy solution: cut off your nose to spite your face.
That's funny, I think going with netflix is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Go with the pirate bay and you get a wider selection, no worries about streaming hiccups and no DRM. All around a better solution.
Probably because it was easier to overload manslaughter than to come up with a brand new crime.
It was a black and white camera.
> Yeah, and? For one, you need a much more powerful laser.
I did more than what you said and it didn't work the way you said. Your leaving out details is your fault, not mine.
If you aren't willing to specify how much wattage is necessary then you have no standing to whine that the laser isn't powerful enough.
Same thing with the focusing lens - you want to add specifications after the fact, it may be true but you were completely disingenuous by leaving out the requirements.- after all you literally said "just shoot a high power laser."
I'm sure a judge would just love that line of logic, and not give you the maximum penalty after you basically admit you did it deliberately in an attempt to avoid the law.
That logic can only go so far, at some point it becomes the equivalent of if you don't help the police then you are trying to avoid the law. Where is that line? In the cases of speed and red-light cameras the states have circumvented the people's 6th amendment right to confront their accuser by making them civil violations. Seems to me that cuts both ways, if it isn't a crime then there was no intent to avoid the law.
Just shoot a high power laser on a very short duration wherever this quality is found, and you'll burn out the CCD of any nearby digital camera
As someone who has directly shined a 300mw laser directly into a security camera for about 30 seconds from less than 10 feet away, I am going to call bullshit because it didn't damage the camera at all. It did bind it while the laser was on it, but that was it.
300mw isn't the highest power laser there is by a long shot, but it is already way above the 5mw limit considered safe, but even lasers have beam spread such that shining a multi-watt laser from "miles away" is going to massively reduce the energy density.
Yeah, it must be a big surprise that such a lying politician came from Chicago. No one saw that coming, nosirree.
Excuse me, but he's from Kenya, not Chicago!
NoScript is an awesome plugin, especially from a security viewpoint, but there is still a lot of information a web site can relay to advertisers without using scripts.
If you like NoScript - check out RequestPolicy - think of it as an inverse hosts file - instead of blocking individual trackers you whitelist sites instead. Not only that, but the whitelisting is on a per web-server basis, e.g. you can let ESPN's include stuff from doubleclick without letting any other sites include stuff from doubleclick.
It makes the interweb soo much faster and protects against fingerprinting because your browser never even connects to the fingerpinter much less hands over any identifying information.
And this isn't going to stop ads... it just going to stop them from tracking you.
Realistically this won't stop them from tracking you either, it will just escalate the arms race. Which isn't necessarily bad, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking this is going to make tracking stop.