Uh, no, I didn't say that _my_ running Linux would increase my chances of having sex... what I said was that Jeri Ryan running Linux would give me a better chance of having sex with her then any other scenario imaginable! As for "7 of 9" herself, her running Linux probably doesn't increase the willingness of computer geeks to have sex with her by any measurable amount -- the volume control is already set at "11"!
Not to me, but to the species in general. Homo Sapiens have survived as long as they have because on the average, more people have benefited the species than harmed it. Reverse the situation, and have more people harming society than helping it, and the entire species dies off. It is analogous to the way cancer cells kill a host. Evolution has programmed us for altruism; non-altruistic social species have all presumably been failed experiments. That being said, even most people that do spend most of their day sitting around watching MTV also work for a living, and thus do provide a net benefit to society -- even the guy whose job it is to ask you "Do you want fries with that?"
But, like gun laws and restraining orders, it only protects you against people that try to follow the law... and those are not the people whose privacy you should be violating! Like many ill-conceived violations of privacy, it disproportionately affects law-abiding citizens (making them susceptible to blackmail and extortion) while doing little to inconvenience professional criminals. Case in point: what do you think happens to the career of a US serviceman, when the logs show him visiting a perfectly legal gay porn site?
But you do a serious disservice to your cause when you quote opinions from a single, unreliable, non-peer reviews source, or when you throw out original source data and only publish your "massaged" results. In fact, it makes it look like you have started out with a preconceived notion of what the results should be, then cherry-picked the data to match your predicted results. Although the scientific method does involve making a hypothesis and then testing it, it requires the tests be fair (and reproducible). In short, these cowboys straying from rigorous scientific method have done a lot of harm to the very cause they were trying to promote!
We already have enough weapons to kill everybody on the planet 100 times over, and yet we haven't... yet.
Fixed that for ya.
Fortunately (for us), the Russian and Chinese bureaucrats that were given control over weapons systems were actually fairly sane, rational people. The newest members of the "nuclear weapons club"... not so much. Mutual Assured Destruction only works when you have people that are capable of making a rational evaluation of the cost/benefits of deploying a weapon. Does anybody think the same people that are willing to become a suicide bombers are capable of making that rational evaluation?
Or, you could require all windowless vans to be registered with the state -- oh wait, they already are! And it's not much help in tracking down predators due to the SHEER VOLUME OF DATA one must go through... anybody expect tracking all internet access to actually be useful, given it generates several orders of magnitude more data?
You'd also have to make every copy of Photoshop transmit every image created to the FBI -- remember, images of "The Simpsons" cartoon kids in sexual positions is ALSO considered "child pornography"!
Seriously is child pornography going to be trotted out for EVERY encroachment on privacy that we have to endure year after year? No, not every encroachment. The wars on terrorism, drugs, and gangs, will be trotted out for many other encroachments. "Terrorism" is already used to restrict your right to anonymous travel. Fighting gangs was used as an excuse for random checkpoints in California. And drugs... will, approximately half the people in jail in the US are there on drug related charges -- trust me, being in jail is a HUGE encroachment on your privacy!
Deep packet inspection for URL not required, in theory, if the U.S. government mandates both ISPs *and* websites to maintain logs. Somehow, I suspect that the websites actually serving up child pornography might have a problem complying with mandatory record retention laws...
The people downloading "kitty porn" for free are doing nothing to encourage the creation of more of it. Go after the money trail instead -- the people that deserve to go to jail are the people that are paying for it, and I don't believe tracing the flow of funds requires monitoring every single internet connection. Also, laws are publicly recorded -- as soon as you announce you're going to start doing this, anybody that knows they are breaking a law is just going to start encrypting their connections and going through anonymous proxies, meaning that this technology is only effective against people who don't think they are doing anything wrong!
As they used to say in the '60s, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate!" No, wait... that's what they used to say in Chemistry Lab. In the '60s, they said, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem!" Saying "People are fine if you give them enough TV to watch" is basically the same as saying "Heroin addicts don't bother you much if you just give them a enough drugs to keep them happy." Just because your not actively tearing down society doesn't necessarily mean your existence is a net benefit to the rest of us. It just means that you are less harmful than the people that are actively tearing things down.
Great... now I can't get this image of Jeri Ryan in a blue screen of death out of my mind! Thanks a lot! If she was running MacOS, she would only be attracted to other women, so let's hope like hell she's running Linux, that's the only way we have any chance of... uh, successfully interfacing with her I/O port(s).
You wonder if our technology is developing faster than our enlightenment? We already have enough weapons to kill everybody on the planet 100 times over, and our top priority is watching "Jersey Shore"... does that answer your question?
Uh, I think what they really mean is that it is accurate to about one four-billionith of a second per year, which beats the heck out a Timex. I don't think anyone seriously believes the device itself will last long enough to lose or gain even a microsecond.
The National Institute for Standards and Technology has unveiled a new clock that will 'neither gain nor lose one second in about 3.7 billion years' Sure, they say that now, but just TRY tracking them down to get your money back 3.7 billion years from now when you find out they were lying!
How much money does the WSEAS make off of each presenter? This sounds a lot like the various "Who's Who" books, which will include a biography of anybody that is will to pay $500 for a copy of the book. I'm sure there are plenty of academics who would be willing to pay dearly to be able to claim their papers have been "published in a peer-reviewed journal" and "presented at a prestigious conference". Yet another sign that I'm obviously in the wrong line of work...
Look at his track record: Never stays at one job too long. Doesn't have a clear career path, keeps jumping around from painting to architecture to mechanical design, seemingly on a whim. Does not play well with others; intentionally obfuscates his notes so that nobody but him can read them. The list goes on and on... this man is obviously not a team player, and would be a poor fit for our development team. -- HR
Even if one moron downloads it thinking that it will work on their Andriod [sic] phone, it's one person too many. Just as soon as somebody publishes an Android app that allows you to download software from the Apple App store to your Android, that comment might actually make start making sense.
In Hollywood, getting hit by a bullet usually knocks people off their feet. Sometimes the bullet picks them up and carries them several feet backwards. In real life, bullets don't have nearly that much momentum (otherwise the shooter would also be knocked off their feet). However, I suspect they do have enough momentum to spoil your aim. For small-caliber slugs, it isn't always immediately obvious that you've been hit. For the 45 caliber lead slugs that the cowboys used (which would have a lot of tumble), I suspect you would always know when you were hit. Nevertheless, I think your conclusion is generally correct -- most duels should have ended with both parties injured. I believe this was frequently the case when duels were conducted as a matter of honor, with single-shot pistols.
When they sell my info to the highest bidder, I get all the proceeds from that sale, since I'm the owner of the information, right? Couldn't somebody game the system by mass-creating virtual identities?
"Not perfect"?!? Blasphemy!!! Burn the Blasphemer!
Yes, all software has security flaws, including Linux and MacOS, which is why a many-layered approach to security is necessary to limit the scope of vulnerabilities.
While that might be a successful tactic if an individual sues you, it does you no good at all if a corporation sues you. Oposing attorneys are cheap, plentiful, and easily replaced; the corporation itself is immortal. Many people also seem to consider murder unethical... go figure.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, no, I didn't say that _my_ running Linux would increase my chances of having sex... what I said was that Jeri Ryan running Linux would give me a better chance of having sex with her then any other scenario imaginable! As for "7 of 9" herself, her running Linux probably doesn't increase the willingness of computer geeks to have sex with her by any measurable amount -- the volume control is already set at "11"!
Not to me, but to the species in general. Homo Sapiens have survived as long as they have because on the average, more people have benefited the species than harmed it. Reverse the situation, and have more people harming society than helping it, and the entire species dies off. It is analogous to the way cancer cells kill a host. Evolution has programmed us for altruism; non-altruistic social species have all presumably been failed experiments. That being said, even most people that do spend most of their day sitting around watching MTV also work for a living, and thus do provide a net benefit to society -- even the guy whose job it is to ask you "Do you want fries with that?"
But, like gun laws and restraining orders, it only protects you against people that try to follow the law... and those are not the people whose privacy you should be violating! Like many ill-conceived violations of privacy, it disproportionately affects law-abiding citizens (making them susceptible to blackmail and extortion) while doing little to inconvenience professional criminals. Case in point: what do you think happens to the career of a US serviceman, when the logs show him visiting a perfectly legal gay porn site?
But you do a serious disservice to your cause when you quote opinions from a single, unreliable, non-peer reviews source, or when you throw out original source data and only publish your "massaged" results. In fact, it makes it look like you have started out with a preconceived notion of what the results should be, then cherry-picked the data to match your predicted results. Although the scientific method does involve making a hypothesis and then testing it, it requires the tests be fair (and reproducible). In short, these cowboys straying from rigorous scientific method have done a lot of harm to the very cause they were trying to promote!
We already have enough weapons to kill everybody on the planet 100 times over, and yet we haven't... yet.
Fixed that for ya.
Fortunately (for us), the Russian and Chinese bureaucrats that were given control over weapons systems were actually fairly sane, rational people. The newest members of the "nuclear weapons club"... not so much. Mutual Assured Destruction only works when you have people that are capable of making a rational evaluation of the cost/benefits of deploying a weapon. Does anybody think the same people that are willing to become a suicide bombers are capable of making that rational evaluation?
Or, you could require all windowless vans to be registered with the state -- oh wait, they already are! And it's not much help in tracking down predators due to the SHEER VOLUME OF DATA one must go through... anybody expect tracking all internet access to actually be useful, given it generates several orders of magnitude more data?
You'd also have to make every copy of Photoshop transmit every image created to the FBI -- remember, images of "The Simpsons" cartoon kids in sexual positions is ALSO considered "child pornography"!
Seriously is child pornography going to be trotted out for EVERY encroachment on privacy that we have to endure year after year? No, not every encroachment. The wars on terrorism, drugs, and gangs, will be trotted out for many other encroachments. "Terrorism" is already used to restrict your right to anonymous travel. Fighting gangs was used as an excuse for random checkpoints in California. And drugs... will, approximately half the people in jail in the US are there on drug related charges -- trust me, being in jail is a HUGE encroachment on your privacy!
If we could just get some people to stop thinking of the children, there wouldn't be so much child porn in the first place!
Deep packet inspection for URL not required, in theory, if the U.S. government mandates both ISPs *and* websites to maintain logs. Somehow, I suspect that the websites actually serving up child pornography might have a problem complying with mandatory record retention laws...
The people downloading "kitty porn" for free are doing nothing to encourage the creation of more of it. Go after the money trail instead -- the people that deserve to go to jail are the people that are paying for it, and I don't believe tracing the flow of funds requires monitoring every single internet connection. Also, laws are publicly recorded -- as soon as you announce you're going to start doing this, anybody that knows they are breaking a law is just going to start encrypting their connections and going through anonymous proxies, meaning that this technology is only effective against people who don't think they are doing anything wrong!
As they used to say in the '60s, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate!" No, wait... that's what they used to say in Chemistry Lab. In the '60s, they said, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem!" Saying "People are fine if you give them enough TV to watch" is basically the same as saying "Heroin addicts don't bother you much if you just give them a enough drugs to keep them happy." Just because your not actively tearing down society doesn't necessarily mean your existence is a net benefit to the rest of us. It just means that you are less harmful than the people that are actively tearing things down.
Great... now I can't get this image of Jeri Ryan in a blue screen of death out of my mind! Thanks a lot! If she was running MacOS, she would only be attracted to other women, so let's hope like hell she's running Linux, that's the only way we have any chance of... uh, successfully interfacing with her I/O port(s).
You wonder if our technology is developing faster than our enlightenment? We already have enough weapons to kill everybody on the planet 100 times over, and our top priority is watching "Jersey Shore"... does that answer your question?
Uh, I think what they really mean is that it is accurate to about one four-billionith of a second per year, which beats the heck out a Timex. I don't think anyone seriously believes the device itself will last long enough to lose or gain even a microsecond.
The National Institute for Standards and Technology has unveiled a new clock that will 'neither gain nor lose one second in about 3.7 billion years' Sure, they say that now, but just TRY tracking them down to get your money back 3.7 billion years from now when you find out they were lying!
How much money does the WSEAS make off of each presenter? This sounds a lot like the various "Who's Who" books, which will include a biography of anybody that is will to pay $500 for a copy of the book. I'm sure there are plenty of academics who would be willing to pay dearly to be able to claim their papers have been "published in a peer-reviewed journal" and "presented at a prestigious conference". Yet another sign that I'm obviously in the wrong line of work...
Look at his track record: Never stays at one job too long. Doesn't have a clear career path, keeps jumping around from painting to architecture to mechanical design, seemingly on a whim. Does not play well with others; intentionally obfuscates his notes so that nobody but him can read them. The list goes on and on... this man is obviously not a team player, and would be a poor fit for our development team. -- HR
Even if one moron downloads it thinking that it will work on their Andriod [sic] phone, it's one person too many. Just as soon as somebody publishes an Android app that allows you to download software from the Apple App store to your Android, that comment might actually make start making sense.
In Hollywood, getting hit by a bullet usually knocks people off their feet. Sometimes the bullet picks them up and carries them several feet backwards. In real life, bullets don't have nearly that much momentum (otherwise the shooter would also be knocked off their feet). However, I suspect they do have enough momentum to spoil your aim. For small-caliber slugs, it isn't always immediately obvious that you've been hit. For the 45 caliber lead slugs that the cowboys used (which would have a lot of tumble), I suspect you would always know when you were hit. Nevertheless, I think your conclusion is generally correct -- most duels should have ended with both parties injured. I believe this was frequently the case when duels were conducted as a matter of honor, with single-shot pistols.
"Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull." -- George Orwell, 1984, Part I, Chapter II.
Proof that Big Google is your friend, even if he does know way too damn much about you.
Nobody would expect that!
When they sell my info to the highest bidder, I get all the proceeds from that sale, since I'm the owner of the information, right? Couldn't somebody game the system by mass-creating virtual identities?
"Not perfect"?!? Blasphemy!!! Burn the Blasphemer!
Yes, all software has security flaws, including Linux and MacOS, which is why a many-layered approach to security is necessary to limit the scope of vulnerabilities.
While that might be a successful tactic if an individual sues you, it does you no good at all if a corporation sues you. Oposing attorneys are cheap, plentiful, and easily replaced; the corporation itself is immortal. Many people also seem to consider murder unethical... go figure.