Matt Daemon's character in the Bourne Trilogy *absolutely* could pull off a stapled-on mullet. You'd have to integrate it at the cellular level, and then make it a requisite for him staying incognito while passing through a checkpoint on-alert for his presence.
Best for whom? Rabidly attaching one's loyalty to what appears to be the coolest system is what fills the need (temporarily) of the fanbois to belong to and identify with a group and idea that is bigger and cooler than they are. Defacing webpages is a rite of passage that proves their loyalty and helps cement their self-image as belonging.
If all the consoles appeared equal, and there were no clear winners (based on whatever criteria a given fanboi was using), they would be confused and not know who to identify with, thereby causing an identity crisis.
And you think all this existential trauma is worth your being able to benefit from the ideal capitalist state (honest-to-god competition, resulting in businesses striving to put out unique and high-quality products)? How selfish can you be?;)
"Court Order"? You mean that thing that Bush was required by law to get for his Spy On America policy, said he would need to get, didn't bother to get, and got away with not getting? Hm.
This is more or less my opinion as well. What gets my panties in a bunch is the pure hypocrisy of these corporate bastards, and how they'd *like* us to think they are selflessly protecting the income of the poor starving artists out there, when it's often their contracts which allows them to make money hand over fist when many of the artists are struggling to make ends meet simply because they don't get a large enough share of the income from their own art!
My $.02? Let's show them, *really*, how we can hurt their profits, if we actually try. I personally *want* to financially support my favorite artists, but I know that buying their music through the Music Industry's channels will result in the artist only getting a small fraction of that money. So I will, starting now, only buy music that I can download or buy direct from the artist/their website, where the profits go directly to them. And I will listen to and support the public-supported radio stations that *don't* have advertisements (in my experience, the music there is often more interesting, and the shows just as entertaining). And if enough people do this as well, the RIAA *will* feel it.
But really, it's what the Music Industry would want. They are only in it to help the starving artists make a decent living, right?
I think in all seriousness that you cannot objectively say the myth was "busted", it was simply not re-created successfully. They didn't prove that it *couldn't* be done, in fact, the results seem to indicate that, with better tools and techniques, it probably *could* have been done.
Also, there are a lot of assumptions made in the performance of the myth, that have a definite impact on how successful the re-creation attempt might be. To list a few that occurred to me (and I am not claiming all are accurate or correct, but more to illustrate my point in general):
(1) Ships today are made with different materials. From what I have read about historical boats, a lot of ships used materials like pitch and tar in quantity, which I believe are typically more flammable than dry wood.
(2) A number of soldiers were used: How many? What if it was 300? 500? What if these soldiers were specifically trained/spent time practicing focusing their mirrors? If this actually happened, they probably trained, and had their leader shouting out instructions, like 'focus on the lead ship, on the rail by the first sheet!' or something similar. With a large enough group, you wouldn't need to get *all* of them at the exact same spot, especially if the material was highly flammable (see point (1)).
(3) When you say 'an entire advancing fleet', how many ships is this? In Archimedes time, I would think that 500 soldiers would be a serious invading force. How many ships would it take to transport that many? 5-10? Thats not a whole lot to try to set on fire.
I don't have a strong opinion as to whether this myth is true or not, but it's quite clear that Archimedes was a genius, and I think it's the height of conceit to say it's been proven that he couldn't have done it.
G
Re:"Merge onto I-5 HAL" "Sorry Dave, I can't do th
on
Cars that Can't Crash?
·
· Score: 1
Well, sure, but only if you're not enough of a hoopy frood to have your Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses handy...
Basically they were saying to companies "If you are employing a HTTP server admin who knows *NOTHING* about administering web servers, as of this version/patchlevel of each of these OS, this is what you can expect." (Relative security varying more or less with each new patch, etc.)
If they were really trying to scientifically compare, they would have gotten a certified MCSE and RHCE with equal years experience managing servers, and let them set up their servers in what they considered "Common usable yet secure state" and then run another comparison. (The most secure of course, being unconnected to the Net and unplugged;-)
I also noticed that despite the fact that they claimed they compared risk levels, when they listed total days "at risk" they did NOT list how many of those days for each were highly critical, non-critical, etc.
Of course! It's the standard corporate PR stance regarding vulnerabilities:
The User of Our Software May Feel Secure, because: (1) Any bugs which may or may not hypothetically exist in our software do not *actually* exist until someone publicly blows the whistle (refer to the cat in the box) (2) The whistleblower is actually the one to blame for the insecurity existing, not our poor coding and software testing standards. (3) Ignore the [H,Cr]acker Behind the Curtain who may or may not have discovered the hypothetical security hole in our software and decided to keep the info to his/her self. Their existence, real or not, does not actually threaten your security while using our software.
An *option*?? What are you trying to say? You think most/.ers are gay males, straight females, or deliberately celibate??
[Hypothetical/.er to potential gf] "*Ahem* What, you say you want to be my gf? No, sorry, that's not an option for me."
-g
Slashdot Mirror
Matt Daemon's character in the Bourne Trilogy *absolutely* could pull off a stapled-on mullet. You'd have to integrate it at the cellular level, and then make it a requisite for him staying incognito while passing through a checkpoint on-alert for his presence.
Best for whom? Rabidly attaching one's loyalty to what appears to be the coolest system is what fills the need (temporarily) of the fanbois to belong to and identify with a group and idea that is bigger and cooler than they are. Defacing webpages is a rite of passage that proves their loyalty and helps cement their self-image as belonging.
;)
If all the consoles appeared equal, and there were no clear winners (based on whatever criteria a given fanboi was using), they would be confused and not know who to identify with, thereby causing an identity crisis.
And you think all this existential trauma is worth your being able to benefit from the ideal capitalist state (honest-to-god competition, resulting in businesses striving to put out unique and high-quality products)? How selfish can you be?
"Court Order"? You mean that thing that Bush was required by law to get for his Spy On America policy, said he would need to get, didn't bother to get, and got away with not getting? Hm.
This is more or less my opinion as well. What gets my panties in a bunch is the pure hypocrisy of these corporate bastards, and how they'd *like* us to think they are selflessly protecting the income of the poor starving artists out there, when it's often their contracts which allows them to make money hand over fist when many of the artists are struggling to make ends meet simply because they don't get a large enough share of the income from their own art!
My $.02? Let's show them, *really*, how we can hurt their profits, if we actually try. I personally *want* to financially support my favorite artists, but I know that buying their music through the Music Industry's channels will result in the artist only getting a small fraction of that money. So I will, starting now, only buy music that I can download or buy direct from the artist/their website, where the profits go directly to them. And I will listen to and support the public-supported radio stations that *don't* have advertisements (in my experience, the music there is often more interesting, and the shows just as entertaining). And if enough people do this as well, the RIAA *will* feel it.
But really, it's what the Music Industry would want. They are only in it to help the starving artists make a decent living, right?
I think in all seriousness that you cannot objectively say the myth was "busted", it was simply not re-created successfully. They didn't prove that it *couldn't* be done, in fact, the results seem to indicate that, with better tools and techniques, it probably *could* have been done.
Also, there are a lot of assumptions made in the performance of the myth, that have a definite impact on how successful the re-creation attempt might be. To list a few that occurred to me (and I am not claiming all are accurate or correct, but more to illustrate my point in general):
(1) Ships today are made with different materials. From what I have read about historical boats, a lot of ships used materials like pitch and tar in quantity, which I believe are typically more flammable than dry wood.
(2) A number of soldiers were used: How many? What if it was 300? 500? What if these soldiers were specifically trained/spent time practicing focusing their mirrors? If this actually happened, they probably trained, and had their leader shouting out instructions, like 'focus on the lead ship, on the rail by the first sheet!' or something similar. With a large enough group, you wouldn't need to get *all* of them at the exact same spot, especially if the material was highly flammable (see point (1)).
(3) When you say 'an entire advancing fleet', how many ships is this? In Archimedes time, I would think that 500 soldiers would be a serious invading force. How many ships would it take to transport that many? 5-10? Thats not a whole lot to try to set on fire.
I don't have a strong opinion as to whether this myth is true or not, but it's quite clear that Archimedes was a genius, and I think it's the height of conceit to say it's been proven that he couldn't have done it.
G
Well, sure, but only if you're not enough of a hoopy frood to have your Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses handy...
Basically they were saying to companies "If you are employing a HTTP server admin who knows *NOTHING* about administering web servers, as of this version/patchlevel of each of these OS, this is what you can expect." (Relative security varying more or less with each new patch, etc.) ;-)
If they were really trying to scientifically compare, they would have gotten a certified MCSE and RHCE with equal years experience managing servers, and let them set up their servers in what they considered "Common usable yet secure state" and then run another comparison. (The most secure of course, being unconnected to the Net and unplugged
I also noticed that despite the fact that they claimed they compared risk levels, when they listed total days "at risk" they did NOT list how many of those days for each were highly critical, non-critical, etc.
Of course! It's the standard corporate PR stance regarding vulnerabilities:
The User of Our Software May Feel Secure, because:
(1) Any bugs which may or may not hypothetically exist in our software do not *actually* exist until someone publicly blows the whistle (refer to the cat in the box)
(2) The whistleblower is actually the one to blame for the insecurity existing, not our poor coding and software testing standards.
(3) Ignore the [H,Cr]acker Behind the Curtain who may or may not have discovered the hypothetical security hole in our software and decided to keep the info to his/her self. Their existence, real or not, does not actually threaten your security while using our software.
An *option*?? What are you trying to say? You think most /.ers are gay males, straight females, or deliberately celibate??
[Hypothetical /.er to potential gf] "*Ahem* What, you say you want to be my gf? No, sorry, that's not an option for me."
-g