Microsoft provided them with documentation and helped them with interoperability testing.
Well, then allow me to say... holy crap. As much as I have a hard time believing "Microsoft is committed to support for interoperability across platforms". They haven't historically been interested in that.
The whole reason you would implement a Samba server is to support your Windows desktops... I know Microsoft don't make a great deal of money on each desktop OS license (vs what they make on server products) but there sure are a lot of them.
It also makes them look good in any future antitrust suit - they have a written endorsement from a competitor.
As long as doing something makes good business sense they'll do it. I don't think they are inherently evil, we just have to make sure an environment exists where _not_ being evil is good for business.
I must say that your aim is quite impressive if you manage to hit photons with an RPG.
You misunderstand. MITM isn't about knocking "photons" out of the way, it's about injecting my own payload into the data stream and causing a communications crash. I've not tested it, but I think the receiving dish will be unable to differentiate between my packet and a regular wireless packet and will be forced to "accept" my packet causing major disruption to the communications stream. I'm fairly confident that my packet won't even need to know the encryption key used on the wireless connection.
He appears to have attacked the argument just fine for the broad majority of the post. One measly sentence at the end of the post doesn't suddenly invalidate it because it happened to be a snide remark.
Try having a rational discussion with someone then finish by calling them an idiot, and let me know how that works out for you. See if you can guess what they'll pay more attention to. An online conversation won't turn out much differently (evidence: this thread). The post isn't so much invalidated as ignored.
Wish i hadn't responded to a troll then I would have modded you up.
Wish people wouldn't waste time talking about how they would have modded something on an internet forum, if only circumstances had been different.
Also wish they wouldn't attach so much significance to who has or has not signed up for an account - allowing said precious modding - on said internet forum.
As if either of those activities are useful. FFS.
Modding is central to how slashdot works. If you don't like it go find another forum.
And most of what is on slashdot is opinion, and i'd rather read the opinion of somebody than an ac nobody.
Well lets take your assertions and look. Taking Al Gore's hockey stick graph, we should have uncontrollable warming now, we don't. As a matter of fact I saw a story here 6 months ago that said US just faced its warmest winter ever. I looked into it, they IGNORED Alaska, which had its COLDEST winter ever. So the proof of the hockey stick graph required ignoring a LARGE portion of the US in order to match up. When you include the rest of the US and the rest of the world the summer proved no warmer. If it were true and provable, then we wouldn't have to rely on stories like this that cherry picked small regions to "prove" things and requiring the readers to not look elsewhere for other data.
So, based on the "claim" from the hockey stick graph, it appears false that CO2 claimed on that graph will cause runaway warming. Is the graph wrong? Is the measurements wrong? Are the models wrong? I don't know because every time its brought up for discussion all I hear are a bunch of bat shit crazy AWGers calling everyone else names instead of discussing. I'm so sick of hearing them call everyone else names I no longer care about them.
And this is the problem. Both sides have an agenda that isn't necessarily simply "lets make the world a better place", so both sides will take the facts and filter (and/or outright lie about) them to suit their purpose and then throw raw abuse at anyone who disagrees. Not a good environment for a rational discussion, but not entirely unexpected. My rule of thumb is that as soon as you start personally attacking the person making the argument (eg x is a sheep who is just following the crowd, they must be really stupid!!) and not the argument itself then you have lost, even if I agree with the essence of your argument.
The ad hominem attacks aren't necessary, but typical of unskeptical-science types.
Sorry, but I believe in calling a spade a spade.
I have the utmost sympathy for someone who has an IQ of 70, but IMO people who are wilful idiots deserve all the crap anyone cares to dump on them.
I guess if you can't attack the argument, attack the person instead. At least you'll feel better. I see you did attack the argument earlier on, but you might as well not have bothered with a sign-off like that.
But you see, I *did* attack the argument. You're just latching on to the fact that I ended by mentioning that anyone who made the slightest effort to inform themselves never would have made the argument in the first place.
Maybe we should address the question of why you're doing that instead of responding to my refutation of the argument?
I did acknowledge that you attacked the argument. I didn't make any effort to respond to your refutation because I completely agree with you (both on your statements on the mechanics of global warming and that the OP is an uninformed dick). All I was saying was that your closing comments dilute the rest of your argument and could have been left off, as it brings the whole post down to the level of those you are responding to, which is not somewhere you want to go. A personal attack does not belong here.
To show how these things work, I've been thinking about setting up a denial campaign for an obviously factual event: "Hurricane" Sandy.
It wasn't really a hurricane. National weather service decided not to issue a warning. The roller coaster would not have landed in one piece as it is photographed. We could build a pretty solid case that it wasn't real. It would really piss off the people who were there:-)
Wish i hadn't responded to a troll then I would have modded you up.
If you want a model on how this might work, have a look here. And yes, people get really pissed off. For something a bit less touchy try this too.
You must concede that mankind has some influence though right? I mean for millions of years there has been a fairly stable cycle of volcano's etc spewing out CO2 and the plants locking the carbon away underground to keep the balance approximately even, and now we are taking that buried carbon and turning it back into CO2, and also cutting down the trees, while the other outputs of CO2 remain approximately constant.
CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and the mechanism is well understood, so I hardly think that's up for debate. Just how much influence that is having on the current climate and how much influence it is going to have in the future is a bit of guesswork (there are other much more potent greenhouse gases around, like water vapour and methane), but to say that mankind has not had any impact at all seems a little ignorant.
The ad hominem attacks aren't necessary, but typical of unskeptical-science types.
Sorry, but I believe in calling a spade a spade.
I have the utmost sympathy for someone who has an IQ of 70, but IMO people who are wilful idiots deserve all the crap anyone cares to dump on them.
I guess if you can't attack the argument, attack the person instead. At least you'll feel better. I see you did attack the argument earlier on, but you might as well not have bothered with a sign-off like that.
1. Car makers can put whatever devices in their cars they want. It's up to you, the buyer, to either not buy cars with black boxes OR to petition your local/state/federal politicians to make selling cars with black boxes illegal. You have either choice, it's up to you.
TFA says black boxes have been in cars for the last few years. I didn't know that. And I wouldn't really know where to start looking if a simple google search didn't give me an answer... not that i'd necessarily trust that answer either.
2. Insurance companies can require black boxes in cars if they were factory installed in order to be insured. Though there may be laws that they might be breaking because many states require auto insurance, but I'm not a lawyer. Either way, again, two options: vote with your wallet or make this practice illegal by approaching your politicians.
I'd buy my insurance through such a company.
3. The aforementioned black box information does not have to be admissible in court for criminal penalties, but insurance companies could black ball you for information obtained from the box. Also, affected victims do have the 100% right to go after you for CIVIL penalties related to any crashes. The only time the 'government' matters is when there is involvement of criminal penalty. A civil court could mandate that the black box information be passed over to the victimized parties for review, or the data retrieved from therein.
Again, i'm in. If the cost of my insurance reflected my driving habits in a measurable sense then I'm all for it. I'm sick of subsidising dangerous drivers, and in the event of an accident i'd hope that the other party had bb data that showed their fault (or conversely, if the data showed that I was at fault i'd cop it on the chin).
I like how people talk about 'right to privacy' but each example I've mentioned still falls 100% within the boundaries of privacy laws AND more importantly, the US Constitution. Remember, such 'rights' are only granted against GOVERNMENT, but private parties can require whatever the hell they want. You can bitch and moan up a storm about right to privacy and whatnot but remember, private parties have far more leniency compared to personal information. For example, a government might require a warrant to obtain information on you ; but a PI can do whatever they please. The only reason a PI is limited is because someone somewhere said it was fucked up and got laws added.
Laws were added by which agency? Was it a government one? Does that mean that private parties can do whatever the government says they can do? I fail to see the thrust of your argument here.
Close. It would have to be false, malicious, and a provable statement of fact. There are plenty of situations in which someone could express an opinion about you which was both defamatory and completely unprovable.
Truth isn't always a defense against defamation in all jurisdictions. The statement "I think they might have stolen my stuff" is obviously true (she really does think this), as is the statement "I think you are sexually attracted to sheep" (let say for arguments sake that i really do think that). If I posted that somewhere and you were in a job that involved sheep and your job opportunities suffered because of it then it could be deemed to have defamed you without actually lying...
If mining Bitcoins was so profitable why would they want to sell the chips? Wouldn't they be better off keeping these chips and mining the Bitcoins for themselves?
I do not know a single intelligent person who likes watching football.
I know plenty, but I believe that our "Aussie Rules" football is a little more elegant than the version played in the states. Even so I don't have any real interest in it, apart from winning the footing tipping competition but that's more about the money than the game.
Sorry to say this, but, it's actually a whole lot easier than you think...
Not when you look like me. It was my life goal for decades until I finally gave up. It was just too difficult. I had to go back to electrical engineering and plasma physics. Much easier. If you're a pretty boy it's easy. If you're not it actually is a major achievement.
Have a look around at all the unattractive guys, and then take a look at their wives. Some of them do okay, so don't write yourself off so fast. If you're a pretty boy then getting laid is (probably) easier but statistically speaking finding a life partner when you aren't the prettiest guy on the block isn't impossible or even that difficult. What makes it hard is having the low self-esteem of feeling like you are too ugly to exist - that does make you unattractive (but so does the opposite situation). Thick skin helps too (metaphorically - actually having a disease causing a thickening of the skin probably just makes the situation worse).
Wrong. Completely wrong. Absolutely brimming over with wrongability. The dementia in question can strike many years after they have finished playing and breeding. You need to go and read up on how evolution works. I'll give you a hint though - if your kids are old enough to look after themselves when the effects of your stupid (or just plain unfortunate) actions are realised, it doesn't count.
Slashdot Mirror
Must be over-due for a good conspiracy theory
Sure is. If I was a government up to no good (which ones aren't?) i'd launch something like this too to take attention off what I was really up to...
Well, then allow me to say ... holy crap. As much as I have a hard time believing "Microsoft is committed to support for interoperability across platforms". They haven't historically been interested in that.
The whole reason you would implement a Samba server is to support your Windows desktops... I know Microsoft don't make a great deal of money on each desktop OS license (vs what they make on server products) but there sure are a lot of them.
It also makes them look good in any future antitrust suit - they have a written endorsement from a competitor.
As long as doing something makes good business sense they'll do it. I don't think they are inherently evil, we just have to make sure an environment exists where _not_ being evil is good for business.
Can someone mod this gentleman up please?
It's a sad reflection on slashdot if it's languishing at +2. Sort it out mods!
Will do.
I must say that your aim is quite impressive if you manage to hit photons with an RPG.
You misunderstand. MITM isn't about knocking "photons" out of the way, it's about injecting my own payload into the data stream and causing a communications crash. I've not tested it, but I think the receiving dish will be unable to differentiate between my packet and a regular wireless packet and will be forced to "accept" my packet causing major disruption to the communications stream. I'm fairly confident that my packet won't even need to know the encryption key used on the wireless connection.
I was thinking more along the line of a foil-covered-blimp-in-the-middle attack.
RPG-in-the-middle attack would be even cooler!
A virus is not lethal. It is merely a vehicle, a means of reprogramming cells. Its hardware. The lethality is in the software.
I don't see how you can reach that conclusion. A virus is almost pure software.
He appears to have attacked the argument just fine for the broad majority of the post. One measly sentence at the end of the post doesn't suddenly invalidate it because it happened to be a snide remark.
Try having a rational discussion with someone then finish by calling them an idiot, and let me know how that works out for you. See if you can guess what they'll pay more attention to. An online conversation won't turn out much differently (evidence: this thread). The post isn't so much invalidated as ignored.
Wish i hadn't responded to a troll then I would have modded you up.
Wish people wouldn't waste time talking about how they would have modded something on an internet forum, if only circumstances had been different.
Also wish they wouldn't attach so much significance to who has or has not signed up for an account - allowing said precious modding - on said internet forum.
As if either of those activities are useful. FFS.
Modding is central to how slashdot works. If you don't like it go find another forum.
And most of what is on slashdot is opinion, and i'd rather read the opinion of somebody than an ac nobody.
Well lets take your assertions and look. Taking Al Gore's hockey stick graph, we should have uncontrollable warming now, we don't. As a matter of fact I saw a story here 6 months ago that said US just faced its warmest winter ever. I looked into it, they IGNORED Alaska, which had its COLDEST winter ever. So the proof of the hockey stick graph required ignoring a LARGE portion of the US in order to match up. When you include the rest of the US and the rest of the world the summer proved no warmer. If it were true and provable, then we wouldn't have to rely on stories like this that cherry picked small regions to "prove" things and requiring the readers to not look elsewhere for other data.
So, based on the "claim" from the hockey stick graph, it appears false that CO2 claimed on that graph will cause runaway warming. Is the graph wrong? Is the measurements wrong? Are the models wrong? I don't know because every time its brought up for discussion all I hear are a bunch of bat shit crazy AWGers calling everyone else names instead of discussing. I'm so sick of hearing them call everyone else names I no longer care about them.
And this is the problem. Both sides have an agenda that isn't necessarily simply "lets make the world a better place", so both sides will take the facts and filter (and/or outright lie about) them to suit their purpose and then throw raw abuse at anyone who disagrees. Not a good environment for a rational discussion, but not entirely unexpected. My rule of thumb is that as soon as you start personally attacking the person making the argument (eg x is a sheep who is just following the crowd, they must be really stupid!!) and not the argument itself then you have lost, even if I agree with the essence of your argument.
The ad hominem attacks aren't necessary, but typical of unskeptical-science types.
Sorry, but I believe in calling a spade a spade.
I have the utmost sympathy for someone who has an IQ of 70, but IMO people who are wilful idiots deserve all the crap anyone cares to dump on them.
I guess if you can't attack the argument, attack the person instead. At least you'll feel better. I see you did attack the argument earlier on, but you might as well not have bothered with a sign-off like that.
But you see, I *did* attack the argument. You're just latching on to the fact that I ended by mentioning that anyone who made the slightest effort to inform themselves never would have made the argument in the first place.
Maybe we should address the question of why you're doing that instead of responding to my refutation of the argument?
I did acknowledge that you attacked the argument. I didn't make any effort to respond to your refutation because I completely agree with you (both on your statements on the mechanics of global warming and that the OP is an uninformed dick). All I was saying was that your closing comments dilute the rest of your argument and could have been left off, as it brings the whole post down to the level of those you are responding to, which is not somewhere you want to go. A personal attack does not belong here.
To show how these things work, I've been thinking about setting up a denial campaign for an obviously factual event: "Hurricane" Sandy.
It wasn't really a hurricane. National weather service decided not to issue a warning. The roller coaster would not have landed in one piece as it is photographed. We could build a pretty solid case that it wasn't real. It would really piss off the people who were there :-)
Wish i hadn't responded to a troll then I would have modded you up.
If you want a model on how this might work, have a look here. And yes, people get really pissed off. For something a bit less touchy try this too.
but I also believe it is not due to mankind.
You must concede that mankind has some influence though right? I mean for millions of years there has been a fairly stable cycle of volcano's etc spewing out CO2 and the plants locking the carbon away underground to keep the balance approximately even, and now we are taking that buried carbon and turning it back into CO2, and also cutting down the trees, while the other outputs of CO2 remain approximately constant.
CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and the mechanism is well understood, so I hardly think that's up for debate. Just how much influence that is having on the current climate and how much influence it is going to have in the future is a bit of guesswork (there are other much more potent greenhouse gases around, like water vapour and methane), but to say that mankind has not had any impact at all seems a little ignorant.
The ad hominem attacks aren't necessary, but typical of unskeptical-science types.
Sorry, but I believe in calling a spade a spade.
I have the utmost sympathy for someone who has an IQ of 70, but IMO people who are wilful idiots deserve all the crap anyone cares to dump on them.
I guess if you can't attack the argument, attack the person instead. At least you'll feel better. I see you did attack the argument earlier on, but you might as well not have bothered with a sign-off like that.
Okay, let me break this down for you easily.
1. Car makers can put whatever devices in their cars they want. It's up to you, the buyer, to either not buy cars with black boxes OR to petition your local/state/federal politicians to make selling cars with black boxes illegal. You have either choice, it's up to you.
TFA says black boxes have been in cars for the last few years. I didn't know that. And I wouldn't really know where to start looking if a simple google search didn't give me an answer... not that i'd necessarily trust that answer either.
2. Insurance companies can require black boxes in cars if they were factory installed in order to be insured. Though there may be laws that they might be breaking because many states require auto insurance, but I'm not a lawyer. Either way, again, two options: vote with your wallet or make this practice illegal by approaching your politicians.
I'd buy my insurance through such a company.
3. The aforementioned black box information does not have to be admissible in court for criminal penalties, but insurance companies could black ball you for information obtained from the box. Also, affected victims do have the 100% right to go after you for CIVIL penalties related to any crashes. The only time the 'government' matters is when there is involvement of criminal penalty. A civil court could mandate that the black box information be passed over to the victimized parties for review, or the data retrieved from therein.
Again, i'm in. If the cost of my insurance reflected my driving habits in a measurable sense then I'm all for it. I'm sick of subsidising dangerous drivers, and in the event of an accident i'd hope that the other party had bb data that showed their fault (or conversely, if the data showed that I was at fault i'd cop it on the chin).
I like how people talk about 'right to privacy' but each example I've mentioned still falls 100% within the boundaries of privacy laws AND more importantly, the US Constitution. Remember, such 'rights' are only granted against GOVERNMENT, but private parties can require whatever the hell they want. You can bitch and moan up a storm about right to privacy and whatnot but remember, private parties have far more leniency compared to personal information. For example, a government might require a warrant to obtain information on you ; but a PI can do whatever they please. The only reason a PI is limited is because someone somewhere said it was fucked up and got laws added.
Laws were added by which agency? Was it a government one? Does that mean that private parties can do whatever the government says they can do? I fail to see the thrust of your argument here.
Good. Driving around without valid insurance is worse than stealing cars.
It's only worse if the cars you are stealing have valid insurance.
Correct, it has to both be false and malicious.
Close. It would have to be false, malicious, and a provable statement of fact. There are plenty of situations in which someone could express an opinion about you which was both defamatory and completely unprovable.
Unless it's true!
Truth isn't always a defense against defamation in all jurisdictions. The statement "I think they might have stolen my stuff" is obviously true (she really does think this), as is the statement "I think you are sexually attracted to sheep" (let say for arguments sake that i really do think that). If I posted that somewhere and you were in a job that involved sheep and your job opportunities suffered because of it then it could be deemed to have defamed you without actually lying...
I bet you watch the simpsons...
Curiously, thanks to MythTV i'm watching The Simpsons right now. Mr Burns has just taken free donuts away.
If mining Bitcoins was so profitable why would they want to sell the chips? Wouldn't they be better off keeping these chips and mining the Bitcoins for themselves?
Unless the chips had backdoors in them...
or in other words, all those damages they've been claiming? Complete nonsense.
Or alternatively, by pirating a movie you are actually helping the movie industry. Where's your cut of the profits??
The day is coming where it will occur to one of their accountants that they could drastically reduce piracy by simply killing all their customers.
I do not know a single intelligent person who likes watching football.
I know plenty, but I believe that our "Aussie Rules" football is a little more elegant than the version played in the states. Even so I don't have any real interest in it, apart from winning the footing tipping competition but that's more about the money than the game.
Sorry to say this, but, it's actually a whole lot easier than you think...
Not when you look like me. It was my life goal for decades until I finally gave up. It was just too difficult. I had to go back to electrical engineering and plasma physics. Much easier. If you're a pretty boy it's easy. If you're not it actually is a major achievement.
Have a look around at all the unattractive guys, and then take a look at their wives. Some of them do okay, so don't write yourself off so fast. If you're a pretty boy then getting laid is (probably) easier but statistically speaking finding a life partner when you aren't the prettiest guy on the block isn't impossible or even that difficult. What makes it hard is having the low self-esteem of feeling like you are too ugly to exist - that does make you unattractive (but so does the opposite situation). Thick skin helps too (metaphorically - actually having a disease causing a thickening of the skin probably just makes the situation worse).
'Nuff said.
Wrong. Completely wrong. Absolutely brimming over with wrongability. The dementia in question can strike many years after they have finished playing and breeding. You need to go and read up on how evolution works. I'll give you a hint though - if your kids are old enough to look after themselves when the effects of your stupid (or just plain unfortunate) actions are realised, it doesn't count.
Your flash memory will not burst into flame
Challenge. Accepted.