Click to become a fan of slashdot on facebook? Really?
Yes.
If you click to become a fan of slashdot on Facebook by the end of this month, you'll be given free lifetime membership to slashdot when they roll out slashdot v4.0 in March.
Fortunately, all the bugs and UI problems will be fixed in v4.0. Unfortunately, this is because v4.0 is when slashdot moves entirely to Facebook, and all stories and comments will be posts on Slashdot's Facebook wall.
I'm sure these 'unthinkable innovations' will include such wonders as...
When I read "unthinkable innovations" I figured it'd be more along the lines of He Who Lies Dead But Dreaming partnering up with Apple, thusly conjoining two of the five greatest evils ever to beset this Universe.
FWIW, the idea that Murdoch could be an acolyte of Cthulhu doesn't seem that far-fetched, anyway. I mean, while he's a bit easier to cast your gaze upon than one of the Old Ones, something's not quite right with that man.
Whenever I ask a liberal, who at the mention of the name starts foaming at the mouth and screaming something like "greedy, selfish, uneducated, calculating, egotistical nightmare" why exactly they hate her so much, I never get a satisfying answer.
Because I believe she's not qualified to be a good leader of people. Because she's a demagogue out to serve her own ends.
She is very conservative but there are plenty of male politicians who are more conservative than her and are not hated so much.
It has nothing to do with how conservative she is. It has to do with her immorality. Please see my post below (in response to a post by Spun) for a little more info on why I feel the way I do about her.
The fact that so many people fawn over her is why people who don't like her need to react strongly. She is an abhorrence on the idea of a well-qualified statesman serving their country for what is best for that country.
Perhaps people despise her because they feel that her brand of political discourse is damaging to the country. Perhaps they feel it is unfair that someone like her can become a millionaire, a governor, a candidate for vice president, and a well paid political consultant without having any of the skills or qualities usually required by those jobs. She is just one more piece of evidence that we do not live in anything even resembling a meritocracy, and that galls some people.
What galls me is that people are stupid and mentally lazy. Stupid and lazy enough to fall for her schtick. I know it shouldn't bother me that a lot of people are idiots; for some reason it just irritates the crap out of me.
It's not that I think conservatives are idiots because of their political views. Surely it must be possible to have conservative views without being an idiot. It just seems that the willfully ignorant followers of demagogues are just too legion for this nation to withstand.
Another reason I get irritated by Palin and her ilk is because I believe I have the ability to do EXACTLY what they do. And that I could be very successful at it. But I can't do it, because I believe it is immoral. So I guess the real reason I despise Palin et al is because I think they made an immoral personal choice to exploit others, and are therefore, to a certain extent, evil. And deep down, I'd like to believe that the good should win. Yeah, it's an idealistic hope... which is why I've turned into a cynic. I hate Palin, Bush, Reagan's puppetmasters, et al for turning me into one.
And that, my friend, is the end of the navel-gazing I'll do tonight.
Is it just me, or in the "new layout" are comments seriously hidden if their parent isn't within the current threshold, but the child is? This [slashdot.org] comment contains a +5 child, but since it is under a troll-rated parent, I can't see it when browsing on a 5-2 threshold range. How does this stuff even make it to deployment?
Well, as the author of the post you cite...
It's not a big deal. If the OP in the thread was a troll (I don't think it was... I think the writer of that post was trying to make a serious point, albeit a misguided one)... then my response was trollfood. If my response was indeed trollfood, then it's probably just as worthless as the troll I responded to.
I guess what I'm saying is... nothing of value was really lost when the slashcode decided my comment was not worth displaying to you. If the parent to my post wasn't visible, then there's no reason to display my post.
That said, I wish the new slashcode would strictly use the threshold, or make it clear that even if you view at +2, you're going to miss posts above your threshold when the parent is below your threshold.
Well, we don't like Democrats either, by-and-large. If it was a prominent Democrat whose office had been spending years scrubbing emails subject to a state equivalent of FOIA, it would be news also.
Your attempt to derail the conversation with "B-b-b-ut this is biased against Republicans" has nothing to do with the FACT that this is about Sarah Palin's governance of Alaska, and potential misuse of government communications channels. It has nothing to do with whether people on slashdot lean right or left. So drop your silly persecution complex, it adds nothing to the conversation other than the idea that conservatives have no possibly valid points other than how much they are discriminated against.
And FWIW, I see conservative viewpoints, when expressed clearly, modded up all the time here on slashdot. I see the same of liberal viewpoints. What cracks me up is how often conservative viewpoints are modded up right alongside a post complaining of slashdot bias against conservatives.
Let's face it... Palin is a divisive subject, but given her power as a public figure, she's worthy of discussion -- for what she has to say, for what she has done, and for what impact she has on the American political scene. I believe she's a greedy, selfish, uneducated, calculating, egotistical nightmare... but I don't let that get in the way of my recognition of her importance as a topic of discussion in general.
Geez, the guy is partisan hack (The article author) who had nothing to write about other than slamming a Tea Party member and a the Republican House leader while tossing odd softballs across Obama's lap.
You're talking out of your ass.
David Gewirtz has called out Democrats time and again for their failures (and he's done the same with Republicans).
Obviously you feel qualified to spout your uneducated opinion of the author, but if you don't know *who* the author of a piece is, it's generally not a good idea to make assumptions without verifying them first.
And if you'd read the fine article, you would have realized that's a quote from the article.
That's not the parent to your post who wrote that, it's David Gewirtz, the author of the piece of crap article.
But to directly address your point... I don't know if Bachman is a bitch, I don't know her personally. I do think she's off the wall... Crazy? Maybe. Out in left field on a lot of things? Certainly.
It's presumed an attacker is less likely to be interested in wasting his time making many small transactions.
Why would one presume that? Many small transactions are much more likely to evade detection. I don't have numbers, but I'd be very surprised if the majority of fraud was perpetrated via multiple small transactions.
Session auth in and of itself is not considered good enough for the business banking systems of at least Citibank for one company I've worked with.
I bank with Citi extensively, on two of their online banking platforms. Both require only session auth.
Also, caller id can generally be manipulated, so that alone is not a bulletproof control from your bank.
Which is why they always call back on that number. You'd have to be pretty good to spoof outgoing calls to that number.
That said, having a small degree of inexpensive security in place via transactional authorization keys like I suggest would strongly minimize potential redirection of funds by an attacker (i.e. the point at issue in the article).
Inexpensive? That's not inexpensive... If I had to enter in a code of some 20+ digits for every transaction over $X, then type in the response code (via on-screen click to prevent keylogger issues)... that'd be expensive -- and then another authorizer or two would need to do the same -- that's expensive. Also consider that you're dealing with alpha characters for SWIFT codes, IBANs, etc.
Nuclear binding energy is a measurement of the amount of mass lost to energy during the nucleon binding
OK, so nuclear binding energy is a measurement of energy, the source of which is matter. If you have a strongly bound nucleus, a lot of energy (matter) was required to "build" that nucleus.
In order to go from higher binding energy to lower, you need to input energy to replace that mass.
I can't wrap my head around this at all -- what happens to the nucleon binding energy you go from high- to low- energy states? Surely it is either (1) given off or (2) converted to mass.
Can you explain why you would need to input energy (via conversion of mass) in order to go from low- to high-energy state, and you'd also need to input energy to go from high- to low-energy state? We're not ending up with the same amount of mass at the end... so there is no need to input energy to "replace" that mass.
They're claiming no radioactive waste, which means they're going straight from one stable isotope of nickel to one stable isotope of copper. That means they're going from Ni62 to Cu63. Nickel-62 has the highest binding energy of any known isotope of any known element.
That makes no sense. If Ni-62 is your starting fuel (very high binding energy) and you convert it to Cu-63 (lower binding energy), then you will get some of that binding energy out.
You're moving from a high-energy state to a low-energy state... thus giving off energy.
Dude, just give up, learn to read, learn to write or at least open a damn history book.
I suggest you do the same. And it's probalby a good idea if you read a history book *not* written by someone with an anti-regulatory agenda.
The significant barrier to entry during the Bell system was the government itself. As soon as competition was allowed it flowed in like a flood.
First, you're still wrong about the primary barrier to entry. Capital costs were number one. Regulatory requirements were another barrier to entry, and an important one, but they were *dwarfed* by the cost of laying out competing infrastructure. As for competition "flooding" in after '84... only true because the Baby Bells were forced to allow others to use their lines. You claim that government was the biggest obstacle to competition... how is it then that *government intervention* led to the competition? Are you really claiming that if it weren't for regulatory requirements, some competitor to Ma Bell would have built out duplicate insfrastructure?
It is bad enough you disagree with her just to disagree, but making up terms like "regional monopoly" you sound like you went to the Ezra Klein school of Maoist journalism.
Are you just making shit up because you don't understand the concept of regional markets? If you don't know what a regional monopoly is, maybe you need to use google or something for enlightenment.
I don't know, and I don't care. What I do care about is you using a single specific issue to make it sound like the FCC has no basis in law.
Tell you what, since you keep referring to that action and the judge and the lack of response -- where can I read a transcript? I'd like to see *exactly* what the question was, what it was in relation to, who the judge was, in what context was the discussion, etc. Because I'm just not comfortable with the way you phrase it in generalisms.
By your logic, there is no limit to what the U.S. congress can do.
No, that's your strawman, not my logic.
Quote Jefferson all you like, it doesn't bother me. I'm basically a Federalist, because the entities being governed are too large for the states to handle. Yes, there need to be limits on what Congress can do.
That does not change the fact that the FCC is legal, and their regulation of ISPs is legal.
No, I'm not. I was at least partially right. Go ahead and look up what the definition of "full efficacy is" as used by pharma companies. No need to be so ascerbic.
Furthermore, since it is in both their legal and economic interest to do so, they err on the side of caution.
What they found from the study is 90% of more than 100 drugs, both prescription and over-the-counter, were perfectly good to use even 15 years after the expiration date.
The killer is the drugs that *weren't* safe or effective.
Taking medication which has slightly reduced potency is not MORE harmful to your body.
Actually, it can be. The substances that the active ingredient breaks down into can be toxic over a certain amount.
Look at aspirin, for a relatively innocuous example. When acetyl salicyilic acid breaks down, two compounds are generally formed: acetic acid and salicylic acid. Acetic acid is harmless in low doses, but salicylic acid is not. It has aspirin-like effects, but the incidence of side effects and toxicity comes at a lower does than aspirin... things like tinnitus (annoying), degradation of the stomach lining with chronic use (potential dangerous, especially in conjunction with h. pylori infection). This is sometimes exacerbated by people taking *more* of the pills because they figure they're older and less potent.
To bring it back into the car analogy -- if over time, some kinds of gas sometimes decayed into water and diesel fuel, we'd have a good analogy.
The bottle had its own expiration date, while the prescription info sticker had another, much shorter one that was based on the date that I bought it.
Was it a suspension? If it was something like an antibiotic suspension, once it gets wet, it degrades quickly... plus you have the chance of fungal contamination etc.
But in general, it's important to remember that prescriptions themselves (not the pills, the doctor's order) expire. If you take prescription medicine after the prescription itself expires, you are technically breaking the law. I suspect this is the reason even tablets and capsules have an earlier expiration date when dispensed.
Just amend the Constitution to make the EPA/FCC legal.
They are legal. They were established by Act of Congress, they are administered by the Executive, and the Judiciary has ruled they are legal in numerous contests.
You can pretend all you want that they are not currently legal, but you'd be wrong. Our legal system has determined that they *are* legal.
Therefore, any extension of the FCC's authority requires an act of Congress.
Who says it requires an extension of their authority?
Congress has already given the FCC the authority to do so, via the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications act of 1996.
The FCC already has regulatory powers over communications, public or private, that are done via wire, radio, etc.
This new tactic of arguing about fixtures on state-owned land is hogwash. If the federal government can regulate what goes on private property, they can regulate what goes on state-owned property. Otherwise you're invalidating the Commerce Clause (which is the whole point of that argument, as I'm sure you know).
The last communications monopoly, virtual or not, in the USA was the Bell system.
That was the last national communication monopoly. There are still plenty of regional and local monopolies.
It was a monopoly because the government made it one.
No, it was a monopoly because any market with significant barriers to entry tends toward monopoly. The government chose to allow it in exchange for regulating it.
When localities have only one phone and/or cable provider, it is usually due to the same thing, government only letting one play.
Bullshit. It's usually due to the same thing -- no one is going to build out competing infrastructure. Hell, if it weren't for the granting of the monopoly, the sole provider wouldn't even have built it out. Something tells me you weren't around for when these networks were built out.
The FCC kills competition and the rent-seeking firms who want a monopoly enforced through the police power of the government use them to that end.
This I agree with in part. But it's an overly simplistic view of the way things work. Would you rather have no FCC and an unregulated monopoly due to market forces?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
If you click to become a fan of slashdot on Facebook by the end of this month, you'll be given free lifetime membership to slashdot when they roll out slashdot v4.0 in March.
Fortunately, all the bugs and UI problems will be fixed in v4.0. Unfortunately, this is because v4.0 is when slashdot moves entirely to Facebook, and all stories and comments will be posts on Slashdot's Facebook wall.
When I read "unthinkable innovations" I figured it'd be more along the lines of He Who Lies Dead But Dreaming partnering up with Apple, thusly conjoining two of the five greatest evils ever to beset this Universe.
FWIW, the idea that Murdoch could be an acolyte of Cthulhu doesn't seem that far-fetched, anyway. I mean, while he's a bit easier to cast your gaze upon than one of the Old Ones, something's not quite right with that man.
> Down with the dictators! ... what?
And up with
Ponies. Preferably of the OMG! variety.
Duh.
Good point. Time to email a bug report, I guess.
Because I believe she's not qualified to be a good leader of people. Because she's a demagogue out to serve her own ends.
She is very conservative but there are plenty of male politicians who are more conservative than her and are not hated so much.
It has nothing to do with how conservative she is. It has to do with her immorality. Please see my post below (in response to a post by Spun) for a little more info on why I feel the way I do about her.
The fact that so many people fawn over her is why people who don't like her need to react strongly. She is an abhorrence on the idea of a well-qualified statesman serving their country for what is best for that country.
What galls me is that people are stupid and mentally lazy. Stupid and lazy enough to fall for her schtick. I know it shouldn't bother me that a lot of people are idiots; for some reason it just irritates the crap out of me.
It's not that I think conservatives are idiots because of their political views. Surely it must be possible to have conservative views without being an idiot. It just seems that the willfully ignorant followers of demagogues are just too legion for this nation to withstand.
Another reason I get irritated by Palin and her ilk is because I believe I have the ability to do EXACTLY what they do. And that I could be very successful at it. But I can't do it, because I believe it is immoral. So I guess the real reason I despise Palin et al is because I think they made an immoral personal choice to exploit others, and are therefore, to a certain extent, evil. And deep down, I'd like to believe that the good should win. Yeah, it's an idealistic hope... which is why I've turned into a cynic. I hate Palin, Bush, Reagan's puppetmasters, et al for turning me into one.
And that, my friend, is the end of the navel-gazing I'll do tonight.
Well, as the author of the post you cite...
It's not a big deal. If the OP in the thread was a troll (I don't think it was... I think the writer of that post was trying to make a serious point, albeit a misguided one)... then my response was trollfood. If my response was indeed trollfood, then it's probably just as worthless as the troll I responded to.
I guess what I'm saying is... nothing of value was really lost when the slashcode decided my comment was not worth displaying to you. If the parent to my post wasn't visible, then there's no reason to display my post.
That said, I wish the new slashcode would strictly use the threshold, or make it clear that even if you view at +2, you're going to miss posts above your threshold when the parent is below your threshold.
Well, we don't like Democrats either, by-and-large. If it was a prominent Democrat whose office had been spending years scrubbing emails subject to a state equivalent of FOIA, it would be news also.
Your attempt to derail the conversation with "B-b-b-ut this is biased against Republicans" has nothing to do with the FACT that this is about Sarah Palin's governance of Alaska, and potential misuse of government communications channels. It has nothing to do with whether people on slashdot lean right or left. So drop your silly persecution complex, it adds nothing to the conversation other than the idea that conservatives have no possibly valid points other than how much they are discriminated against.
And FWIW, I see conservative viewpoints, when expressed clearly, modded up all the time here on slashdot. I see the same of liberal viewpoints. What cracks me up is how often conservative viewpoints are modded up right alongside a post complaining of slashdot bias against conservatives.
Let's face it... Palin is a divisive subject, but given her power as a public figure, she's worthy of discussion -- for what she has to say, for what she has done, and for what impact she has on the American political scene. I believe she's a greedy, selfish, uneducated, calculating, egotistical nightmare... but I don't let that get in the way of my recognition of her importance as a topic of discussion in general.
You're talking out of your ass.
David Gewirtz has called out Democrats time and again for their failures (and he's done the same with Republicans).
Obviously you feel qualified to spout your uneducated opinion of the author, but if you don't know *who* the author of a piece is, it's generally not a good idea to make assumptions without verifying them first.
And if you'd read the fine article, you would have realized that's a quote from the article.
That's not the parent to your post who wrote that, it's David Gewirtz, the author of the piece of crap article.
But to directly address your point... I don't know if Bachman is a bitch, I don't know her personally. I do think she's off the wall... Crazy? Maybe. Out in left field on a lot of things? Certainly.
Why would one presume that? Many small transactions are much more likely to evade detection. I don't have numbers, but I'd be very surprised if the majority of fraud was perpetrated via multiple small transactions.
I bank with Citi extensively, on two of their online banking platforms. Both require only session auth.
Which is why they always call back on that number. You'd have to be pretty good to spoof outgoing calls to that number.
Inexpensive? That's not inexpensive... If I had to enter in a code of some 20+ digits for every transaction over $X, then type in the response code (via on-screen click to prevent keylogger issues)... that'd be expensive -- and then another authorizer or two would need to do the same -- that's expensive. Also consider that you're dealing with alpha characters for SWIFT codes, IBANs, etc.
OK, so nuclear binding energy is a measurement of energy, the source of which is matter. If you have a strongly bound nucleus, a lot of energy (matter) was required to "build" that nucleus.
I can't wrap my head around this at all -- what happens to the nucleon binding energy you go from high- to low- energy states? Surely it is either (1) given off or (2) converted to mass.
Can you explain why you would need to input energy (via conversion of mass) in order to go from low- to high-energy state, and you'd also need to input energy to go from high- to low-energy state? We're not ending up with the same amount of mass at the end... so there is no need to input energy to "replace" that mass.
That makes no sense. If Ni-62 is your starting fuel (very high binding energy) and you convert it to Cu-63 (lower binding energy), then you will get some of that binding energy out.
You're moving from a high-energy state to a low-energy state... thus giving off energy.
I suggest you do the same. And it's probalby a good idea if you read a history book *not* written by someone with an anti-regulatory agenda.
First, you're still wrong about the primary barrier to entry. Capital costs were number one. Regulatory requirements were another barrier to entry, and an important one, but they were *dwarfed* by the cost of laying out competing infrastructure. As for competition "flooding" in after '84... only true because the Baby Bells were forced to allow others to use their lines. You claim that government was the biggest obstacle to competition... how is it then that *government intervention* led to the competition? Are you really claiming that if it weren't for regulatory requirements, some competitor to Ma Bell would have built out duplicate insfrastructure?
Are you just making shit up because you don't understand the concept of regional markets? If you don't know what a regional monopoly is, maybe you need to use google or something for enlightenment.
I don't know, and I don't care. What I do care about is you using a single specific issue to make it sound like the FCC has no basis in law.
Tell you what, since you keep referring to that action and the judge and the lack of response -- where can I read a transcript? I'd like to see *exactly* what the question was, what it was in relation to, who the judge was, in what context was the discussion, etc. Because I'm just not comfortable with the way you phrase it in generalisms.
No, that's your strawman, not my logic.
Quote Jefferson all you like, it doesn't bother me. I'm basically a Federalist, because the entities being governed are too large for the states to handle. Yes, there need to be limits on what Congress can do.
That does not change the fact that the FCC is legal, and their regulation of ISPs is legal.
Thanks for the informative response... it's been a *long* time since I studied that material.
No, I'm not. I was at least partially right. Go ahead and look up what the definition of "full efficacy is" as used by pharma companies. No need to be so ascerbic.
Furthermore, since it is in both their legal and economic interest to do so, they err on the side of caution.
The killer is the drugs that *weren't* safe or effective.
Actually, it can be. The substances that the active ingredient breaks down into can be toxic over a certain amount.
Look at aspirin, for a relatively innocuous example. When acetyl salicyilic acid breaks down, two compounds are generally formed: acetic acid and salicylic acid. Acetic acid is harmless in low doses, but salicylic acid is not. It has aspirin-like effects, but the incidence of side effects and toxicity comes at a lower does than aspirin... things like tinnitus (annoying), degradation of the stomach lining with chronic use (potential dangerous, especially in conjunction with h. pylori infection). This is sometimes exacerbated by people taking *more* of the pills because they figure they're older and less potent.
To bring it back into the car analogy -- if over time, some kinds of gas sometimes decayed into water and diesel fuel, we'd have a good analogy.
Was it a suspension? If it was something like an antibiotic suspension, once it gets wet, it degrades quickly... plus you have the chance of fungal contamination etc.
But in general, it's important to remember that prescriptions themselves (not the pills, the doctor's order) expire. If you take prescription medicine after the prescription itself expires, you are technically breaking the law. I suspect this is the reason even tablets and capsules have an earlier expiration date when dispensed.
They are legal. They were established by Act of Congress, they are administered by the Executive, and the Judiciary has ruled they are legal in numerous contests.
You can pretend all you want that they are not currently legal, but you'd be wrong. Our legal system has determined that they *are* legal.
The Communications Act of 1934 and the amendment of it via the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Stop insinuating that the FCC and their regulation of ISPs (communications via wire/radio etc) was not authorized by Congress.
Who says it requires an extension of their authority?
Congress has already given the FCC the authority to do so, via the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications act of 1996.
The FCC already has regulatory powers over communications, public or private, that are done via wire, radio, etc.
This new tactic of arguing about fixtures on state-owned land is hogwash. If the federal government can regulate what goes on private property, they can regulate what goes on state-owned property. Otherwise you're invalidating the Commerce Clause (which is the whole point of that argument, as I'm sure you know).
*crickets*
I'd like to see his citation too.
That was the last national communication monopoly. There are still plenty of regional and local monopolies.
No, it was a monopoly because any market with significant barriers to entry tends toward monopoly. The government chose to allow it in exchange for regulating it.
Bullshit. It's usually due to the same thing -- no one is going to build out competing infrastructure. Hell, if it weren't for the granting of the monopoly, the sole provider wouldn't even have built it out. Something tells me you weren't around for when these networks were built out.
This I agree with in part. But it's an overly simplistic view of the way things work. Would you rather have no FCC and an unregulated monopoly due to market forces?