One ping every 10 seconds isn't really a DoS attack. Unless it's one ping from each of a thousand machines every 10 seconds. But that's a DDoS attack, and it doesn't sound like that's what this is doing.
And if your friend jumped a guy he suspects is profiling the place, and ends up shooting and killing him, I'd hold your friend responsible for that person's death too. This is irrespective of whether the other person actually was profiling or not. Especially if the suspected profiler is unarmed, shooting him is inexcusable.
Catch him in the act of robbing a house, and you have more standing. If he was armed, you'd have leeway, but it's a bit shaky. Shooting an unarmed person is not self defense. If you were scared he's gonna get your gun, well, that's your fault, and you shouldn't have brought it out in the first place if you couldn't secure it properly.
Computers are getting more and more powerful, with more and more computation and storage resources readily available. So the performance hit of an interpreted language running on top of a native language is not as big of a deal nowadays.
It's far easier for many people to code in something they're familiar with (JS, web technology), instead of in something completely new (QT's API). Thus, to drive adoption rates, as well as to make life easy for many people, they put web technology on top of the API and let people run wild.
Make no mistake, real development will still heavily rely on C++. But there's a place for quick and dirty, proof of concept stuff, and that's where this comes in.
I guess somebody took a play out of Hoover's book. It took the disgracing of Nixon to break that cycle of power grab and blackmail the last time around. If only people actually could get a clue from history...
I really REALLY wish the government would stop trying to help me with its one-size-fits-all-politically-correct-thinking policies.
It's the nanny state at work. People can't seem to figure out when they've been hoodwinked until it's too late, so the government steps in to tell everyone they can't hoodwink others.
For those who can tell, people call this ability common sense. But we all know how common it is.
War == power grab. Civil war's not going to do squat except kill off a lot of well-intentioned but unlucky people. The ones running the show are still going to be right there doing what they normally do, except with fewer checks on their power, and possibly even handing you the gun and the bullets.
What there needs to be is a revolution, but not in the sense of fighting and guns. There needs to be an ideological revolution. The civil rights movement began it, but never really finished it. That's the kind of event that will bring about meaningful change, hopefully for the better.
Also, I suspect violence would actually go up, as more people joined resistance/anti-fascist/terrorist groups in response to a crackdown.
You're giving people too much credit:
- The people who object to such things and are not habitually violent have too much to lose to commit acts of violence.
- The people who likewise would object to such tactics and are likely to commit acts of violence are too busy committing acts of violence against their own neighbors, family, and friends.
- Everybody else wants the surveillance because they think it keeps them safe.
Sadly, the majority of the people fall into the latter category. The next largest category is the middle one. The former category is a very slim minority, e.g. most people here. There's a very, very tiny fourth category: the ones who are actually crazy enough to take action. But they're so small, they can easily be controlled via various means. Drug busts, tax evasion, copyright infringement, "hacking," etc. With neither the required monetary nor legal resources, they wouldn't last a second the moment they stick their heads out.
The worst there'll ever be is some minor protesting by wall street.
It's a driving mentality. Honking the horn says, "You're in the way; get out of my way." without regard to whether that person is actually capable of doing so or not. It's a self-centered view of the road. These drivers are not sharing the road; they own the road, and if you're not doing what you're supposed to do, you're in the way. Reality quickly hits them in the face, sometimes literally.
In actuality, the amount of time necessary to honk a horn is probably better served by considering whether to slam on the brakes or gas, whichever is necessary to avoid the accident. But such people aren't usually looking to avoid the certain accident. In fact, they're not thinking that far ahead. As they're honking the horn, they're still hung up on the cognative dissonance between what's supposed to be happening and what's actually happening.
you dont disarm terrorists by spying on everyone, because anyone can be a terrorist at any time it simply is not efficient. the only way to stop terrorism is to recognize the demands of the terrorist and try to understand what it is thats driven them to it. so long as we continue to fight, we will meet the immovable object to our unstoppable force each time with no ground gained or lost on either side.
You make two assumptions here that history has proven to more or less be invalid:
1) The government is actually, genuinely interested in stopping terrorism. 2) Stopping terrorism is more important than say, making money.
I think people's perception of media is changing. Owning the movie itself is quickly becoming unimportant, in lieu of consuming it once and then moving onto the next thing. I don't know how many (non-children's) movies I've seen more than once, but I can guarantee you I can count them on both hands. And the last time I purposefully rewatched the exact same movie (i.e., I actually actively sought to watch a movie that I had already watched, instead of coming across it and watching it) was sometime last century.
I suspect most people are going to ultimately fall into this same mentality. It's actually what the movie studios want, because then everyone's paying them some money each time they watch it. But what these suits don't quite understand is that this only means people just aren't rewatching things anymore.
I've had similar experiences. Though for something as mundane as a web browser, it's not nearly as big a deal, as we can officially stick to IE-only support for our internal pages. But for production systems, we need vendors that are willing to sign away our liability. It's a lawsuit issue through and through.
Doing away with software patents would cut the bureaucratic crap by half, but there's still the other half.
The problem, at least in the U.S., isn't that taxes are too high. It's that the tax money gets wasted, whether it's through kickbacks, fat contracts, or just useless pet projects (and all three are not mutually exclusive categories).
That's the real thing that's making everyone so upset. But the ignorant get swindled by the same people receiving the kickbacks into thinking that taxes are bad in general. They don't realize that abolishing taxes makes things worse than a little bit of waste (though the waste is increasing as companies try to milk more and more out of the government).
Taxes are not bad in and of themselves. They're just not being used properly.
Slashdot Mirror
One ping every 10 seconds isn't really a DoS attack. Unless it's one ping from each of a thousand machines every 10 seconds. But that's a DDoS attack, and it doesn't sound like that's what this is doing.
Actually, Fox said it was because those death panels got installed on the wrong side of the wing.
Little did the BBC reporters know that the butchering had actually been done by the scientists.
On the other hand, the Slashdot headline might just be more accurate than TFA's headline for once. Not sure which one is more likely.
And if your friend jumped a guy he suspects is profiling the place, and ends up shooting and killing him, I'd hold your friend responsible for that person's death too. This is irrespective of whether the other person actually was profiling or not. Especially if the suspected profiler is unarmed, shooting him is inexcusable.
Catch him in the act of robbing a house, and you have more standing. If he was armed, you'd have leeway, but it's a bit shaky. Shooting an unarmed person is not self defense. If you were scared he's gonna get your gun, well, that's your fault, and you shouldn't have brought it out in the first place if you couldn't secure it properly.
And everybody wonders why the government is inept and the country bankrupt.
To illustrate to you how scared you should be of "science projects" and their ilk. They're not called "scare quotes" for no reason.
Computers are getting more and more powerful, with more and more computation and storage resources readily available. So the performance hit of an interpreted language running on top of a native language is not as big of a deal nowadays.
It's far easier for many people to code in something they're familiar with (JS, web technology), instead of in something completely new (QT's API). Thus, to drive adoption rates, as well as to make life easy for many people, they put web technology on top of the API and let people run wild.
Make no mistake, real development will still heavily rely on C++. But there's a place for quick and dirty, proof of concept stuff, and that's where this comes in.
Just look at aviation security vs. vehicular safety to see how people assess risk.
I don't give FB enough information to try to infer people I might like to know.
And anyone else who feels the same way as you should do the same.
Don't know any better? Learn.
I guess somebody took a play out of Hoover's book. It took the disgracing of Nixon to break that cycle of power grab and blackmail the last time around. If only people actually could get a clue from history...
Conclusion, the substance in the glass is a perfectly good milk substitute for the school lunch program?
Sadly, the answer is yes in some places. It's not milk in the school lunch that's being replaced, but something much more vital.
Just think, if he had taken your penny, he'd be slightly richer now.
If it's a graphics processor they were looking to make, they probably should've gone with Michelangelo or Leonardo's DNA.
American homes are the largest in the world
The better to fit them in.
I really REALLY wish the government would stop trying to help me with its one-size-fits-all-politically-correct-thinking policies.
It's the nanny state at work. People can't seem to figure out when they've been hoodwinked until it's too late, so the government steps in to tell everyone they can't hoodwink others.
For those who can tell, people call this ability common sense. But we all know how common it is.
I think you're thinking about Lake Toba around 70,000 years ago.
We're not getting out of this hole.
FTFY.
War == power grab. Civil war's not going to do squat except kill off a lot of well-intentioned but unlucky people. The ones running the show are still going to be right there doing what they normally do, except with fewer checks on their power, and possibly even handing you the gun and the bullets.
What there needs to be is a revolution, but not in the sense of fighting and guns. There needs to be an ideological revolution. The civil rights movement began it, but never really finished it. That's the kind of event that will bring about meaningful change, hopefully for the better.
You have some mighty feeble arms if you need a sledgehammer.
Also, I suspect violence would actually go up, as more people joined resistance/anti-fascist/terrorist groups in response to a crackdown.
You're giving people too much credit:
- The people who object to such things and are not habitually violent have too much to lose to commit acts of violence.
- The people who likewise would object to such tactics and are likely to commit acts of violence are too busy committing acts of violence against their own neighbors, family, and friends.
- Everybody else wants the surveillance because they think it keeps them safe.
Sadly, the majority of the people fall into the latter category. The next largest category is the middle one. The former category is a very slim minority, e.g. most people here. There's a very, very tiny fourth category: the ones who are actually crazy enough to take action. But they're so small, they can easily be controlled via various means. Drug busts, tax evasion, copyright infringement, "hacking," etc. With neither the required monetary nor legal resources, they wouldn't last a second the moment they stick their heads out.
The worst there'll ever be is some minor protesting by wall street.
It's a driving mentality. Honking the horn says, "You're in the way; get out of my way." without regard to whether that person is actually capable of doing so or not. It's a self-centered view of the road. These drivers are not sharing the road; they own the road, and if you're not doing what you're supposed to do, you're in the way. Reality quickly hits them in the face, sometimes literally.
In actuality, the amount of time necessary to honk a horn is probably better served by considering whether to slam on the brakes or gas, whichever is necessary to avoid the accident. But such people aren't usually looking to avoid the certain accident. In fact, they're not thinking that far ahead. As they're honking the horn, they're still hung up on the cognative dissonance between what's supposed to be happening and what's actually happening.
you dont disarm terrorists by spying on everyone, because anyone can be a terrorist at any time it simply is not efficient. the only way to stop terrorism is to recognize the demands of the terrorist and try to understand what it is thats driven them to it. so long as we continue to fight, we will meet the immovable object to our unstoppable force each time with no ground gained or lost on either side.
You make two assumptions here that history has proven to more or less be invalid:
1) The government is actually, genuinely interested in stopping terrorism.
2) Stopping terrorism is more important than say, making money.
I think people's perception of media is changing. Owning the movie itself is quickly becoming unimportant, in lieu of consuming it once and then moving onto the next thing. I don't know how many (non-children's) movies I've seen more than once, but I can guarantee you I can count them on both hands. And the last time I purposefully rewatched the exact same movie (i.e., I actually actively sought to watch a movie that I had already watched, instead of coming across it and watching it) was sometime last century.
I suspect most people are going to ultimately fall into this same mentality. It's actually what the movie studios want, because then everyone's paying them some money each time they watch it. But what these suits don't quite understand is that this only means people just aren't rewatching things anymore.
Neither does the lack of a satisfactory answer.
I've had similar experiences. Though for something as mundane as a web browser, it's not nearly as big a deal, as we can officially stick to IE-only support for our internal pages. But for production systems, we need vendors that are willing to sign away our liability. It's a lawsuit issue through and through.
Doing away with software patents would cut the bureaucratic crap by half, but there's still the other half.
The problem, at least in the U.S., isn't that taxes are too high. It's that the tax money gets wasted, whether it's through kickbacks, fat contracts, or just useless pet projects (and all three are not mutually exclusive categories).
That's the real thing that's making everyone so upset. But the ignorant get swindled by the same people receiving the kickbacks into thinking that taxes are bad in general. They don't realize that abolishing taxes makes things worse than a little bit of waste (though the waste is increasing as companies try to milk more and more out of the government).
Taxes are not bad in and of themselves. They're just not being used properly.