What you're proposing is actually a little piece of "I'm a girl and shouldn't have to do anything for myself". How does a toilet seat have anything to do with rights? This is logic + common courtesy, nothing more. If you want to go through life having all the women you are in relationships with sitting in piss, far be it from me to try and stop you. I'm just recommending that you use your fucking brain every once in a while.
The term fail-safe or fail-secure is used to describe:
* A device which, if (or when) it fails, fails in a way that will cause no harm or at least a minimum of harm to other devices or danger to personnel.
In what way is that not logical?
The default position should be the safest position, regardless of arrogance over assumed intelligence level to operate a toilet seat.
Imagine it's 4 in the morning, your eyes are still adjusting to the light, you glance at the toilet wrong and you make a critical misjudgment on the position of the toilet seat. Compounded by the fact that women always need the seat down, their chances of mistake are much higher.
If you can't understand a woman's needs on a simple toilet seat I seriously pity any woman that depends on you for her sexual needs.
Look, it's a simple solution. There are 2 variables to examine. The position of the toilet seat and the desired seating position (which is typically based on the sex of the person and type of movement).
If the person wants to stand and the seat is up, no problem.
If the person wants to stand and the seat is down, lift the seat.
If the person wants to sit and the seat is down, no problem.
If the person wants to sit and the seat is up, possible ass contact with disgusting toilet water.
Us men are supposed to be logical so why is this even a question?
Since ATMs are opaque and you cannot see the contents of the money bins until you have taken money out, you have to do the "crime" before you can know that the ATM is misconfigured. Thus you are already a criminal.
Incorrect. Simply using an ATM and getting extra money out of it isn't the crime. The crime is realizing that you were given extra money and keeping it anyways.
Think about a bank truck. If a bag of cash falls off of it in front of you, that's the same as the ATM scenario. You know the money isn't yours, if you keep it, that's stealing.
You're calling other people crazy yet you've found a way to turn this discussion into anti-Microsoft hate propaganda yet again like the countless others. You're not even talking about how great something is, you're talking about how much it sucks, constantly. If you hate it so much why do you focus on it to the point where you can't have a normal conversation about anything BUT this single topic?
Malware, other than a learning exercise, has no lawful purpose.
Well you just named 1 pretty big exception in the middle of your rule. I can name others.
Key loggers and traffic loggers are used by many parents to monitor their kids' activities and employers to monitor their employees.
Tools like Sub7 and Optix Pro can be considered merely unpolished, insecure versions of VNC, RemoteAnywhere, etc.
Rootkit-like behavior such as API hooks is used by Firewall and Anti-cheating software such as GameGuard.
Worms and viruses though don't have much of a use other than learning about how they work and how to stop them.
I said trojan author, not user but yes the typical attitude aimed at malware authors is very damning. Being on "the list" isn't very fun either. Especially when nobody believes that you would write a backdoor but not use it or want people to use it in a nefarious manner.
You can draw many parallels between the gun control issue and malware. You don't blame the gun manufacturers for every gun related death do you? Well maybe you do but that's a moral question not a legal one (yet). However, removing all malware doesn't remove the desire from people to use it. Besides, the fact is that you could never get rid of all malware anyways so it's a moot point.
I'm a trojan author so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...
No seriously, this is not a new idea. There was Senna Spy Trojan Generator many years ago. However, unless the generator actually generates the source code so you can compile it, I would call it a highly customizable backdoor, nothing more.
You're the one going on about it. I just made a brief correction and returned to the main point. I understood that if I spent too much time berating you for your foolish error I would be indulging in a logically fallacious argument.
You were trying to be facetious and correct my grammar to show your superiority. Please don't try to convince me that you were just correcting my grammar because you want to be helpful. It wasn't even a correction because I didn't use the word improperly. All you did was expose yourself as an argumentative dickhead that doesn't care what he's right about as long as he's right about something. I seriously doubt you're even a vegetarian.
Not reading the rest of your bullshit. Going to eat a steak. You win.
Surely that should be for your information, since you're the one whose error was pointed out.
No dumbfuck. I was showing you that it wasn't an error, which you still can't see even when plainly shown the definition of the word attribute. You don't "contribute" to someones death when you run them over with a fucking combine harvester. The fact you are arguing over definitions shows how pathetic you really are. Do you think if you can somehow convince yourself that you have better grammatical skills, that makes you "right"? Because it doesn't. It just makes you an obvious douche bag.
You seem to have made some error there, because I am arguing (and not assuming) that being a little wrong (doing a small amount of unavoidable harm) does not make it OK to be a lot wrong (do a large amount of avoidable harm on top of that). My opponents are arguing the opposite.
No you are creating a straw man argument. Which I've already pointed out to you. You're trying to convince me that killing 1 animal is somehow morally ok since you aren't killing a thousand animals. Which is a stupid idea in and of itself since I can just claim that killing a thousand is ok since I'm not killing a million.
You are trying to set up an analogy in which person A does harm which is totally unacceptable, and person B does the same thing a thousandfold, whilst you sit back obviously not murdering anyone, able to take the moral high ground. But that is a wildly inappropriate set-up. To be appropriate, you need to specifically place yourself correctly. You are in the same group as person B, with his thousand human kills under his belt. And you are attempting to gain moral high ground over person A. It's just absurd.
Again you fail to see the point. This has nothing to do with changing the position of meat eaters and how they are judged. I've already explained I'm not making any claims about being an omnivore. I'm not saying it's better, not saying it's worse, not saying anything about it. We are talking about vegetarians and it's a fact that vegetarians cause the deaths of many animals. Therefore, it is vegetarians that should stop trying to take the high road. You are murders plain and simple. (According to your own morals, not mine)
This is quite obvious, but it is more convenient for you to latch on to a single slogan (and how about "guilt-free grill" to add grist to your mill?) and justify your thousand kills on the basis of it.
Again, I don't need to justify it because I don't think it's morally wrong. You're the one that claims killing animals is murder yet you still cause the deaths of animals on a daily basis. Which makes us worse? Not thinking something is wrong and doing it or knowing something is wrong and still doing anyways. Sounds like you need some reprogramming there, killer.
attribute/v. trbyut; n. ætrbyut/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. uh-trib-yoot; n. a-truh-byoot] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -uted, -uting, noun
-verb (used with object)
1. to regard as resulting from a specified cause; consider as caused by something indicated (usually fol. by to): She attributed his bad temper to ill health.
FYI.
By that logic I could kill anyone, not only because of the animals but a fortiori because humans are killed by shocks from the grid.
That is where your logic fails. You make the jump that assuming that being a little wrong makes it ok to be a lot wrong and vice versa. I'm not justifying my eating habits, I don't need to. I'm simply pointing out the vegetarians are full of shit regarding "meat is murder". Wrong is wrong. Don't bitch about someone that kills 1,000 people if you kill even 1 person yourself. Because after all if you want to call it murder then even a single murder is never acceptable. I either expect to find you balled up on a patch of dirt starving yourself to death or joining the food chain and killing something to survive and owning up to your guilt just like the rest of us.
If you want to talk about electricity production, you'll have to prove that vegetarians use significantly more electricity than omnivores. You are unlikely to be able to do this.
Wrong. The fact is that you cause the deaths of animals. If not by eating them, then by consuming products that attribute to their death
If you want to talk about grain production, you'll have to prove that the extra grain which is directly consumed by a vegetarian significantly outweighs the large amounts of grain fed to livestock, and all other damage done to tiny animals by the livestock industry. This will be very tricky.
Wrong. See above.
If you live on the grid you are just as guilty of murder as the rest of us. So STFU and bite into a nice juicy steak.
But what if everyone submits every story from every news site at the same time continuously? The resulting force generated by the tubes could tear the universe apart!
4.5/5 (points deducted for lying about needing to install Windows on a newly purchased PC[1])
I'm not sure where you buy your PCs from but every brand new PC I have purchased does have the Windows setup files already copied to the hard drive (typically from a PE builder) but you do actually have to complete the install by specifying the time zone, computer name, administrator password, automatic updates and whatever crap the OEM tacked on. I'm pretty sure that is what they were talking about. If you want to nitpick prepare for the same treatment.
There is no benefit to any employees, or indeed to the government itself.
Bullshit, if there's no benefit then why would they be doing it? Either you're saying they're crooked or they're stupid*. Which is?
(*or some other option which should be obvious but if I don't specify I will be accused of presenting a false dilemma)
Slashdot Mirror
* A device which, if (or when) it fails, fails in a way that will cause no harm or at least a minimum of harm to other devices or danger to personnel.
In what way is that not logical?
The default position should be the safest position, regardless of arrogance over assumed intelligence level to operate a toilet seat.
Imagine it's 4 in the morning, your eyes are still adjusting to the light, you glance at the toilet wrong and you make a critical misjudgment on the position of the toilet seat. Compounded by the fact that women always need the seat down, their chances of mistake are much higher.
If you can't understand a woman's needs on a simple toilet seat I seriously pity any woman that depends on you for her sexual needs.
Look, it's a simple solution. There are 2 variables to examine. The position of the toilet seat and the desired seating position (which is typically based on the sex of the person and type of movement).
If the person wants to stand and the seat is up, no problem.
If the person wants to stand and the seat is down, lift the seat.
If the person wants to sit and the seat is down, no problem.
If the person wants to sit and the seat is up, possible ass contact with disgusting toilet water.
Us men are supposed to be logical so why is this even a question?
Without this protection many of us would see these vile and dangerous images which instantly turn sane men into immoral savage killing machines.
The T is for Ten, not Technology
Incorrect. Simply using an ATM and getting extra money out of it isn't the crime. The crime is realizing that you were given extra money and keeping it anyways.
Think about a bank truck. If a bag of cash falls off of it in front of you, that's the same as the ATM scenario. You know the money isn't yours, if you keep it, that's stealing.
An old 7900GTX?? Do you have any old flying cars or solid gold toilets you want to get rid of?
I have mod points so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.
You're calling other people crazy yet you've found a way to turn this discussion into anti-Microsoft hate propaganda yet again like the countless others. You're not even talking about how great something is, you're talking about how much it sucks, constantly. If you hate it so much why do you focus on it to the point where you can't have a normal conversation about anything BUT this single topic?
Well you just named 1 pretty big exception in the middle of your rule. I can name others.
Key loggers and traffic loggers are used by many parents to monitor their kids' activities and employers to monitor their employees.
Tools like Sub7 and Optix Pro can be considered merely unpolished, insecure versions of VNC, RemoteAnywhere, etc.
Rootkit-like behavior such as API hooks is used by Firewall and Anti-cheating software such as GameGuard.
Worms and viruses though don't have much of a use other than learning about how they work and how to stop them.
I said trojan author, not user but yes the typical attitude aimed at malware authors is very damning. Being on "the list" isn't very fun either. Especially when nobody believes that you would write a backdoor but not use it or want people to use it in a nefarious manner.
You can draw many parallels between the gun control issue and malware. You don't blame the gun manufacturers for every gun related death do you? Well maybe you do but that's a moral question not a legal one (yet). However, removing all malware doesn't remove the desire from people to use it. Besides, the fact is that you could never get rid of all malware anyways so it's a moot point.
I'm a trojan author so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...
No seriously, this is not a new idea. There was Senna Spy Trojan Generator many years ago. However, unless the generator actually generates the source code so you can compile it, I would call it a highly customizable backdoor, nothing more.
I think they mean a whackers dream?
You were trying to be facetious and correct my grammar to show your superiority. Please don't try to convince me that you were just correcting my grammar because you want to be helpful. It wasn't even a correction because I didn't use the word improperly. All you did was expose yourself as an argumentative dickhead that doesn't care what he's right about as long as he's right about something. I seriously doubt you're even a vegetarian.
Not reading the rest of your bullshit. Going to eat a steak. You win.
No dumbfuck. I was showing you that it wasn't an error, which you still can't see even when plainly shown the definition of the word attribute. You don't "contribute" to someones death when you run them over with a fucking combine harvester. The fact you are arguing over definitions shows how pathetic you really are. Do you think if you can somehow convince yourself that you have better grammatical skills, that makes you "right"? Because it doesn't. It just makes you an obvious douche bag.
You seem to have made some error there, because I am arguing (and not assuming) that being a little wrong (doing a small amount of unavoidable harm) does not make it OK to be a lot wrong (do a large amount of avoidable harm on top of that). My opponents are arguing the opposite.
No you are creating a straw man argument. Which I've already pointed out to you. You're trying to convince me that killing 1 animal is somehow morally ok since you aren't killing a thousand animals. Which is a stupid idea in and of itself since I can just claim that killing a thousand is ok since I'm not killing a million.
You are trying to set up an analogy in which person A does harm which is totally unacceptable, and person B does the same thing a thousandfold, whilst you sit back obviously not murdering anyone, able to take the moral high ground. But that is a wildly inappropriate set-up. To be appropriate, you need to specifically place yourself correctly. You are in the same group as person B, with his thousand human kills under his belt. And you are attempting to gain moral high ground over person A. It's just absurd.
Again you fail to see the point. This has nothing to do with changing the position of meat eaters and how they are judged. I've already explained I'm not making any claims about being an omnivore. I'm not saying it's better, not saying it's worse, not saying anything about it. We are talking about vegetarians and it's a fact that vegetarians cause the deaths of many animals. Therefore, it is vegetarians that should stop trying to take the high road. You are murders plain and simple. (According to your own morals, not mine)
This is quite obvious, but it is more convenient for you to latch on to a single slogan (and how about "guilt-free grill" to add grist to your mill?) and justify your thousand kills on the basis of it.
Again, I don't need to justify it because I don't think it's morally wrong. You're the one that claims killing animals is murder yet you still cause the deaths of animals on a daily basis. Which makes us worse? Not thinking something is wrong and doing it or knowing something is wrong and still doing anyways. Sounds like you need some reprogramming there, killer.
FYI. By that logic I could kill anyone, not only because of the animals but a fortiori because humans are killed by shocks from the grid.
That is where your logic fails. You make the jump that assuming that being a little wrong makes it ok to be a lot wrong and vice versa. I'm not justifying my eating habits, I don't need to. I'm simply pointing out the vegetarians are full of shit regarding "meat is murder". Wrong is wrong. Don't bitch about someone that kills 1,000 people if you kill even 1 person yourself. Because after all if you want to call it murder then even a single murder is never acceptable. I either expect to find you balled up on a patch of dirt starving yourself to death or joining the food chain and killing something to survive and owning up to your guilt just like the rest of us.
Life feeds on life.
Wrong. The fact is that you cause the deaths of animals. If not by eating them, then by consuming products that attribute to their death
If you want to talk about grain production, you'll have to prove that the extra grain which is directly consumed by a vegetarian significantly outweighs the large amounts of grain fed to livestock, and all other damage done to tiny animals by the livestock industry. This will be very tricky.
Wrong. See above.
If you live on the grid you are just as guilty of murder as the rest of us. So STFU and bite into a nice juicy steak.
But what if everyone submits every story from every news site at the same time continuously? The resulting force generated by the tubes could tear the universe apart!
I'm not sure where you buy your PCs from but every brand new PC I have purchased does have the Windows setup files already copied to the hard drive (typically from a PE builder) but you do actually have to complete the install by specifying the time zone, computer name, administrator password, automatic updates and whatever crap the OEM tacked on. I'm pretty sure that is what they were talking about. If you want to nitpick prepare for the same treatment.
Bullshit, if there's no benefit then why would they be doing it? Either you're saying they're crooked or they're stupid*. Which is?
(*or some other option which should be obvious but if I don't specify I will be accused of presenting a false dilemma)
I'm touched, no wait, that's just my hand. Carry on.
What did you say? I can't hear you over the noise of this rising stock price!
You don't need multiple cell phones. They welcome your extra money and votes.