Why should we pay attention to anything you say when you are too developmentally challenged to understand the difference between weather and climate?
Climate is weather averaged over a long period of time. Weather is of climate.
If we are poor at understanding, predicting, and/or controlling the building blocks, how are we supposed to do any better at the larger picture? So my point stands.
But why bother answering the point when you can just toss out an ad-hoc attack instead?
Just because we can't categorically prove it doesn't mean that we aren't the cause.
It damn sure doesn't mean we ARE, either. "I can't prove it, so it must be true"? Is this really what this debate has boiled down to?
Why is it that only anonymous cowards tend to disclaim global warming?
I direct your attention just slightly up from here. I'm not disclaiming global warming. Certainly "something" is going on, but I've seen nothing conclusive that says such isn't a perfectly normal fluctuation. In fact, there's a lot that calls causation onto the carpet as "not us".
Don't you fucking see that it DOESN'T MATTER what's causing the climate change? The reality is now indisputable, and must be dealt with if we're to avoid massive human suffering regardless of whether the cause is natural or man-made. There are options that must be considered, and this pointless bickering is just getting in the way.
Riiiiight... we're going to selectively engineer a global climate when we can't even selectively control other undesirable local weather phenomenon like hurricanes and tornadoes. Hell, we can't even accurately predict them.
Climate is historically self-correcting. I have no reason to believe it is not still so. Why should I believe the 100-year forecast when next week's is typically wildly off the mark?
who clearly knows more than the legions of scientists who attest that there is global warming that can be correlated to human release of carbon dioxide are a pack of liars.
Remind me... are these the same scientists, or different ones, that attested with equal certainty as to human activity causing Global Cooling?
Humans most certainly have an impact on the environment. We are part of it, there is no way we cannot. I just question the current scientific fervor because, quite frankly, we as a species have this tendency to go through fits of hysterics that aren't always warranted.
Should we be kinder to our environment? Absolutely. Do I believe that the world is going to come to an end and that Florida shall slip beneath the Atlantic waves because of rush hour? Please.
The Earth has, and continues to, go through periodic climactic shifts, with or without our help, and historically seems to be self-correcting. Show me that this is not still the case.
He would like very much to be deemed autistic. Rather, he would like to have an undocumented manifestation of Autism - and a form that glorifies his superior mental faculties. How convenient.
I'll give you that the poster is most likely full of it. That's not what I was answering, I was answering this:
Basically, you're wrong. Autism is dramatically visible from birth [snip] but it isn't autism, and calling it that just muddles the issue and makes understanding both autism [...]
And I am merely pointing out the "spectrum" part. I am not validating the poster's self-diagnosis, I am not attempting my own self-diagnosis. I am not saying that full-blown autism is anything less than catastrophically debilitating, or that such isn't obvious from day one. I'm not even saying that Asperger's can't be debilitating. What I am saying is that not everything on the spectrum is obvious from day one, and very mild cases can go undiagnosed for years, and I say this only because it happens. Granted, this is far from the norm, but pretending such cases aren't part of the spectrum does nothing to aid the understanding of cases at either end.
And I suggest you cease to speak as if you had any remote idea what the syndrome is - or how prevalent it is.
You don't know me, what remote ideas I may or may not have, what I've done or who I've worked with. No, I am not a doctor, nor any sort of expert in the field. What I am qualified to do is to speak from my own personal experience, mostly with one of my friends (a very, very mild case), and literature I've read out of interest (pointed out to me by people who are both doctors and experts in the field). I have worked with a handful of autistics, one who still cannot speak at age 14. No, this doesn't make me special, let's just say I'll take your suggestion under advisement.
the user that GNOME is evolving to best serve is a complete and utter idiot
Have you met the vast majority of computer users? Please, allow me to introduce them to you...
Seriously, if there is a serious desire for more wide-spread adoption of Linux as a serious replacement for Windows, a "complete idiot" shell must be an available option.
but it isn't autism, and calling it that just muddles the issue and makes understanding both autism and this new whatever-it-is more difficult.
It isn't just the poster. The medical community that does the research, trying to understand these disorders, does exactly this with the label "Autism Spectrum Disorders", of which Asperger's Syndrome is one such disorder that manifests exactly as this poster describes. Asperger's sufferers do not suffer the language difficulties of autism, but do manifest many of the other symptoms such as various twitches, fidgets, finger or hand flapping, difficulty reading body language and social situations, difficulty with eye contact, peculiarly strong aversions to certain sensory inputs (some colors, textures, odors or flavors may send these sufferers over the edge). Many Asperger's patients learn to contain some of the more visible problems so as not to stand out in public any more than needed, but they are almost always pegged by non-sufferers as "a little off".
Asperger's is often called "high-functioning autism", and there is quite a bit of debate whether these are the same or separate disorders.
AVG updates definitions almost daily. The scanning engine, maybe not as often as the paid product, but I'm alright with that. In fact, I more or less expect that - they are a business, after all. I find that the regularly updated free product works much, much better than the, say, 18-month out of date copy of Norton I found on my Mom's machine because, "it keeps wanting me to pay it, but I never use that program."
I've gotta visit more often.
At any rate, AVG isn't the only free-AV game in town. Avast!, AntiVirPE, and BitDefender are all solid products as well. If you can and are willing to purchase a product, it usually is worth it as the paid products tend to have more features and get more attention from the parent companies. If you can not or will not pay for a product, the free products (the four I've mentioned, anyway) all do a very good job.
I wouldn't use Spybot - it's getting kinda out of date now, and doesn't detect some of the worst ones.
Spybot regularly updates both signatures and detection methods. No, it's not perfect, but I've yet to meet the perfect scanner. I find that a combined dose of Spybot, AdAware, and a good AV program does a very good job of keeping Windows systems clean.
What, install by force a package without a realtime scanner 'cause the user can't be bothered, and then think they'll bother doing manual scans? Methinks you've suffered an oversight...
I've taken to suggesting AVG to all of my friends and family. Free, autoupdates, realtime scanner, scheduled daily full scan. Routinely outperforms both Norton and McAfee in lab catch tests. Otherwise, I'm all for your list.
It doesn't follow that just because you simulate what happens in the brain, the computer would itself be sentient. Anymore than simulating the weather means there'll be a hurricane force wind inside your CPU.
True - but there's a difference between a simulation and a model. I don't expect wind from a mathematical simulation of a weather pattern, but I fully expect that a scale model of a big-ass fan will still move a little air.
So the question is, what makes the brain interesting? Its physical nature, or its electric nature? My spleen has a physical nature. My spleen also doesn't "think".
Trying to create AI is a "black box" experiment. You watch the input and output of a black box, and try to build your own device that responds similarly. If you then take your device and put it in its own black box, can the next person tell the difference? At that point, is there a difference? Does it matter?
If this sounds like the Turing Test, that's because it is. If someone manages to make a machine model a human mind so well that it seems concious, does it truly matter whether it is or isn't?
Server2003 -> qemu Ubuntu -> qemu XP -> qemu OSX -> qemu Solaris -> qemu FreeBSD, all inside VMPlayer on AIX.
This is either MPD or a psychotic break. I'll ask it when it finishes waking up in about a decade.
The tax code, rules of testate, etc., should be simple and the state should just get out of the marriage business altogether.
Go back and re-read what I wrote - it is not so far off from what you say here. The primary difference is that I'm saying the state, being the registrar for such unions, should just get on with that simple duty. I never used the phrase "tax breaks", I said "tax purposes". There's no reason why a household should not be able to file cumulatively. Quite often this increases the tax burden (see marriage penalty), but this is offset by the reduced bills that come with running a single household for multiple occupants.
The real problem is assignment of benefits. There's a lot more to the legal realm of "marriage" than taxes and child rearing. There's being able to claim inheritance. There's being able to speak for another in a medical crisis, and having that person able to speak for you. Health insurance. Car insurance. Life insurance. On and on. And if you think any of this is trivial, look at what James Brown's widow, and mother of his son, is going through at the hands of lawyers because they were never "properly married".
It' absolutely hipocritical to say that you want the state to butt out of your personal choices, but at the same time to want the state to honor those choices with official recognition.
No, I'm just saying that the state should consistently apply an already commonly available benefit/official recognition. I don't think the state should butt any further into the matchmaking process of any union than it currently does into allowed unions.
The sanity balances vary depending on which point of view you're coming from. There are kooky people throughout the country.
Fair enough. Can we excise the noisiest 10% from each end of the bell curve and send 'em to France? We'd still average out saner, and I don't think France would notice the difference.
You can marry a person of the same sex all you want in a religious ceremony. The state will just not recognize it as a real marriage, and you won't get tax breaks or spousal benefits.
True, but it should be exactly the opposite. The state should take no particular position on the issue as long as all parties are consenting adults. One man, one woman. Two men. Three of one and two of the other. Whatever. You don't have to like it, I don't have to like it, but as long as they are all happy with it, it ain't none of my business. Or yours. Or the state's. And I don't expect any particular church to condone it.
Quite simply, the conjoining of incomes for tax purposes and the assignment of benefits should be an automatic, simple, and painless event. It is not the state's place to say "Ewww", or "But God says...". It is the state's place to serve its citizens.
A BILL to deny any legal effect to any marriage ceremony which is preceded or followed by any event that involves the Electric Slide, either the song or its accompanying dance, in any form.
This is a good idea even without the copyright issue.
Expanded to cover also the chicken dance, the loco-motion, and the macarena, of course.
No problem! These are almost the same religion, just with minor differences. The aliens, terminology, and technology are different, but once you get past that they're both mostly people floating about in space shooting at other people floating about in space.
The most important thing to remember is that one religion was conceived by a visionary genius, the other by a self-absorbed windbag, and the best way to determine the difference is to take note of the religion you are in. The other one has the windbag.
Seriously, though, this list is awfully short and misses a LOT of the classics. [...] No Kipling? Heinlein? Clarke? Asimov? Somtow Sucharitkul? Theodore Sturgeon? L. Sprague De Camp? Fritz Lieber? H. G. Wells? William Gibson? "The Forbidden Planet?" Tolkien? Robert E. Howard? Micheal Moorcock? "Buckaroo Bonzai and the 8th Dimension?" "The Ghost in the Shell?" "Dr. Who?"
Also no mention of X-Files, PJ O'Rourke's Parliment of Whores, Gulliver's Travels, Matrix, Blade Runner, Dreamscape, Kight Rider, Airwolf, Blue Thunder, Lawnmower Man.... and on and on and on (though I did mention Tolkien). No, it was not a comprehensive list. And also
I've seen and/or read everything on that list except for Ayn Rand. Please. The woman is too full of herself.:)
was exactly why I put her on the list (nevermind that many people have read and enjoyed these books, myself included). C'mere, I'll let you in on a secret.... I was going for humor.
Don't tell anyone I told you so. Explaining the joke is bad for Karma.
You should already own and have read all of these, and if you're truly pretentious you should be able to quote relevant passages. Also, to retain your nerd and/or geek credentials, you must be able to quote from two or more of Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Stargate, Firefly, or Andromeda. You will be expected to pick one of these as a religion* and from time to time wage holy war on the rest for forsaking The One True Way. Also you must be able to recite on demand the Spam sketch, the Dead Parrot sketch, and 90% of the Princess Bride script**.
If you wish to branch out from required reading, other popular choices are Twain, Shakespeare, Crichton, and Mark Minasi.
(e.g., theater [or is theatre more proper?]
While either is correct, the "Enlightened" tend to use "theatre". I tend to make a distinction in that "theater" is the building and "theatre" is the performance within, but that's mostly because I suffered with a thespian roommate for a while and the brainwashing eventually wore me down. You may choose as you wish.
Thanks in advance!
My pleasure! Please feel free to stop in again anytime you need a helping hand:-)
They don't have anything that is really scaring them into stopping what they are doing. [...] What we really need is something like the Boogy Man is to children [...] but something that would scare the living shit out of spammers and make them really worry that what they are doing is going to come to get them.
Forget it's spam, treat it as a specialized form of fraud (which it is). Active investigation and prosecution. Total forfeiture of assets upon conviction (under the presumption that one should not be allowed to profit from illegal gains), proceeds of which should go to help victims of fraud. 50 year sentence - 5 years served, 45 years suspended hinging on a Kevin Mitnick-esque ban on using computers in any form for the duration of the sentence. International agreements to implement the same or similar legislation everywhere, and IDP's to any political states that don't come on board.
Yup, I think that'd about do it.
I like this because it doesn't advocate some technical torturing of an established protocol, nor is it directly legislating email or the internet - this can be an extension of current laws against fraud. Of course, it still won't work because it advocates a level of international cooperation that simply isn't likely to happen... though anybody that wants to fill out the "it won't work" checklist to point out other shortcomings is more than welcome.
How is this an issue? It's like saying that someone shouldn't be held responsible when they left their wireless network unsecured, and a pirate comes and takes their files.
The pirate is the active party here, and you're suggesting the victim is also culpable? I'm calling BS.
This is no different than saying "she was just asking for it in that outfit."
Because it has never been a "law" in a scientific sense. It's more a rule of thumb used to predict future performance based on past performance, and it does so fairly predictably. Not always, and not always precisely, but in the right ballpark most of the time, so people give it credence.
Calling it "Moore's Law" is more of an agreed upon citation than anything. It's easier to toss that out knowing that people will understand you than to cite the entire quote to which it refers. Same thing with other tongue-in-cheek laws, like Murphy's Law.
Really, though, you're just taking it entirely too seriously or literally. Switch to decaf.
For the second half... WTF does having, or not having, your credit card # on file apply to this?? It seems a bit spurious to the conversation at hand, and I'll treat it as such.:-P
Simple - my personal vested interest. Informing you of lax security is as much about protecting my shit as yours. Forget it's a credit card. Say instead we're talking about a consignment shop holding your property, for which you have not been paid, for purposes of sale as a service. If they're robbed, it hurts you as much as them, so you might maybe possibly have some interest in pointing out that they leave the doors open at night. There have been quite a few web vulnerabilities I've seen that were every bit this blatant.
I realize people figure that white hats should scream really loud so everyone knows the vulerability, [...] Telling about exploits, especially in open forums where people with less honourable intentions might be, isn't necessarily a noble thing. You don't have an obligation to ensure that everyone in the world knows how to open every unsecured lock.
Maybe not every door, but certainly the ones behind which I trust my personal or private information and possessions to stay mine and/or private. And if you, being in charge of one of those doors, do not respond appropriately when I inform you, I reserve the right to tell others who also rely on that door in order to bring more pressure. And if you still don't respond, I reserve the right to shout it from the rooftops. Why?
Because if I, who am not specifically looking for a vulnerability, have found such, then I figure it is safe to assume that someone with "less honourable intentions" who specifically IS looking for these vulnerabilities has already found the same with the intention to exploit it, to my detriment.
The way I look at it, your lack of action leaves you in the happy position of being an accessory, or a party to a conspiracy to commit a crime.
If someone comes over to your house and tries to open the windows and see if they can climb in are they not trespassing?
If I walk into your backyard where you're lounging with your family to tell you that your front door is wide open, I too am trespassing... but I'd like to think you'd appreciate the effort.
If I notice that the waitstaff at my local restaurant are writing credit card numbers on a chalkboard in public view, and I point out to management that this is quite possibly not a good idea, I'd hope that would be taken as a sign of concern for security rather than an intention to breach same said security.
If I notice that my local college's website seemingly coughs up information based on no more stringent a requirement than a number following "?id=" in the address bar, and verify by typing in a random number just to be sure before alarming the hapless administrator, I'd hope someone might want to implement a slightly stronger form of protection rather than taking me to court for "hacking the system".
Slashdot Mirror
Climate is weather averaged over a long period of time. Weather is of climate.
If we are poor at understanding, predicting, and/or controlling the building blocks, how are we supposed to do any better at the larger picture? So my point stands.
But why bother answering the point when you can just toss out an ad-hoc attack instead?
It damn sure doesn't mean we ARE, either. "I can't prove it, so it must be true"? Is this really what this debate has boiled down to?
Why is it that only anonymous cowards tend to disclaim global warming?I direct your attention just slightly up from here. I'm not disclaiming global warming. Certainly "something" is going on, but I've seen nothing conclusive that says such isn't a perfectly normal fluctuation. In fact, there's a lot that calls causation onto the carpet as "not us".
Riiiiight... we're going to selectively engineer a global climate when we can't even selectively control other undesirable local weather phenomenon like hurricanes and tornadoes. Hell, we can't even accurately predict them.
Climate is historically self-correcting. I have no reason to believe it is not still so. Why should I believe the 100-year forecast when next week's is typically wildly off the mark?
Remind me... are these the same scientists, or different ones, that attested with equal certainty as to human activity causing Global Cooling?
Humans most certainly have an impact on the environment. We are part of it, there is no way we cannot. I just question the current scientific fervor because, quite frankly, we as a species have this tendency to go through fits of hysterics that aren't always warranted.
Should we be kinder to our environment? Absolutely. Do I believe that the world is going to come to an end and that Florida shall slip beneath the Atlantic waves because of rush hour? Please.
The Earth has, and continues to, go through periodic climactic shifts, with or without our help, and historically seems to be self-correcting. Show me that this is not still the case.
I'll give you that the poster is most likely full of it. That's not what I was answering, I was answering this:
Basically, you're wrong. Autism is dramatically visible from birth [snip]but it isn't autism, and calling it that just muddles the issue and makes understanding both autism [...]
And I am merely pointing out the "spectrum" part. I am not validating the poster's self-diagnosis, I am not attempting my own self-diagnosis. I am not saying that full-blown autism is anything less than catastrophically debilitating, or that such isn't obvious from day one. I'm not even saying that Asperger's can't be debilitating. What I am saying is that not everything on the spectrum is obvious from day one, and very mild cases can go undiagnosed for years, and I say this only because it happens. Granted, this is far from the norm, but pretending such cases aren't part of the spectrum does nothing to aid the understanding of cases at either end.
And I suggest you cease to speak as if you had any remote idea what the syndrome is - or how prevalent it is.You don't know me, what remote ideas I may or may not have, what I've done or who I've worked with. No, I am not a doctor, nor any sort of expert in the field. What I am qualified to do is to speak from my own personal experience, mostly with one of my friends (a very, very mild case), and literature I've read out of interest (pointed out to me by people who are both doctors and experts in the field). I have worked with a handful of autistics, one who still cannot speak at age 14. No, this doesn't make me special, let's just say I'll take your suggestion under advisement.
Have you met the vast majority of computer users? Please, allow me to introduce them to you...
Seriously, if there is a serious desire for more wide-spread adoption of Linux as a serious replacement for Windows, a "complete idiot" shell must be an available option.
It isn't just the poster. The medical community that does the research, trying to understand these disorders, does exactly this with the label "Autism Spectrum Disorders", of which Asperger's Syndrome is one such disorder that manifests exactly as this poster describes. Asperger's sufferers do not suffer the language difficulties of autism, but do manifest many of the other symptoms such as various twitches, fidgets, finger or hand flapping, difficulty reading body language and social situations, difficulty with eye contact, peculiarly strong aversions to certain sensory inputs (some colors, textures, odors or flavors may send these sufferers over the edge). Many Asperger's patients learn to contain some of the more visible problems so as not to stand out in public any more than needed, but they are almost always pegged by non-sufferers as "a little off".
Asperger's is often called "high-functioning autism", and there is quite a bit of debate whether these are the same or separate disorders.
AVG updates definitions almost daily. The scanning engine, maybe not as often as the paid product, but I'm alright with that. In fact, I more or less expect that - they are a business, after all. I find that the regularly updated free product works much, much better than the, say, 18-month out of date copy of Norton I found on my Mom's machine because, "it keeps wanting me to pay it, but I never use that program."
I've gotta visit more often.
At any rate, AVG isn't the only free-AV game in town. Avast!, AntiVirPE, and BitDefender are all solid products as well. If you can and are willing to purchase a product, it usually is worth it as the paid products tend to have more features and get more attention from the parent companies. If you can not or will not pay for a product, the free products (the four I've mentioned, anyway) all do a very good job.
Spybot regularly updates both signatures and detection methods. No, it's not perfect, but I've yet to meet the perfect scanner. I find that a combined dose of Spybot, AdAware, and a good AV program does a very good job of keeping Windows systems clean.
What, install by force a package without a realtime scanner 'cause the user can't be bothered, and then think they'll bother doing manual scans? Methinks you've suffered an oversight...
I've taken to suggesting AVG to all of my friends and family. Free, autoupdates, realtime scanner, scheduled daily full scan. Routinely outperforms both Norton and McAfee in lab catch tests. Otherwise, I'm all for your list.
True - but there's a difference between a simulation and a model. I don't expect wind from a mathematical simulation of a weather pattern, but I fully expect that a scale model of a big-ass fan will still move a little air.
So the question is, what makes the brain interesting? Its physical nature, or its electric nature? My spleen has a physical nature. My spleen also doesn't "think".
Trying to create AI is a "black box" experiment. You watch the input and output of a black box, and try to build your own device that responds similarly. If you then take your device and put it in its own black box, can the next person tell the difference? At that point, is there a difference? Does it matter?
If this sounds like the Turing Test, that's because it is. If someone manages to make a machine model a human mind so well that it seems concious, does it truly matter whether it is or isn't?
Server2003 -> qemu Ubuntu -> qemu XP -> qemu OSX -> qemu Solaris -> qemu FreeBSD, all inside VMPlayer on AIX. This is either MPD or a psychotic break. I'll ask it when it finishes waking up in about a decade.
Go back and re-read what I wrote - it is not so far off from what you say here. The primary difference is that I'm saying the state, being the registrar for such unions, should just get on with that simple duty. I never used the phrase "tax breaks", I said "tax purposes". There's no reason why a household should not be able to file cumulatively. Quite often this increases the tax burden (see marriage penalty), but this is offset by the reduced bills that come with running a single household for multiple occupants.
The real problem is assignment of benefits. There's a lot more to the legal realm of "marriage" than taxes and child rearing. There's being able to claim inheritance. There's being able to speak for another in a medical crisis, and having that person able to speak for you. Health insurance. Car insurance. Life insurance. On and on. And if you think any of this is trivial, look at what James Brown's widow, and mother of his son, is going through at the hands of lawyers because they were never "properly married".
It' absolutely hipocritical to say that you want the state to butt out of your personal choices, but at the same time to want the state to honor those choices with official recognition.No, I'm just saying that the state should consistently apply an already commonly available benefit/official recognition. I don't think the state should butt any further into the matchmaking process of any union than it currently does into allowed unions.
Fair enough. Can we excise the noisiest 10% from each end of the bell curve and send 'em to France? We'd still average out saner, and I don't think France would notice the difference.
True, but it should be exactly the opposite. The state should take no particular position on the issue as long as all parties are consenting adults. One man, one woman. Two men. Three of one and two of the other. Whatever. You don't have to like it, I don't have to like it, but as long as they are all happy with it, it ain't none of my business. Or yours. Or the state's. And I don't expect any particular church to condone it.
Quite simply, the conjoining of incomes for tax purposes and the assignment of benefits should be an automatic, simple, and painless event. It is not the state's place to say "Ewww", or "But God says...". It is the state's place to serve its citizens.
This is a good idea even without the copyright issue.
Expanded to cover also the chicken dance, the loco-motion, and the macarena, of course.
No problem! These are almost the same religion, just with minor differences. The aliens, terminology, and technology are different, but once you get past that they're both mostly people floating about in space shooting at other people floating about in space.
The most important thing to remember is that one religion was conceived by a visionary genius, the other by a self-absorbed windbag, and the best way to determine the difference is to take note of the religion you are in. The other one has the windbag.
No Kipling? Heinlein? Clarke? Asimov? Somtow Sucharitkul? Theodore Sturgeon? L. Sprague De Camp? Fritz Lieber? H. G. Wells? William Gibson? "The Forbidden Planet?" Tolkien? Robert E. Howard? Micheal Moorcock? "Buckaroo Bonzai and the 8th Dimension?" "The Ghost in the Shell?" "Dr. Who?"
Also no mention of X-Files, PJ O'Rourke's Parliment of Whores, Gulliver's Travels, Matrix, Blade Runner, Dreamscape, Kight Rider, Airwolf, Blue Thunder, Lawnmower Man.... and on and on and on (though I did mention Tolkien). No, it was not a comprehensive list. And also
I've seen and/or read everything on that list except for Ayn Rand. Please. The woman is too full of herself.was exactly why I put her on the list (nevermind that many people have read and enjoyed these books, myself included). C'mere, I'll let you in on a secret.... I was going for humor.
Don't tell anyone I told you so. Explaining the joke is bad for Karma.
OH! Ummm.... oops.
Please. You're reading a site with the tagline "News for Nerds". You should already know the required reading.
You should already own and have read all of these, and if you're truly pretentious you should be able to quote relevant passages. Also, to retain your nerd and/or geek credentials, you must be able to quote from two or more of Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Stargate, Firefly, or Andromeda. You will be expected to pick one of these as a religion* and from time to time wage holy war on the rest for forsaking The One True Way. Also you must be able to recite on demand the Spam sketch, the Dead Parrot sketch, and 90% of the Princess Bride script**.
If you wish to branch out from required reading, other popular choices are Twain, Shakespeare, Crichton, and Mark Minasi.
(e.g., theater [or is theatre more proper?]While either is correct, the "Enlightened" tend to use "theatre". I tend to make a distinction in that "theater" is the building and "theatre" is the performance within, but that's mostly because I suffered with a thespian roommate for a while and the brainwashing eventually wore me down. You may choose as you wish.
Thanks in advance!My pleasure! Please feel free to stop in again anytime you need a helping hand :-)
* - Star Trek, ** - Inconceivable!
Forget it's spam, treat it as a specialized form of fraud (which it is). Active investigation and prosecution. Total forfeiture of assets upon conviction (under the presumption that one should not be allowed to profit from illegal gains), proceeds of which should go to help victims of fraud. 50 year sentence - 5 years served, 45 years suspended hinging on a Kevin Mitnick-esque ban on using computers in any form for the duration of the sentence. International agreements to implement the same or similar legislation everywhere, and IDP's to any political states that don't come on board.
Yup, I think that'd about do it.
I like this because it doesn't advocate some technical torturing of an established protocol, nor is it directly legislating email or the internet - this can be an extension of current laws against fraud. Of course, it still won't work because it advocates a level of international cooperation that simply isn't likely to happen... though anybody that wants to fill out the "it won't work" checklist to point out other shortcomings is more than welcome.
The pirate is the active party here, and you're suggesting the victim is also culpable? I'm calling BS.
This is no different than saying "she was just asking for it in that outfit."
Because it has never been a "law" in a scientific sense. It's more a rule of thumb used to predict future performance based on past performance, and it does so fairly predictably. Not always, and not always precisely, but in the right ballpark most of the time, so people give it credence.
Calling it "Moore's Law" is more of an agreed upon citation than anything. It's easier to toss that out knowing that people will understand you than to cite the entire quote to which it refers. Same thing with other tongue-in-cheek laws, like Murphy's Law.
Really, though, you're just taking it entirely too seriously or literally. Switch to decaf.
AFAIK, it's a rather good engineering university near Blacksburg, Virginia.
Go Hokies, and all that noise.
Simple - my personal vested interest. Informing you of lax security is as much about protecting my shit as yours. Forget it's a credit card. Say instead we're talking about a consignment shop holding your property, for which you have not been paid, for purposes of sale as a service. If they're robbed, it hurts you as much as them, so you might maybe possibly have some interest in pointing out that they leave the doors open at night. There have been quite a few web vulnerabilities I've seen that were every bit this blatant.
I realize people figure that white hats should scream really loud so everyone knows the vulerability, [...] Telling about exploits, especially in open forums where people with less honourable intentions might be, isn't necessarily a noble thing. You don't have an obligation to ensure that everyone in the world knows how to open every unsecured lock.Maybe not every door, but certainly the ones behind which I trust my personal or private information and possessions to stay mine and/or private. And if you, being in charge of one of those doors, do not respond appropriately when I inform you, I reserve the right to tell others who also rely on that door in order to bring more pressure. And if you still don't respond, I reserve the right to shout it from the rooftops. Why?
Because if I, who am not specifically looking for a vulnerability, have found such, then I figure it is safe to assume that someone with "less honourable intentions" who specifically IS looking for these vulnerabilities has already found the same with the intention to exploit it, to my detriment.
The way I look at it, your lack of action leaves you in the happy position of being an accessory, or a party to a conspiracy to commit a crime.
If I walk into your backyard where you're lounging with your family to tell you that your front door is wide open, I too am trespassing... but I'd like to think you'd appreciate the effort.
If I notice that the waitstaff at my local restaurant are writing credit card numbers on a chalkboard in public view, and I point out to management that this is quite possibly not a good idea, I'd hope that would be taken as a sign of concern for security rather than an intention to breach same said security.
If I notice that my local college's website seemingly coughs up information based on no more stringent a requirement than a number following "?id=" in the address bar, and verify by typing in a random number just to be sure before alarming the hapless administrator, I'd hope someone might want to implement a slightly stronger form of protection rather than taking me to court for "hacking the system".
I guess I'd be wrong.