...although it has never brought down a plane (or caused a fatality on one) either.
We agree. This is the reason I made my original post. When a battery (or a fat human) goes up and takes out a plane, they'll question why they allowed it in the first place.
I think you took my nitpick of your analogy as a rebuttal. Wasn't intended to be, and I apologize for giving off that impression.
Heh. Okay, you have to admit, that door swings both ways. Watch...
Useful skills learned while playing games:
Networking
Computer maintenance / upgrades
Teamwork
Network latency
Graphical tricks (texture mapping, lighting, etc. I could make a whole list on this alone.)
Good UI
Appreciation for simplicity
...etc.
Ordinarily I would have let this go, but you reminded me of a programming teacher I had back in high school that thought video games offered nothing but a waste of time. Instead I have a lot to thank them for.
What I don't understand is why "you can't play games" is supposed to be some sort of universal knock against people who don't use windows.
It's not a knock, it's a small poke meant in a light-hearted way.
I have to admit, I'm not sure why you're confused about this. There is no mystery here. Lots of energy is spent making Linux play Windows games. If that's not enough to cure your curiosity you should go to an Apple store and watch the people there orbit the games aisle hoping to find something new. Lots of people want to play games and there are a fair number of them that go about it the hard way.
That's because hindsight is 20/20. If a battery explodes and downs a flight, suddenly lots of noisy people are going "Why would they even let something that stores as much energy as a battery on a flight in the first place?!?!?" and people start shaking their fists. I personally blame the sensationalist media.
Yet another reason I avoid Windows and run for the hills with my linux box, if Windows was patched in a timely matter instead of being vulnerable for weeks, months, 17 years or when the media s**ts their pants, then I just might look at using it.
A.) You don't understand what really happened here. You should read the +5's in this thread before reading the next part of my post.
B.) There is absolutely nothing preventing Linux or anything else from having a problem like this. In fact, this is quite the cautionary tale for anybody running a computer. Your computer has a number of exploitable bugs in it right this second. Your machine is not safe. You need to install updates. You need network protection, firewall, etc. You need to make backups. You need to not run every executable you find from un-trusted sources. You need to use good practices when dealing with sensitive data. Running Linux, BSD, OSX, whatever, doesn't alleviate any of these concerns.
C.) Summaries often contain more information than the headline does. They also usually have links you can click on to get even more info.
It's possible but not practical. A decade ago I did this as part of a proof-of-concept virus; iterating through all possible 8.3 filenames would have taken just under a century.
I know the longer filename support in Windows would take longer to brute force, but wouldn't that also make a dictionary attack more feasible since fewer constraints are placed on the user's naming of files?
Yes -- it moves at the speed of the vehicle in front. If that vehicle happens to be a 15 mph bicycle, then so be it!
Right, a safety hazard and legal landmine has intentionally been thrown into the road designed for vehicles to safely travel at 35mph. So be it!
You have exactly the same responsibility to pass safely...
You also have an expectation of safe travel. That's why we have things like stop-lights instead of nothing but 15mph rods and four-way stop signs.
You do not belong on the road with cars. You are a hazard. You rely on the skill of drivers on the road and you don't require it of yourself. There is nothing about a cyclist that makes them any smarter than the people they're intruding on the road with. At least do everybody a favor and fill out an organ donor card.
Uh, no. The whole reason 'DRM' came into being was to disconnect software from the media and be 'allowed' to make copies under the terms of the publisher. That's why we call it DRM and NOT copy protection. The key distinction is the publisher's ability to shut your copy down.
The only reason a CD-Key, for example, is considered by the Slashdot masses as part of DRM is because it's generally included in the daily pitchfork party. It's short-hand. It's not because you all have mastered the meaning of it.
DRM has been synonymous with copy protection so long that people don't understand the nuance of the terms anymore. Oh well. Oops, my computer bricked, I better restart it.
No, they're not. Besides their existence pre-dating the term, checking for a physical 'key' is not the same as altering your machine to limit how many times you use/copy it. There is no 'rights management' going on here.
You're the one that brought up road ownership, not me. And, no, you're not really getting my point. This is not about convenience or about 'who owns the road'. I do not want to be responsible for your safety. You are a hazard. You move too slow and you're unprotected. No amount of complaining about how rude drivers are does not change this fact.
Other fun experiences include people swerving around me...
What do you expect when you're a fragile obstacle riding erratically down the street at an unsafe speed putting yourself and every driver out there at risk?
I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion, but drivers have a side to this story, too. Bikes are too slow and virtually unprotected. The law says you can ride on the roads, which is fine, but it ignores the reality that sudden changes in speed on the motorway increase the odds of an accident. That's why it's worse to travel the speed limit than it is to travel at the speed the rest of traffic is moving at. The best part is, if we hit you, even if it's your fault, there's a serious risk that we get in trouble for it.
I don't mean to be insensitive. Nobody should treat you like that. But bicycles and cars do not mix. It's dumb that the law tries to put them on the same road. Dangerous, very dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
...although it has never brought down a plane (or caused a fatality on one) either.
We agree. This is the reason I made my original post. When a battery (or a fat human) goes up and takes out a plane, they'll question why they allowed it in the first place.
I think you took my nitpick of your analogy as a rebuttal. Wasn't intended to be, and I apologize for giving off that impression.
Spontaneous human combustion happens far less frequently than battery fires.
Heh. Okay, you have to admit, that door swings both ways. Watch...
Useful skills learned while playing games:
Ordinarily I would have let this go, but you reminded me of a programming teacher I had back in high school that thought video games offered nothing but a waste of time. Instead I have a lot to thank them for.
What I don't understand is why "you can't play games" is supposed to be some sort of universal knock against people who don't use windows.
It's not a knock, it's a small poke meant in a light-hearted way.
I have to admit, I'm not sure why you're confused about this. There is no mystery here. Lots of energy is spent making Linux play Windows games. If that's not enough to cure your curiosity you should go to an Apple store and watch the people there orbit the games aisle hoping to find something new. Lots of people want to play games and there are a fair number of them that go about it the hard way.
It is all about perceived risk, not actual risk.
That's because hindsight is 20/20. If a battery explodes and downs a flight, suddenly lots of noisy people are going "Why would they even let something that stores as much energy as a battery on a flight in the first place?!?!?" and people start shaking their fists. I personally blame the sensationalist media.
Erm... ALL of those have run on Macs since 1996.
Didn't say otherwise. Re-read my post.
LOL! Games played since 1996:
No, he majored in English. Reading comprehension, mostly.
(He corrected the principle, not the math.)
Fail. 2 days x 4 = 4 weeks?
No. Scotty's Principle = Actual Time x 4.
He was talking about the principle, not the amount of time. :P
WooHoo! I'm safe! ...Beacuse nobody calls me :(
a/s/l???
And that's completely preventing an exploit that was created years ago from being found?
Yet another reason I avoid Windows and run for the hills with my linux box, if Windows was patched in a timely matter instead of being vulnerable for weeks, months, 17 years or when the media s**ts their pants, then I just might look at using it.
A.) You don't understand what really happened here. You should read the +5's in this thread before reading the next part of my post.
B.) There is absolutely nothing preventing Linux or anything else from having a problem like this. In fact, this is quite the cautionary tale for anybody running a computer. Your computer has a number of exploitable bugs in it right this second. Your machine is not safe. You need to install updates. You need network protection, firewall, etc. You need to make backups. You need to not run every executable you find from un-trusted sources. You need to use good practices when dealing with sensitive data. Running Linux, BSD, OSX, whatever, doesn't alleviate any of these concerns.
C.) Summaries often contain more information than the headline does. They also usually have links you can click on to get even more info.
would like to welcome our robotic driver overlords. (Score:1, Offtopic)
Somebody with a mod point earned a chocolate bar!
It's possible but not practical. A decade ago I did this as part of a proof-of-concept virus; iterating through all possible 8.3 filenames would have taken just under a century.
I know the longer filename support in Windows would take longer to brute force, but wouldn't that also make a dictionary attack more feasible since fewer constraints are placed on the user's naming of files?
Actually the loser is the first man whose heart stops beating. It's a medical fact that you cannot die from having a bullet in your body. :P
Pardon the Star Trek analogy here, but wouldn't that be like flinging water balloons into a dry riverbed?
Yes -- it moves at the speed of the vehicle in front. If that vehicle happens to be a 15 mph bicycle, then so be it!
Right, a safety hazard and legal landmine has intentionally been thrown into the road designed for vehicles to safely travel at 35mph. So be it!
You have exactly the same responsibility to pass safely...
You also have an expectation of safe travel. That's why we have things like stop-lights instead of nothing but 15mph rods and four-way stop signs.
You do not belong on the road with cars. You are a hazard. You rely on the skill of drivers on the road and you don't require it of yourself. There is nothing about a cyclist that makes them any smarter than the people they're intruding on the road with. At least do everybody a favor and fill out an organ donor card.
Uh, no. The whole reason 'DRM' came into being was to disconnect software from the media and be 'allowed' to make copies under the terms of the publisher. That's why we call it DRM and NOT copy protection. The key distinction is the publisher's ability to shut your copy down.
The only reason a CD-Key, for example, is considered by the Slashdot masses as part of DRM is because it's generally included in the daily pitchfork party. It's short-hand. It's not because you all have mastered the meaning of it.
DRM has been synonymous with copy protection so long that people don't understand the nuance of the terms anymore. Oh well. Oops, my computer bricked, I better restart it.
become productive and do some coding!
Said the guy trolling on Slashdot....
No, they're not. Besides their existence pre-dating the term, checking for a physical 'key' is not the same as altering your machine to limit how many times you use/copy it. There is no 'rights management' going on here.
You're the one that brought up road ownership, not me. And, no, you're not really getting my point. This is not about convenience or about 'who owns the road'. I do not want to be responsible for your safety. You are a hazard. You move too slow and you're unprotected. No amount of complaining about how rude drivers are does not change this fact.
Can you show me how your bicycle riding is paying more for the roads than my car driving?
Perhaps you should just slow down and leave more room when overtaking slower vehicles?
I'm already doing that. The fundamental problem is traffic still moves in a flow at a certain speed.
...because it is not actually your road..
Wanna bet? I'm paying registration and taxes on gas to pay for roads.
Other fun experiences include people swerving around me...
What do you expect when you're a fragile obstacle riding erratically down the street at an unsafe speed putting yourself and every driver out there at risk?
I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion, but drivers have a side to this story, too. Bikes are too slow and virtually unprotected. The law says you can ride on the roads, which is fine, but it ignores the reality that sudden changes in speed on the motorway increase the odds of an accident. That's why it's worse to travel the speed limit than it is to travel at the speed the rest of traffic is moving at. The best part is, if we hit you, even if it's your fault, there's a serious risk that we get in trouble for it.
I don't mean to be insensitive. Nobody should treat you like that. But bicycles and cars do not mix. It's dumb that the law tries to put them on the same road. Dangerous, very dangerous.