do you see the phrase "thug culture" as a distinctively black thing?
It's called "code", and the comment in question is peppered with it: "gangsta thug culture"; "rap and hip-hop about how awesome it is to be a career criminal"; "high-crime area"; "gangsta thug"; "thug"; "THUG LIFE YO!"; "violent teenager". The whole scope of the comment is a dismally stereotypical picture of "black" urban life and culture, and to make matters worse, to the extent any of it is true it's completely irrelevant to the case. You're right, though. It doesn't say "nigger", so it can't possibly be racist.
Attention, liberal America: the fascists figured out how to employ innuendo and abstract thought to much success a long time ago, it's time you catch up.
And let me emphasize, this really, really isn't anything new. That's how Jim fucking Crow worked.
But keep on accusing people of racism for calling out racism*. It's a really convenient ignorance indicator.
* Then again, when you said "maybe that says something about you more than about GP", maybe you meant something else.
A person was killed, quite probably murdered. A police department refused to follow any sort of procedure to investigate the killing or the killer. The killer's background exhibits at the very least dangerous vigilante tendencies and mental health issues, and quite probably racial motivation for same. A whole segment of society erupted into an apologist frenzy on the killer's behalf, even further focusing on the racial elements of the case.
Those are the facts of the case. Each one of those facts carries a lot of importance, in their own right. And while we're at it, any society that can't muster the maturity required to deal with a case like this—or to distinguish it from pop culture drama—is far from the maturity required to address something like "we just invaded another country".
Really? You need a citation for why it seems more likely that a star like Sol is more likely to have a planet like Earth, than a star that is notably different from Sol?
Maybe a citation isn't the right thing to ask for, but as a hypothesis it certainly warrants further examination (fortunately someone is doing just that, if TFS is to be believed). Yes, the hypothesis is intuitive and seems perfectly reasonable on its face, but the same could be said of a hypothesis that heavier objects would accelerate faster when falling than lighter objects. There are a lot of factors that make life (as we know it) possible, and while they are afforded by our star, it's not clear that they couldn't be afforded by stars with very different characteristics—given other parameters that would make those differences a wash. Narrowing a search is often the best way to reduce the time before finding a result, but only if you narrow the search wisely.
By only looking at stars like our own, we then have to add a lot of other criteria to make the search meaningful: planet distance, orbit time, axis tilt, day length, composition. It might be that this is a worthwhile tradeoff, but it remains to be seen.
Couldn't that be accomplished with a network time server and (maybe) software updates, transparently to the user? Anyone who can't get those could just change the time manually like they do any other device that doesn't get network updates. I don't think it requires a phone call, much less thousands of them.
Probably because it's also a project of the Bush administration. Believe it or not, quite a lot of Obama's policies carry over from Bush. Can we get over the knee-jerk reaction to any mention of any particular politician in connection with any particular policy and start to get it in our heads that the policies are the problem, and (close to) none of the politicians are going to fight on our side?
There are at least two sets of people in the world; 1. The "keep your hands off" people who want minimal regulations and want to rely on their own intelligence for survival. 2. The "you didn't tell me" people who will blame government for not properly regulating industry and all owing bad thing to happen. They are the one that say things like "It didn't say I couldn't use that cancer causing agricultural product so the company is a fault and I will sue the company and the regulators".
There's a third type which is a combination of the first two. I expect to be free of intrusive regulation until such a point that my activities affect others, and I expect meaningful regulation of the actions of others as they affect me. It's not an either-or proposition, it's a question of how and why regulation is appropriate.
It is immoral, and should be forbidden by any good society, to harmfully mislead others. Industry has a much greater capacity—and tendency—to do this than the average person. Which reminds me, there's yet another type of person in the world: those who apparently can't conceive the difference between an organization and a person, or the difference between personal and interpersonal activities.
It's also worth remembering -- not that it helps anything now -- that honeybees are not native to the US. We only need them because of our extreme use of pesticide-heavy monoculture. Pesticides obviously kill off native pollinators, but monoculture is just as bad -- when everything for dozens of miles around, for the most part, all blooms at once and then there's virtually nothing for the rest of the year, you can't support most types of pollinator populations.
While true and (yes) worth remembering—and even with the caveat that you seem to be getting at that we still depend on them whether they're native or not—there's also the matter of the combined dangers of sidelining those other pollinators, so that we may not be able to rely on them even if we get our shit together in terms of food production; and the danger of other pollinators, also part of a complex ecosystem, being subject to the same kinds of stressors and industrial challenges the honeybees suffer. The honeybees serve also as a figurative canary in the coal mine. The quite obvious upshot is that intensive meddling in the name of efficiency or profit might have a profound impact on our survival.
Oh I get it. This is like when people say that global warming is also linked to natural warming-cooling cycles, but that can't be linked to humans so it's not worth mentioning. Which all sounds great on its face, but the subtext is: pay no attention to what humans are doing (or can do differently) because gee whiz the world is a big complicated place and by golly we can't be responsible for such drastic changes.
It reminds me of a rant I heard last night in an old exchange between Bill Maher and Bill O'reilly (yeah I like to dig through old videos sometimes when I'm bored), where Maher pointed out that the Republican party...
can turn anything into a wash, like they're doing now with Kerry's military record. And Bush has a pretty indefensible military record, especially for someone who's running as a "war president". But they're able to muck up John Kerry's record, spin it, tarnish it to the point where people go, "hey, you know what, there's some crazy stuff about Bush in the war, and there's some crazy stuff about Kerry. It's a wash." (Source)
It may not be your conscious motive, but it's really clear what the tactic is.
From TFA (I know, I know):
In the summer of 2010, the researchers conducted an in situ study in Worcester County, Mass. aimed at replicating how imidacloprid may have caused the CCD outbreak. Over a 23-week period, they monitored bees in four different bee yards; each yard had four hives treated with different levels of imidacloprid and one control hive. After 12 weeks of imidacloprid dosing, all the bees were alive. But after 23 weeks, 15 out of 16 of the imidacloprid-treated hives—94%—had died. Those exposed to the highest levels of the pesticide died first.
The characteristics of the dead hives were consistent with CCD, said Lu; the hives were empty except for food stores, some pollen, and young bees, with few dead bees nearby. When other conditions cause hive collapse—such as disease or pests—many dead bees are typically found inside and outside the affected hives.
That's science. You can't just brush it off with innuendo about whatever mysterious bias it is that apparently enjoins otherwise self-interested people to promote their own species' repression (even though all of the evidence suggests that those using this kind of innuendo and anti-science rhetoric are the ones threatening our species). But since it's science—and therefore falsifiable—if you really want to promote doubt of their findings, you can always research their work and find the errors in it. In the meantime, it may be that there are two contemporary causes of bee colony collapse, and it may be that one of them isn't human-driven. But the other one is. And we have the power to stop it.
And in my experience, CKEditor hasn't broken with rapid Firefox (or Chrome) releases. TinyMCE is almost certainly the problem here (as well as, and in its handling of, Gecko's historically divergent handling of badly specified rich text functionality), and we can't fault Mozilla every time they fail to maintain bugs that badly-written code depends on. It'd be one thing if there wasn't a way to future-proof your code, but there is. Fully none of my code has broken since Firefox went rapid-release, and the same is true in Chrome. And the same is true of all of the browsers which are released at a traditional pace.
I also hate the way the rapid-release story is covered and discussed. Firefox is almost always singled out in press, even though Chrome was the trend-setter (presumably here the issue is that Firefox has better penetration of enterprise). In discussions, people disparage Firefox's rapid-release and recommend Chrome as an alternative! There are certainly problems with the way Firefox handles updates versus Chrome, but they're primarily centered around end-user experience (extensions and the like); and while those are real issues, it is definitely not how the issue is discussed in the press or comments.
Everyone really needs to do some serious thinking about what they want from a browser. All signs point to a (well-executed) rapid-release schedule being the best for everyone involved. Let's get better at talking about the problems in Mozilla's (and Google's) approach, and contrast their successes and failures with the successes and failures of Apple, Microsoft and Opera. All of this could be done better, but ignorance isn't going to get us there.
But numbers of people aren't the only numbers. The reason I pointed out relative wealth was because not everyone's identity is equally valuable to a thief.
Presumably it's low-hanging because Word on the Mac shares code with Word on Windows, and it's a more familiar target for malware authors. I doubt Microsoft software in general is especially vulnerable, it's just especially prevalent.
It's still a vulnerability in OS X. Poorly secured third-party executables should not allow access to the system. Regardless of whether it's Apple's OS or otherwise.
Given the ability to provide necessary functionality and usable/understandable control end-user control over escalation requests, why wouldn't we sandbox everything?
OS X definitely has a root/user divide, but the default user still has "administrator" privileges which are far more permissive than they should be. The fact is, it's possible to devise a more hardened security regime and maintain home user usability, but it's very hard and would require a kind of cooperation from developers that even Apple probably can't command.
Probably at this point the only way it'll ever happen is for a security-oriented OS to inadvertently take the market by storm (killer app or whathaveyou), and I'm pretty sure that ship sailed a decade or two ago.
As a web developer who's tried to use WINE to work with IE, and specifically IE6, I can say with confidence that the compatibility you experienced ends before accurately (per IE6) rendering websites. If only Trident as a whole were as portable as its security flaws.
Slashdot Mirror
previously all white country
I think you're very, very confused.
They'll kill you first, and never be charged.
It's also most of the rest of the steps.
do you see the phrase "thug culture" as a distinctively black thing?
It's called "code", and the comment in question is peppered with it: "gangsta thug culture"; "rap and hip-hop about how awesome it is to be a career criminal"; "high-crime area"; "gangsta thug"; "thug"; "THUG LIFE YO!"; "violent teenager". The whole scope of the comment is a dismally stereotypical picture of "black" urban life and culture, and to make matters worse, to the extent any of it is true it's completely irrelevant to the case. You're right, though. It doesn't say "nigger", so it can't possibly be racist.
Attention, liberal America: the fascists figured out how to employ innuendo and abstract thought to much success a long time ago, it's time you catch up.
And let me emphasize, this really, really isn't anything new. That's how Jim fucking Crow worked.
But keep on accusing people of racism for calling out racism*. It's a really convenient ignorance indicator.
* Then again, when you said "maybe that says something about you more than about GP", maybe you meant something else.
A person was killed, quite probably murdered. A police department refused to follow any sort of procedure to investigate the killing or the killer. The killer's background exhibits at the very least dangerous vigilante tendencies and mental health issues, and quite probably racial motivation for same. A whole segment of society erupted into an apologist frenzy on the killer's behalf, even further focusing on the racial elements of the case.
Those are the facts of the case. Each one of those facts carries a lot of importance, in their own right. And while we're at it, any society that can't muster the maturity required to deal with a case like this—or to distinguish it from pop culture drama—is far from the maturity required to address something like "we just invaded another country".
Really? You need a citation for why it seems more likely that a star like Sol is more likely to have a planet like Earth, than a star that is notably different from Sol?
Maybe a citation isn't the right thing to ask for, but as a hypothesis it certainly warrants further examination (fortunately someone is doing just that, if TFS is to be believed). Yes, the hypothesis is intuitive and seems perfectly reasonable on its face, but the same could be said of a hypothesis that heavier objects would accelerate faster when falling than lighter objects. There are a lot of factors that make life (as we know it) possible, and while they are afforded by our star, it's not clear that they couldn't be afforded by stars with very different characteristics—given other parameters that would make those differences a wash. Narrowing a search is often the best way to reduce the time before finding a result, but only if you narrow the search wisely.
By only looking at stars like our own, we then have to add a lot of other criteria to make the search meaningful: planet distance, orbit time, axis tilt, day length, composition. It might be that this is a worthwhile tradeoff, but it remains to be seen.
Couldn't that be accomplished with a network time server and (maybe) software updates, transparently to the user? Anyone who can't get those could just change the time manually like they do any other device that doesn't get network updates. I don't think it requires a phone call, much less thousands of them.
Evidently, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
Oh not to mention the technology is prohibitively expensive any time you have to hire a lawyer.
The data transfer rate (months to years) is terrible and data corruption (redacted) is a huge problem as well
Probably because it's also a project of the Bush administration. Believe it or not, quite a lot of Obama's policies carry over from Bush. Can we get over the knee-jerk reaction to any mention of any particular politician in connection with any particular policy and start to get it in our heads that the policies are the problem, and (close to) none of the politicians are going to fight on our side?
There are at least two sets of people in the world;
1. The "keep your hands off" people who want minimal regulations and want to rely on their own intelligence for survival.
2. The "you didn't tell me" people who will blame government for not properly regulating industry and all owing bad thing to happen. They are the one that say things like "It didn't say I couldn't use that cancer causing agricultural product so the company is a fault and I will sue the company and the regulators".
There's a third type which is a combination of the first two. I expect to be free of intrusive regulation until such a point that my activities affect others, and I expect meaningful regulation of the actions of others as they affect me. It's not an either-or proposition, it's a question of how and why regulation is appropriate.
It is immoral, and should be forbidden by any good society, to harmfully mislead others. Industry has a much greater capacity—and tendency—to do this than the average person. Which reminds me, there's yet another type of person in the world: those who apparently can't conceive the difference between an organization and a person, or the difference between personal and interpersonal activities.
They're uh... doing it anyway. You may have seen articles about it, since you're responding to one.
Reaganomics
You should seek a better argument. Or a stupider audience.
It's also worth remembering -- not that it helps anything now -- that honeybees are not native to the US. We only need them because of our extreme use of pesticide-heavy monoculture. Pesticides obviously kill off native pollinators, but monoculture is just as bad -- when everything for dozens of miles around, for the most part, all blooms at once and then there's virtually nothing for the rest of the year, you can't support most types of pollinator populations.
While true and (yes) worth remembering—and even with the caveat that you seem to be getting at that we still depend on them whether they're native or not—there's also the matter of the combined dangers of sidelining those other pollinators, so that we may not be able to rely on them even if we get our shit together in terms of food production; and the danger of other pollinators, also part of a complex ecosystem, being subject to the same kinds of stressors and industrial challenges the honeybees suffer. The honeybees serve also as a figurative canary in the coal mine. The quite obvious upshot is that intensive meddling in the name of efficiency or profit might have a profound impact on our survival.
Oh I get it. This is like when people say that global warming is also linked to natural warming-cooling cycles, but that can't be linked to humans so it's not worth mentioning. Which all sounds great on its face, but the subtext is: pay no attention to what humans are doing (or can do differently) because gee whiz the world is a big complicated place and by golly we can't be responsible for such drastic changes.
It reminds me of a rant I heard last night in an old exchange between Bill Maher and Bill O'reilly (yeah I like to dig through old videos sometimes when I'm bored), where Maher pointed out that the Republican party...
can turn anything into a wash, like they're doing now with Kerry's military record. And Bush has a pretty indefensible military record, especially for someone who's running as a "war president". But they're able to muck up John Kerry's record, spin it, tarnish it to the point where people go, "hey, you know what, there's some crazy stuff about Bush in the war, and there's some crazy stuff about Kerry. It's a wash." (Source)
It may not be your conscious motive, but it's really clear what the tactic is.
From TFA (I know, I know):
In the summer of 2010, the researchers conducted an in situ study in Worcester County, Mass. aimed at replicating how imidacloprid may have caused the CCD outbreak. Over a 23-week period, they monitored bees in four different bee yards; each yard had four hives treated with different levels of imidacloprid and one control hive. After 12 weeks of imidacloprid dosing, all the bees were alive. But after 23 weeks, 15 out of 16 of the imidacloprid-treated hives—94%—had died. Those exposed to the highest levels of the pesticide died first.
The characteristics of the dead hives were consistent with CCD, said Lu; the hives were empty except for food stores, some pollen, and young bees, with few dead bees nearby. When other conditions cause hive collapse—such as disease or pests—many dead bees are typically found inside and outside the affected hives.
That's science. You can't just brush it off with innuendo about whatever mysterious bias it is that apparently enjoins otherwise self-interested people to promote their own species' repression (even though all of the evidence suggests that those using this kind of innuendo and anti-science rhetoric are the ones threatening our species). But since it's science—and therefore falsifiable—if you really want to promote doubt of their findings, you can always research their work and find the errors in it. In the meantime, it may be that there are two contemporary causes of bee colony collapse, and it may be that one of them isn't human-driven. But the other one is. And we have the power to stop it.
And in my experience, CKEditor hasn't broken with rapid Firefox (or Chrome) releases. TinyMCE is almost certainly the problem here (as well as, and in its handling of, Gecko's historically divergent handling of badly specified rich text functionality), and we can't fault Mozilla every time they fail to maintain bugs that badly-written code depends on. It'd be one thing if there wasn't a way to future-proof your code, but there is. Fully none of my code has broken since Firefox went rapid-release, and the same is true in Chrome. And the same is true of all of the browsers which are released at a traditional pace.
I also hate the way the rapid-release story is covered and discussed. Firefox is almost always singled out in press, even though Chrome was the trend-setter (presumably here the issue is that Firefox has better penetration of enterprise). In discussions, people disparage Firefox's rapid-release and recommend Chrome as an alternative! There are certainly problems with the way Firefox handles updates versus Chrome, but they're primarily centered around end-user experience (extensions and the like); and while those are real issues, it is definitely not how the issue is discussed in the press or comments.
Everyone really needs to do some serious thinking about what they want from a browser. All signs point to a (well-executed) rapid-release schedule being the best for everyone involved. Let's get better at talking about the problems in Mozilla's (and Google's) approach, and contrast their successes and failures with the successes and failures of Apple, Microsoft and Opera. All of this could be done better, but ignorance isn't going to get us there.
And here we have again a false silver bullet. Security is hard. Sandboxing (and virtualization) are great, but they're not The Solution.
But numbers of people aren't the only numbers. The reason I pointed out relative wealth was because not everyone's identity is equally valuable to a thief.
Presumably it's low-hanging because Word on the Mac shares code with Word on Windows, and it's a more familiar target for malware authors. I doubt Microsoft software in general is especially vulnerable, it's just especially prevalent.
It's still a vulnerability in OS X. Poorly secured third-party executables should not allow access to the system. Regardless of whether it's Apple's OS or otherwise.
Given the ability to provide necessary functionality and usable/understandable control end-user control over escalation requests, why wouldn't we sandbox everything?
OS X definitely has a root/user divide, but the default user still has "administrator" privileges which are far more permissive than they should be. The fact is, it's possible to devise a more hardened security regime and maintain home user usability, but it's very hard and would require a kind of cooperation from developers that even Apple probably can't command.
Probably at this point the only way it'll ever happen is for a security-oriented OS to inadvertently take the market by storm (killer app or whathaveyou), and I'm pretty sure that ship sailed a decade or two ago.
As a web developer who's tried to use WINE to work with IE, and specifically IE6, I can say with confidence that the compatibility you experienced ends before accurately (per IE6) rendering websites. If only Trident as a whole were as portable as its security flaws.