...If you are arrogant enough to not want his forgiveness...
This one caused me to do a double-take. Are we using the same word?
Arrogant: making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud1
Have I mocked YOU for your religious beliefs? Have you mocked ME for my (lack of?) religious beliefs? Who is being arrogant here?
The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly says that I am free to worship in any manner I please. So are you. Respect is recursive; I have several Christian neighbors, some are even "fundies". We get along just fine. We rely on MUTUAL respect to do so.
Or, as my Grandma once explained it: do unto others as you would have them do on to you. Not for want of heaven, nor fear of hell, but out of simple human decency.
So another 800,000 SSN's have been leaked into the gooey ether, with the typical "whoops!" form letter in tow. This has started to happen so often that I'm not the least bit suprised.
Am I a cynic, or are we approaching the breaking-point?
At last count, we had 300,000,000 Americans roaming about. Let us assume that 100% of these people were issued SSN's (wrong thread for an illegal immigration debate). 800k out of 300,000k is 0.26%. In other words, this single incident has compromised AT LEAST 0.26% of all SSN holders.
Granted, this leak is larger than most. However, given the scale involved in these databases, and the frequency of attack, I would wager it is only a matter of time until the MAJORITY of all SSNs have been compromised.
Then what? How can this system of credit survive? Is this really just simple incompetence, or is Tyler Durden hard at work?
Being that the purpose of the FCC is to protect the public airwaves, and that "the experts" agree that TV is going digital, along with radio (viva Satellite and Internet), does this mean we can abolish the FCC?
Offtopic: I think I am making history. I am recieving a blowjob while I type this.
This is a good idea. Worst case, if it turns out that the click-through rates are high enough to justify the cost to the advertiser, it will still provide a good "refresher course" to all of the 14 and 84 year olds who are still learning the ins-and-outs of email.
Someone who misunderstands computers, and the wondeful dance known as the "developer-hacker-shuffle". Break the box, fix the box, break the box, fix the box...
And the beat goes on... (yadda dadda dee, yadda dadda doo)
As a fellow F/OSS enthusiast, I am also bored of the "you wouldn't have these problems if you just used Linux" posts around here.
To the Linux fanbois responsible: Why not point to a specific chunk of code, or whichever branch is responsible for whatever wonderful feature you are pointing out today? After all, isn't that what F/OSS is all about? I may not use Linux, but I do write code, and I'm always on the lookout for clever hacks and good security (it's a zen thing).
As I understand it, every U.S. President before Lincoln understood that slavery's days were numbered, but like Jefferson, understood that it was not going down without a fight.
Personally, I'd like to believe that Jefferson simply found Ms. Hemmings an attractive woman, and was a few centuries ahead of his time. If I recal correctly, Franklin once brought a 13-year-old prostitute to one of the constitutional conventions, despite objections from Hamilton.
Of course, now I'm really begging for an "offtopic" mod, so I best shut up.
Falcon, I am very sorry to hear that you lost a friend, but I think you *nailed it* by writing two very important words: while stationed. I assume your friend was in the military, and issued a firearm by the government directly. Even with DIRECT GOVERNMENT CONTROL and DIRECT GOVERNMENT SUPERVISION, an innocent man was accidentally killed.
I see two options:
a) Ban all firearms, including all military weapons. As we all know, doing this will result in invasion from aliens carrying boards with nails in them.
b) Accept the horrible truth that some people will die from guns, others will trip down stairs, and yet others will spontaneously combust this year. No amount of control or supervision can stop this. The only way to mitigate these risks is education, which is an imperfect solution.
TASTELESS JOKE ALERT:
Just as soon as hemp is legal again, you, me, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson should hang out and order a pizza. I hear Tommy's stuff is so good that he once lost it completely, and gave in to the "jungle fever".
how many deaths per year are caused by passive marijuanna smoking[?]: 0
[how many accidental gun deaths?]: tricky question with varying answers. 1,500 is a number I see alot, however, the NRA claims that number is even lower.
Judging by the responses to my post, the pot-gun comparison left a few readers scratching their heads. Please, allow me to clarify. I was not attempting to compare the safety of guns v. marjunna. Although marijunna may contribute to driving deaths, no one in the history of recorded medicine has died directly from using it. On the other hand, guns *directly* kill *some* amount of innocent people every year.
My point was that outlawing or banning guns is not a "silver bullet" solution. Those who are still strongly pro-gun will most likely continue to buy and use them (just like marijuanna users). We might make stonger laws, we might move towards decriminalization, but some portion of the population will remain unaffected.
My logic: If I use a gun unsafely, and begin pointing it at various people in and around my home, I put innocent people at risk. If I smoke pot, then go for a drive, I put innocent people at risk. Both are currently illegal, both continue to happen on a daily basis (not by me, but by reckless, rude and foolish people around me).
My conclusion: laws cannot solve the gun issue.
My opinion: marijunna and guns both involve a degree of risk, but used properly, will not result innocent deaths. Foolish people will hurt, kill and maim innocents using both, regardless of the law.
I think the bigger division is in regards to issue (B): Is the ability to own, carry, trade, manufacture, modify, and transport firearms an important right?
For example, Long Island, NY is a very anti-gun place. Very few Long Islanders hunt, and gun enthusiasts are few and far between. The typical Long Islander will only encounter a gun during a crime, and so, guns carry a very negative opinion. The prevailing view on LI is, if it makes us safer, we don't need guns.
On the other hand, Denver, CO is a very pro-gun place. Hunting is popular, and many gun enthusiasts live there. The typical Coloradian has been exposed to guns in friendly social settings, and so, they do not carry as negative a stigma. The prevailing view in CO is, the 2nd Amendment is an innate right, granted to man by the Creator directly.
I think the best one-liner on gun laws is as follows: if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. However, I know from experience that anti-gun voters will roll their eyes at that little gem.
To them I say: consider marijuanna. Marijuanna has been illegal throughout my entire lifetime (born 1980) and yet, I have known casual marijuanna smokers in Colorado and in Long Island. They are criminals, each and every one of them, but they are not persuaded by the law. Some cite cultural or spiritual reasons, others simply like it, but they all agree: bugger off with your rules, this is what FREEDOM is all about.
As my grandpappy used to say: true freedom is the freedom to make mistakes.
- Zaphod (100% pro-2nd Amendment, despite the fact I've never used a firearm)
How do you know you which free Linux-ISOs you can trust? Better the devil you know.
Easy.
Step 1: go to/. or digg
Step 2: search for "linux"
Step 3: pick the name of a distro that sounds good, and google it
No one is "hiding" F/OSS ISO's. I can grab 'em straight from the horse's mouth, to twist a phrase. On the other hand, no one hosting a Windows ISO is going to stay up very long, so a pirate is stuck playing the crapshoot that is torrents.
I don't wish to bicker, but I felt your post was bit absurd. Trusting OSS software as a whole, is the same as trusting, say, automobiles- some are more trustworthy than others.
OSS lives or dies by reputation. If I added malware to a distro of Linux, I wager I'd either be a) totally ignored or b) flamed to the 9th pit of hell throughout the blogosphere. I doubt a single person would recommend it to anyone.
Firefox is probably the best example of this. As I have explained 1,000 times to new users, Firefox plugins are written by different people, some of whom may NOT be trustworthy.
No one has ever returned to me later and said "hey! you said I could trust FF but the SpamX plugin did such and such...".
I'd wager you are 100% correct in assuming that the gross majority of FF users have never looked at the source code. But a few have- and it only takes a few to get the needed warnings out to/., digg, et all. Some spot bad code, some spread the meme- everyone has their place in OSS support.
Writing software is my job in my life. I earn a good living by customizing and supporting open-source systems. Please download as many copies as you can. The more users we create, the larger my potential client base will grow.
To the other guy who posted: nothing wrong with earning a fair living, but the time has come to evolve and adapt- or end up like the dinosaurs did...extinct.
I'm all for freedom, but when spambots took over my cablemodem ISP a few years back, I was glad when they blocked the ports being used, even though it temporarily disabled a few of my own apps being used for legit purposes.
Nothing wrong here. YOUR computer is YOUR business, THEIR network is THEIR business.
I'd like to preface this comment by saying that I am a strong supporter of ethanol and finding economically viable solutions to ecological problems.
You are correct that corn and sugar can can be grown, crop after crop, and processed into ethanol fuel. In theory, we are dealing with an infinite resource, just like all farming.
However, just like all farming, we have begun to witness some serious capacity issues. Crops may be pertpetual, but they depend on the resource known as LAND, which is most certainly finite. Technology can increase production, such as fertilizers, hydroponics, genetic engineering, but these increases are not infinite either; even a tower of hydroponic farms will connect to some portion of the Earth.
With 2006 technology, it is impossible to sustain BOTH our food production, and to become 100% self-sufficient on ethanol fuels, with the farmland available in the US.
The reality of our situation is this: we Americans consume an OBSCENE amount, especially when it come to both food and fuel. Even if we were able to break even, to grow enough fuel for all Americans tommorrow, we would fall back into an energy deficit immediatley. Not only do we Americans consume, but there are 300 MILLION of us now, and more arriving every day.
Technology, biofuels, free-market solutions are all great. However, I believe that a cultural shift is simply inevitable- it is unrealistic to expect my 9 grandchildren to consume as much as I do come 2075...especially if they are joined by another 300 million other Americans in that same time.
How are you sure Bill Gates will beat up on NK but not beat up citizens of the US?
I'm not. However, I *am* sure that all the politicians I mentioned in my first post (Dem, GOP or other) have and will continue to "beat up on US citizens"- as their track records clearly show.
For example: Gates has slapped drachonian levels of DRM into Vista. John McCain and Hillary Clinton both advocate torture. Who would *you* rather be on control of the US military?
Its still the lesser-of-two-evils argument, but until I get the choice to vote for noone, its the best option I see.
As I sit here typing this comment into Firefox on my MacBook running OS X, you would be hard-pressed to call me a M$ fanboy. However, I have to admit, if he runs, he's got my vote.
Scott said it best:
The man took one look at capitalism and beat it like a 14-year old boy with unrestricted Internet access. Bill Gates is a winner. Wouldn't you prefer having him on your side for a change, beating the crap out of North Korea instead of Netscape?
Like it or not, capitalism is the name of our American game. Compared to Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Condi Rice or (God help us) Rudy Giuliani-- it's the first name I've heard that hasn't made me cringe.
Plus it sets a nice prescedent. As far as I'm concerned, we geeks should be running the show.
Greater wealth disparity correlates with increased rates of robbery and many other crimes.
The United States does indeed have a high crime rate and large wealth disparity, which fits the above theory. However, I also came across another factoid which suprised me:
Of course, if I understand you correctly, your point was that International wealth disparity is even greater than that within the US, and therefore, increased globalization results in increased (property) crime. It "makes perfect sense" to me, but I'm having trouble finding the stats to back it up.
Very true. If I lived in a developing nation, I'm sure I would jump at the chance to score $100,000- especially since my earning power would be nowhere near $20,000 per year.
As far as moral jusification goes, I argue that there is plenty of wealth disparity right here in the US to "justify" any criminal behavior a person might engage in. Especially if said criminal is already of an entitlement mentality.
When it comes to (criminal) hacking, or any other illegal activity, the smart perp will consider the risk-reward of his behavior. Unless the potential payoff of a crime is significant, it simply does not make good economic sense to do it.
Example: say you offer me $100,000 to commit a crime which may carry a 10-year prison term. To me, such an opportunity is not worth the risk. Even at a low-wage job, I can earn $20,000 a year, $200,000 in a decade. Why would I sacrafice $200,000 of earning power (minimum) for a potential $100,000, to say nothing of legal fees, destroyed reputation and the horror of pound-me-in-the-ass Federal prison?
Back in the day, when I was a minor and thought I was invincible, I occasionally slipped between the gray and black, and did a few things that were not exactly kosher. However, my motive was not money, but rather the thrill of "showing them how smart I was". Had I been thinking clearly, or been subject to adult-level criminal law enforcement, I would have stuck to the benign aspects of hacking.
That said, would I ever "hack" illegally again? Yes- but only on the condition that I left my potential prison sentance with enough cash to retire early.
Slashdot Mirror
This one caused me to do a double-take. Are we using the same word?
Arrogant: making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud 1
Have I mocked YOU for your religious beliefs? Have you mocked ME for my (lack of?) religious beliefs? Who is being arrogant here?
The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly says that I am free to worship in any manner I please. So are you. Respect is recursive; I have several Christian neighbors, some are even "fundies". We get along just fine. We rely on MUTUAL respect to do so.
Or, as my Grandma once explained it: do unto others as you would have them do on to you. Not for want of heaven, nor fear of hell, but out of simple human decency.
So another 800,000 SSN's have been leaked into the gooey ether, with the typical "whoops!" form letter in tow. This has started to happen so often that I'm not the least bit suprised.
Am I a cynic, or are we approaching the breaking-point?
At last count, we had 300,000,000 Americans roaming about. Let us assume that 100% of these people were issued SSN's (wrong thread for an illegal immigration debate). 800k out of 300,000k is 0.26%. In other words, this single incident has compromised AT LEAST 0.26% of all SSN holders.
Granted, this leak is larger than most. However, given the scale involved in these databases, and the frequency of attack, I would wager it is only a matter of time until the MAJORITY of all SSNs have been compromised.
Then what? How can this system of credit survive? Is this really just simple incompetence, or is Tyler Durden hard at work?
Being that the purpose of the FCC is to protect the public airwaves, and that "the experts" agree that TV is going digital, along with radio (viva Satellite and Internet), does this mean we can abolish the FCC?
Offtopic: I think I am making history. I am recieving a blowjob while I type this.
This is a good idea. Worst case, if it turns out that the click-through rates are high enough to justify the cost to the advertiser, it will still provide a good "refresher course" to all of the 14 and 84 year olds who are still learning the ins-and-outs of email.
Who said anything about perfectly secure?
Someone who misunderstands computers, and the wondeful dance known as the "developer-hacker-shuffle". Break the box, fix the box, break the box, fix the box...
And the beat goes on... (yadda dadda dee, yadda dadda doo)
As a fellow F/OSS enthusiast, I am also bored of the "you wouldn't have these problems if you just used Linux" posts around here.
To the Linux fanbois responsible: Why not point to a specific chunk of code, or whichever branch is responsible for whatever wonderful feature you are pointing out today? After all, isn't that what F/OSS is all about? I may not use Linux, but I do write code, and I'm always on the lookout for clever hacks and good security (it's a zen thing).
As I understand it, every U.S. President before Lincoln understood that slavery's days were numbered, but like Jefferson, understood that it was not going down without a fight.
Personally, I'd like to believe that Jefferson simply found Ms. Hemmings an attractive woman, and was a few centuries ahead of his time. If I recal correctly, Franklin once brought a 13-year-old prostitute to one of the constitutional conventions, despite objections from Hamilton.
Of course, now I'm really begging for an "offtopic" mod, so I best shut up.
I see two options:
a) Ban all firearms, including all military weapons. As we all know, doing this will result in invasion from aliens carrying boards with nails in them.
b) Accept the horrible truth that some people will die from guns, others will trip down stairs, and yet others will spontaneously combust this year. No amount of control or supervision can stop this. The only way to mitigate these risks is education, which is an imperfect solution.
TASTELESS JOKE ALERT:
Just as soon as hemp is legal again, you, me, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson should hang out and order a pizza. I hear Tommy's stuff is so good that he once lost it completely, and gave in to the "jungle fever".
how many deaths per year are caused by passive marijuanna smoking[?]: 0
[how many accidental gun deaths?]: tricky question with varying answers. 1,500 is a number I see alot, however, the NRA claims that number is even lower.
Judging by the responses to my post, the pot-gun comparison left a few readers scratching their heads. Please, allow me to clarify. I was not attempting to compare the safety of guns v. marjunna. Although marijunna may contribute to driving deaths, no one in the history of recorded medicine has died directly from using it. On the other hand, guns *directly* kill *some* amount of innocent people every year.
My point was that outlawing or banning guns is not a "silver bullet" solution. Those who are still strongly pro-gun will most likely continue to buy and use them (just like marijuanna users). We might make stonger laws, we might move towards decriminalization, but some portion of the population will remain unaffected.
My logic: If I use a gun unsafely, and begin pointing it at various people in and around my home, I put innocent people at risk. If I smoke pot, then go for a drive, I put innocent people at risk. Both are currently illegal, both continue to happen on a daily basis (not by me, but by reckless, rude and foolish people around me).
My conclusion: laws cannot solve the gun issue.
My opinion: marijunna and guns both involve a degree of risk, but used properly, will not result innocent deaths. Foolish people will hurt, kill and maim innocents using both, regardless of the law.
I think the bigger division is in regards to issue (B): Is the ability to own, carry, trade, manufacture, modify, and transport firearms an important right?
For example, Long Island, NY is a very anti-gun place. Very few Long Islanders hunt, and gun enthusiasts are few and far between. The typical Long Islander will only encounter a gun during a crime, and so, guns carry a very negative opinion. The prevailing view on LI is, if it makes us safer, we don't need guns.
On the other hand, Denver, CO is a very pro-gun place. Hunting is popular, and many gun enthusiasts live there. The typical Coloradian has been exposed to guns in friendly social settings, and so, they do not carry as negative a stigma. The prevailing view in CO is, the 2nd Amendment is an innate right, granted to man by the Creator directly.
I think the best one-liner on gun laws is as follows: if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. However, I know from experience that anti-gun voters will roll their eyes at that little gem.
To them I say: consider marijuanna. Marijuanna has been illegal throughout my entire lifetime (born 1980) and yet, I have known casual marijuanna smokers in Colorado and in Long Island. They are criminals, each and every one of them, but they are not persuaded by the law. Some cite cultural or spiritual reasons, others simply like it, but they all agree: bugger off with your rules, this is what FREEDOM is all about.
As my grandpappy used to say: true freedom is the freedom to make mistakes.
- Zaphod (100% pro-2nd Amendment, despite the fact I've never used a firearm)
Until I bought BBEdit for OS X, I wrote about 75% of my code using notepad.exe on my WinXP box.
Notepad may be one of the best programs every made; I simply love it. Sorry to rant, but it hurts my feelings when people pick on it.
Don't leave me hanging...does this have a "right" answer?
Is this the ole' "do you resent the accusation, or assess the evidence against you" trick question? I.e. Did you kill your cousin?
Innocent response: what the hell is the matter with you?
Guilty response: what makes you think I did?
I get it now! The "T" stands for troll. I've got to admit, you're good at what you do.
So Linux forces me to have high-bandwidth internet access.
Or worse yet- forces you to go watch TV for a few hours while is downloads!!
C'mon- is that all you got? I bet my yenta grandmother could find something else to bitch about...
How do you know you which free Linux-ISOs you can trust? Better the devil you know.
Easy.
Step 1: go to /. or digg
Step 2: search for "linux"
Step 3: pick the name of a distro that sounds good, and google it
No one is "hiding" F/OSS ISO's. I can grab 'em straight from the horse's mouth, to twist a phrase. On the other hand, no one hosting a Windows ISO is going to stay up very long, so a pirate is stuck playing the crapshoot that is torrents.
I don't wish to bicker, but I felt your post was bit absurd. Trusting OSS software as a whole, is the same as trusting, say, automobiles- some are more trustworthy than others.
/., digg, et all. Some spot bad code, some spread the meme- everyone has their place in OSS support.
OSS lives or dies by reputation. If I added malware to a distro of Linux, I wager I'd either be a) totally ignored or b) flamed to the 9th pit of hell throughout the blogosphere. I doubt a single person would recommend it to anyone.
Firefox is probably the best example of this. As I have explained 1,000 times to new users, Firefox plugins are written by different people, some of whom may NOT be trustworthy.
No one has ever returned to me later and said "hey! you said I could trust FF but the SpamX plugin did such and such...".
I'd wager you are 100% correct in assuming that the gross majority of FF users have never looked at the source code. But a few have- and it only takes a few to get the needed warnings out to
Writing software is my job in my life. I earn a good living by customizing and supporting open-source systems. Please download as many copies as you can. The more users we create, the larger my potential client base will grow.
To the other guy who posted: nothing wrong with earning a fair living, but the time has come to evolve and adapt- or end up like the dinosaurs did...extinct.
I'm all for freedom, but when spambots took over my cablemodem ISP a few years back, I was glad when they blocked the ports being used, even though it temporarily disabled a few of my own apps being used for legit purposes.
Nothing wrong here. YOUR computer is YOUR business, THEIR network is THEIR business.
I'd like to preface this comment by saying that I am a strong supporter of ethanol and finding economically viable solutions to ecological problems.
You are correct that corn and sugar can can be grown, crop after crop, and processed into ethanol fuel. In theory, we are dealing with an infinite resource, just like all farming.
However, just like all farming, we have begun to witness some serious capacity issues. Crops may be pertpetual, but they depend on the resource known as LAND, which is most certainly finite. Technology can increase production, such as fertilizers, hydroponics, genetic engineering, but these increases are not infinite either; even a tower of hydroponic farms will connect to some portion of the Earth.
With 2006 technology, it is impossible to sustain BOTH our food production, and to become 100% self-sufficient on ethanol fuels, with the farmland available in the US.
The reality of our situation is this: we Americans consume an OBSCENE amount, especially when it come to both food and fuel. Even if we were able to break even, to grow enough fuel for all Americans tommorrow, we would fall back into an energy deficit immediatley. Not only do we Americans consume, but there are 300 MILLION of us now, and more arriving every day.
Technology, biofuels, free-market solutions are all great. However, I believe that a cultural shift is simply inevitable- it is unrealistic to expect my 9 grandchildren to consume as much as I do come 2075...especially if they are joined by another 300 million other Americans in that same time.
How are you sure Bill Gates will beat up on NK but not beat up citizens of the US?
I'm not. However, I *am* sure that all the politicians I mentioned in my first post (Dem, GOP or other) have and will continue to "beat up on US citizens"- as their track records clearly show.
For example: Gates has slapped drachonian levels of DRM into Vista. John McCain and Hillary Clinton both advocate torture. Who would *you* rather be on control of the US military?
Its still the lesser-of-two-evils argument, but until I get the choice to vote for noone, its the best option I see.
Scott said it best:
Like it or not, capitalism is the name of our American game. Compared to Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Condi Rice or (God help us) Rudy Giuliani-- it's the first name I've heard that hasn't made me cringe.
Plus it sets a nice prescedent. As far as I'm concerned, we geeks should be running the show.
Show me a fortune, I'll show you a crime.
Everything else is semantics.
Greater wealth disparity correlates with increased rates of robbery and many other crimes.
The United States does indeed have a high crime rate and large wealth disparity, which fits the above theory. However, I also came across another factoid which suprised me:
Having a resident population of just over 500, and millions of tourists every year, Vatican City has the highest crime rate per capita of any nation on earth, with penal offences at 133.6% in 2002.
Of course, if I understand you correctly, your point was that International wealth disparity is even greater than that within the US, and therefore, increased globalization results in increased (property) crime. It "makes perfect sense" to me, but I'm having trouble finding the stats to back it up.
Very true. If I lived in a developing nation, I'm sure I would jump at the chance to score $100,000- especially since my earning power would be nowhere near $20,000 per year.
As far as moral jusification goes, I argue that there is plenty of wealth disparity right here in the US to "justify" any criminal behavior a person might engage in. Especially if said criminal is already of an entitlement mentality.
Does your laptop have 128 MB of RAM? If not, you don't stand a chance against Penn Gillete's super-computor. He's a powerful wizard you know...
When it comes to (criminal) hacking, or any other illegal activity, the smart perp will consider the risk-reward of his behavior. Unless the potential payoff of a crime is significant, it simply does not make good economic sense to do it.
Example: say you offer me $100,000 to commit a crime which may carry a 10-year prison term. To me, such an opportunity is not worth the risk. Even at a low-wage job, I can earn $20,000 a year, $200,000 in a decade. Why would I sacrafice $200,000 of earning power (minimum) for a potential $100,000, to say nothing of legal fees, destroyed reputation and the horror of pound-me-in-the-ass Federal prison?
Back in the day, when I was a minor and thought I was invincible, I occasionally slipped between the gray and black, and did a few things that were not exactly kosher. However, my motive was not money, but rather the thrill of "showing them how smart I was". Had I been thinking clearly, or been subject to adult-level criminal law enforcement, I would have stuck to the benign aspects of hacking.
That said, would I ever "hack" illegally again? Yes- but only on the condition that I left my potential prison sentance with enough cash to retire early.