Hm.. So you're saying that these things can be done legally, but they're not doing it that way? Then it seems to me that the papers are on the side of the law. Which side are you on again?
The fact of the matter is that there's a lot of things we could do to help stop terrorism. We could have a national curfew. We could implant GPS devices in our citizens so the government knew where everybody was all the time and arrest anybody who's found to no have the implant. After all, what do they have to hide?
We could do a bunch of crazy shit that crosses the line, but we have laws that protect our privacy for a reason.
The fact of the matter is that if somebody steals the carpenter's chair, he can no longer sell it to somebody else. If somebody pirates your software, on the other hand, you can still sell it to whomever you please. Plain and simple, the carpenter is worse off.
I'm not arguing that piracy is ok--far from it in fact. But saying piracy and theft are the same things is ludicrous.
Sorry, but 2/3 just isn't good enough for anyone to tout marriage's sanctity. You're telling me one of every three people who gets married will get divorced (multiple times, mind you--the 50% comes from somewhere), and I'm supposed to be so overwhelmingly impressed that I believe letting gays get married would somehow ruin that sacredness? Give me a break.
Personally I take marriage very seriously and hope that if and when I get married, I never get divorced. I applaud the 2/3's who have gotten married and stayed together. I'm sure those people do value the institution they've entered into. However, I am not impressed with that number, nor should I be. It's certainly not something I'd go bragging about. "Did you know only one of every three people to get married gets divorced?" Whoopty doo.
Yeah, although it's always generally been to defend our country, not to preemptively strike another for lies. I would gladly enlist if we were in real danger, but I don't feel like being put in that danger by a president who has a bone to pick.
That might be true, but it really doesn't do much to disprove the initial point. The institution of marriage is something much of the country doesn't take too seriously. 1/3 of the those who get married get divorced and, according to your numbers, many times at that. Yeah, it's so sacred.
Geez, what's your problem? Settle down, man. The first thing to note is that I never said Mac Rumors predicted it. I said they reported a rumor that predicted it--which they did. It's their function to report rumors--which they do. The fact that there are a lot of rumors to report doesn't really change that some of the rumors turned out to be right, does it?
As of this keynote, Intel chips are going into the iMac and the replacement for the Powerbook... just about the only systems which NOBODY predicted upgrades for.
I took what you said and linked a site which reported a rumor that did predict it. Honestly, what's wrong with that? Don't post a comment if you can't stand the thought of somebody replying to it with more information. Nowhere does my earlier comment imply that I'm trying to incite some big debate.
However, if you actually look at it objectively, the iMac and PowerBook lines were the two that made the most sense to upgrade. Jobs mentioned in the keynote that it was no secret they'd been trying to get a G5 in the PowerBooks for a while now. The natural move would be to stick a Core Duo in there instead. It was public knowledge that the first processor to come out of Intel's Yonah platform would be dual-core and not single-core. Dual or single core would make a great differentiator for the iBook and the PowerBook. Hence, PowerBook upgrades first. It also wouldn't have made much sense for the iBook to actually be more powerful than the PowerBook.
As for the iMac, it's Apple's mainstream consumer product. Everybody knew that most power apps don't have universal binaries yet, so there'd have been no sense in putting out Intel PowerMacs. With regard to Minis, I honestly don't know why they wouldn't have seen upgrades also. But everything else made perfect sense. No, I wouldn't claim to "predict" it, but I certainly thought it was ridiculous for anybody to think iBooks before PowerBooks.
My question to all of you who are so proudly claiming to have called it correctly is, how much did you wager on that betting site that Slashdot was telling us about last week? You'd be a rich man today if you actually "predicted" it and had the confidence to put a little money down on it.
You must have one hell of an inferiority complex to turn everything into some sort of competition. "NOBODY predicted it! You were all wrong! What?! Somebody did say it would happen?!?! Well, even if you predicted it you didn't have the balls to bet on it!!"
Yes, let's see. From the changelog: "If references were used in a wrong way, PHP would often create memory corruptions which would not always surface or be visible." Code properly and this was not an issue.
Also from the changelog: "Fixed bug #33150 (shtool: insecure temporary file creation)." Looking at the bug, we find a link to securityfocus.com stating Ubuntu, Trustix, Fedora, PHP, and Debian were all vulnerable. This wasn't the fault of PHP.
As for php users that develop web apps, I don't think they all write secure code.
They don't--nobody ever said they do. However, that's not the language's fault, and it's flawed logic to believe it is. The fact that IE is riddled with security holes does not mean that any code written in C++ is automatically insecure.
A good chunk of that could be avoided with proper documentation.
Bah, PHP has some of the best documentation you can find. I would absolutely love it if every language had a resource as useful as php.net.
PHP relies upon the discrimination and knowledge of the author to be secure; it takes no responsibility for encouraging or facilitating good practice.
That's like saying my car is insecure, because I have to physically lock it myself. Is Python inherently more secure? Yeah probably. But I get sick of people speaking of PHP as if it's some sort of gaping security hole when they should obviously be learning to write better code. Using mysql_real_escape_string() is far from a complex procedure.
I could just as easily write insecure and unreadable Python. I love Python, don't get me wrong.. I just get tired of seeing PHP consistenly labeled as insecure. It's really not the language's fault that you (or whomever) is incapable of writing secure code.
I bought the original Xbox the day it came out and the 360 just a week or so after it came out. I haven't had a single problem with either one yet. The large majority of people who own these consoles haven't had a single issue with them.
They're referring to the WYSIWYG editor they've introduced for writing entries. I assume it requires support of the designMode attribute. There's a little more here, if you're interested.
Oh no doubt, that's certainly true, but that's ignoring the point. I agree that since I know the commands, it's easier to type them than their full-name counterparts. Yet this is entirely lost on somebody new to Linux. It really doesn't change the fact that the standard commands are less intuitive than move, list, remove, copy, etc.
My point is to say that since we're comfortable with Linux and with the command line, maybe we should be the ones changing the behavior to match our less intuitive, albeit more efficient, preferences.
I use Linux as my primary desktop now and have learned all the acronyms and abbreviations. However, I'm not too thick to realize that "move" is a more intuitive command name than "mv". No, it's really not that hard to remember things like that, or to figure out which programs do what, but there's really no reason I should have to if there are viable, practical alternatives.
I think it's ignorant to ignore Bush's blatant prejudice against homosexuals. Sure, it's not quite racism in the truest sense, but it's damn close. There are many more valid parallels between Hitler and Bush than most people would probably like to admit. That being said, I certainly don't consider Bush as "evil" as Hitler. However, you can't let things slide just because he's not at the same level Hitler was, either.
The difference between protesters being forced to other areas is that those protestors pay the salaries of and vote for those they're protesting. Remember, these people are supposed to be our representatives. If they're not doing a good job representing us, we sure as hell have a righ to protest. Certainly no Satanist pays any Baptist preacher's salary. It's an entirely different issue.
In either case, I don't have to prove the grandparent right to show that your logic is flawed, as it is and was. Maybe nobody's civil liberties are being taken away, but the fact that you don't see a change isn't sufficient to show that.
Also, imagine there was a law that allowed for police to arrest you because they didn't like you. Imagine also that, although the law had been in effect for 10 years, there were no cases of it actually happening. That doesn't make the law ok, and we have still lost some rights. Though by your logic, since nobody has been affected by it, we haven't lost any rights.
Why would you even comment? You clearly have nothing constructive to say, so you resort to some weak ad hominem attack? Congratulations, you really convinced me to swing to conservativism with that post... Haha.
How naive. Many whites weren't adversely affected by racial segregation 40 or 50 years ago. Though obviously that doesn't mean nobody was. Just because it doesn't affect you personally doesn't mean nothing's changed.
I can't believe everybody seemingly bashing Microsoft for this. Yes, they're doing it with their interests at heart, that's true. But would you rather them not do it at all? "I can utilize my iPod with my 360? Wow, that *would* be cool, but I'm sure Microsoft only did it to increase profits. Take it away! I don't want that compatibility! Greedy bastards, trying to add features that make more people want the console!"
Do you have a reference to back that up? I'm not implying that you're wrong, but I'd be interested to see the numbers.
As to your second paragraph, that's certainly one point of view, but I disagree with its practicality. It's rather naive to believe that every person can guarantee--or better yet, should be able to guarantee--his own freedom. The world and those in it are simply too selfish for that. It's simple social contract theory.
So the question is what would you prefer (assuming, of course, that I'm not free as the world is now, which I disagree with regardless)? You find me a better system. Good luck.
Do you really believe that if the average person was unable to own a gun there would be as many murders as there are now? That is, would the number of murders by knife really equal the number of murders by gun? I think not.
Nonetheless, in today's console market, that is a good deal. $300 is common for a new console. Add up the accessories you're getting, and an extra $100 is not bad.
Nobody said anything about cost-effectiveness. I guarantee they conserve more fuel. That's my exact point about selfishness. The point isn't about whether or not you'd be better off with an SUV, it's what everybody else would be better off with you owning and driving. You seem to have ignored my argument for that, though.
Conservation, on the whole, does not stifle progress. If we had decided it would use too much fuel to go to space, that would have slowed progress, no doubt. But that's an exception, not the rule. Daily conservation can serve us greatly.
For the record, I don't drive a Prius. I drive a '96 Camaro Z28, which I realize is far from the most fuel efficient car in the world. But I'm willing to admit that conservation is not a bad thing, and in fact I would probably be doing the world a small favor if I drove a Prius.
Hahaha. Yes, I am too selfish to kill myself. I guess you think that proves your point? Why can't I apply the your logic to your life? Maybe I'm not for conservation at all. Maybe I really do think I should be able to kill you to take your stuff and improve my situation. Then what argument have you? I *don't* want to conserve, and I don't care about other people. Why can't I kill you?
I was never arguing that you shouldn't use any resources. My point was to show that you're being selfish by only caring about that which pleases you. Am I selfish for wanting to live? I guess you could argue that, though that's certainly less selfish than not caring about other people.
Slashdot Mirror
Hm.. So you're saying that these things can be done legally, but they're not doing it that way? Then it seems to me that the papers are on the side of the law. Which side are you on again?
The fact of the matter is that there's a lot of things we could do to help stop terrorism. We could have a national curfew. We could implant GPS devices in our citizens so the government knew where everybody was all the time and arrest anybody who's found to no have the implant. After all, what do they have to hide?
We could do a bunch of crazy shit that crosses the line, but we have laws that protect our privacy for a reason.
and one of them has to go hungry?
Wow. Seems a bit of an exaggeration, eh?
The fact of the matter is that if somebody steals the carpenter's chair, he can no longer sell it to somebody else. If somebody pirates your software, on the other hand, you can still sell it to whomever you please. Plain and simple, the carpenter is worse off.
I'm not arguing that piracy is ok--far from it in fact. But saying piracy and theft are the same things is ludicrous.
I've had a 2.0Ghz MacBook Pro for about a month now and consistently get 3.5 hours on it. It really doesn't seem that bad to me.
Sorry, but 2/3 just isn't good enough for anyone to tout marriage's sanctity. You're telling me one of every three people who gets married will get divorced (multiple times, mind you--the 50% comes from somewhere), and I'm supposed to be so overwhelmingly impressed that I believe letting gays get married would somehow ruin that sacredness? Give me a break.
Personally I take marriage very seriously and hope that if and when I get married, I never get divorced. I applaud the 2/3's who have gotten married and stayed together. I'm sure those people do value the institution they've entered into. However, I am not impressed with that number, nor should I be. It's certainly not something I'd go bragging about. "Did you know only one of every three people to get married gets divorced?" Whoopty doo.
Yeah, although it's always generally been to defend our country, not to preemptively strike another for lies. I would gladly enlist if we were in real danger, but I don't feel like being put in that danger by a president who has a bone to pick.
That might be true, but it really doesn't do much to disprove the initial point. The institution of marriage is something much of the country doesn't take too seriously. 1/3 of the those who get married get divorced and, according to your numbers, many times at that. Yeah, it's so sacred.
Geez, what's your problem? Settle down, man. The first thing to note is that I never said Mac Rumors predicted it. I said they reported a rumor that predicted it--which they did. It's their function to report rumors--which they do. The fact that there are a lot of rumors to report doesn't really change that some of the rumors turned out to be right, does it?
As of this keynote, Intel chips are going into the iMac and the replacement for the Powerbook... just about the only systems which NOBODY predicted upgrades for.
I took what you said and linked a site which reported a rumor that did predict it. Honestly, what's wrong with that? Don't post a comment if you can't stand the thought of somebody replying to it with more information. Nowhere does my earlier comment imply that I'm trying to incite some big debate.
However, if you actually look at it objectively, the iMac and PowerBook lines were the two that made the most sense to upgrade. Jobs mentioned in the keynote that it was no secret they'd been trying to get a G5 in the PowerBooks for a while now. The natural move would be to stick a Core Duo in there instead. It was public knowledge that the first processor to come out of Intel's Yonah platform would be dual-core and not single-core. Dual or single core would make a great differentiator for the iBook and the PowerBook. Hence, PowerBook upgrades first. It also wouldn't have made much sense for the iBook to actually be more powerful than the PowerBook.
As for the iMac, it's Apple's mainstream consumer product. Everybody knew that most power apps don't have universal binaries yet, so there'd have been no sense in putting out Intel PowerMacs. With regard to Minis, I honestly don't know why they wouldn't have seen upgrades also. But everything else made perfect sense. No, I wouldn't claim to "predict" it, but I certainly thought it was ridiculous for anybody to think iBooks before PowerBooks.
My question to all of you who are so proudly claiming to have called it correctly is, how much did you wager on that betting site that Slashdot was telling us about last week? You'd be a rich man today if you actually "predicted" it and had the confidence to put a little money down on it.
You must have one hell of an inferiority complex to turn everything into some sort of competition. "NOBODY predicted it! You were all wrong! What?! Somebody did say it would happen?!?! Well, even if you predicted it you didn't have the balls to bet on it!!"
In fact, if you look through the archives of Mac Rumors, they had reported a rumor which predicted it a couple months ago.
why did php 4.4.0 come out?
Yes, let's see. From the changelog: "If references were used in a wrong way, PHP would often create memory corruptions which would not always surface or be visible." Code properly and this was not an issue.
Also from the changelog: "Fixed bug #33150 (shtool: insecure temporary file creation)." Looking at the bug, we find a link to securityfocus.com stating Ubuntu, Trustix, Fedora, PHP, and Debian were all vulnerable. This wasn't the fault of PHP.
As for php users that develop web apps, I don't think they all write secure code.
They don't--nobody ever said they do. However, that's not the language's fault, and it's flawed logic to believe it is. The fact that IE is riddled with security holes does not mean that any code written in C++ is automatically insecure.
A good chunk of that could be avoided with proper documentation.
Bah, PHP has some of the best documentation you can find. I would absolutely love it if every language had a resource as useful as php.net.
PHP relies upon the discrimination and knowledge of the author to be secure; it takes no responsibility for encouraging or facilitating good practice.
That's like saying my car is insecure, because I have to physically lock it myself. Is Python inherently more secure? Yeah probably. But I get sick of people speaking of PHP as if it's some sort of gaping security hole when they should obviously be learning to write better code. Using mysql_real_escape_string() is far from a complex procedure.
I could just as easily write insecure and unreadable Python. I love Python, don't get me wrong.. I just get tired of seeing PHP consistenly labeled as insecure. It's really not the language's fault that you (or whomever) is incapable of writing secure code.
I bought the original Xbox the day it came out and the 360 just a week or so after it came out. I haven't had a single problem with either one yet. The large majority of people who own these consoles haven't had a single issue with them.
They're referring to the WYSIWYG editor they've introduced for writing entries. I assume it requires support of the designMode attribute. There's a little more here, if you're interested.
Oh no doubt, that's certainly true, but that's ignoring the point. I agree that since I know the commands, it's easier to type them than their full-name counterparts. Yet this is entirely lost on somebody new to Linux. It really doesn't change the fact that the standard commands are less intuitive than move, list, remove, copy, etc.
My point is to say that since we're comfortable with Linux and with the command line, maybe we should be the ones changing the behavior to match our less intuitive, albeit more efficient, preferences.
I use Linux as my primary desktop now and have learned all the acronyms and abbreviations. However, I'm not too thick to realize that "move" is a more intuitive command name than "mv". No, it's really not that hard to remember things like that, or to figure out which programs do what, but there's really no reason I should have to if there are viable, practical alternatives.
I think it's ignorant to ignore Bush's blatant prejudice against homosexuals. Sure, it's not quite racism in the truest sense, but it's damn close. There are many more valid parallels between Hitler and Bush than most people would probably like to admit. That being said, I certainly don't consider Bush as "evil" as Hitler. However, you can't let things slide just because he's not at the same level Hitler was, either.
The difference between protesters being forced to other areas is that those protestors pay the salaries of and vote for those they're protesting. Remember, these people are supposed to be our representatives. If they're not doing a good job representing us, we sure as hell have a righ to protest. Certainly no Satanist pays any Baptist preacher's salary. It's an entirely different issue.
In either case, I don't have to prove the grandparent right to show that your logic is flawed, as it is and was. Maybe nobody's civil liberties are being taken away, but the fact that you don't see a change isn't sufficient to show that.
Also, imagine there was a law that allowed for police to arrest you because they didn't like you. Imagine also that, although the law had been in effect for 10 years, there were no cases of it actually happening. That doesn't make the law ok, and we have still lost some rights. Though by your logic, since nobody has been affected by it, we haven't lost any rights.
Why would you even comment? You clearly have nothing constructive to say, so you resort to some weak ad hominem attack? Congratulations, you really convinced me to swing to conservativism with that post... Haha.
How naive. Many whites weren't adversely affected by racial segregation 40 or 50 years ago. Though obviously that doesn't mean nobody was. Just because it doesn't affect you personally doesn't mean nothing's changed.
I can't believe everybody seemingly bashing Microsoft for this. Yes, they're doing it with their interests at heart, that's true. But would you rather them not do it at all? "I can utilize my iPod with my 360? Wow, that *would* be cool, but I'm sure Microsoft only did it to increase profits. Take it away! I don't want that compatibility! Greedy bastards, trying to add features that make more people want the console!"
Do you have a reference to back that up? I'm not implying that you're wrong, but I'd be interested to see the numbers.
As to your second paragraph, that's certainly one point of view, but I disagree with its practicality. It's rather naive to believe that every person can guarantee--or better yet, should be able to guarantee--his own freedom. The world and those in it are simply too selfish for that. It's simple social contract theory.
So the question is what would you prefer (assuming, of course, that I'm not free as the world is now, which I disagree with regardless)? You find me a better system. Good luck.
Do you really believe that if the average person was unable to own a gun there would be as many murders as there are now? That is, would the number of murders by knife really equal the number of murders by gun? I think not.
Nonetheless, in today's console market, that is a good deal. $300 is common for a new console. Add up the accessories you're getting, and an extra $100 is not bad.
Nobody said anything about cost-effectiveness. I guarantee they conserve more fuel. That's my exact point about selfishness. The point isn't about whether or not you'd be better off with an SUV, it's what everybody else would be better off with you owning and driving. You seem to have ignored my argument for that, though.
Conservation, on the whole, does not stifle progress. If we had decided it would use too much fuel to go to space, that would have slowed progress, no doubt. But that's an exception, not the rule. Daily conservation can serve us greatly.
For the record, I don't drive a Prius. I drive a '96 Camaro Z28, which I realize is far from the most fuel efficient car in the world. But I'm willing to admit that conservation is not a bad thing, and in fact I would probably be doing the world a small favor if I drove a Prius.
Hahaha. Yes, I am too selfish to kill myself. I guess you think that proves your point? Why can't I apply the your logic to your life? Maybe I'm not for conservation at all. Maybe I really do think I should be able to kill you to take your stuff and improve my situation. Then what argument have you? I *don't* want to conserve, and I don't care about other people. Why can't I kill you?
I was never arguing that you shouldn't use any resources. My point was to show that you're being selfish by only caring about that which pleases you. Am I selfish for wanting to live? I guess you could argue that, though that's certainly less selfish than not caring about other people.