Spend money? Why would you do that when the free anti-virus softwares are far superior to their commercial counterparts. As for the rest of your options the only one that's even remotely valid is not using IE, I presume your 2nd and 4th options are just jokes.
Signed a windows user who has never been infected (and has checked his logs recently to verify that fact).
Uhh...the people in a checkpoint line are far more densely packed than people on a plane, so ignoring that factor in your analysis is a bit of a mistake. Not to mention that, as the GP said, there's no security (or at least none that would stop a luggage bomb) before you reach the checkpoint, so size isn't a huge issue.
But ignoring all of that the goal of terrorism is to cause terror, and where do people feel safer, a plane, or the security line before a plane?
"There comes a point where the scientific evidence in support of a theory is so overwhelming that those who deny its truth are either ignorant or denialists."
Ah, so the tiny flaws in somelike like, say, gravity and its quantum interactions should be ignored because there's enough evidence in support of einsteinian gravity that anyone who denies it's absolute truth is ignorant then? You might want to go inform the scientists who are investigating it so they can stop.
Science doesn't stop just because there's a lot of evidence in favor of one theory. There was a ton of evidence in favor of Le Sage's mechanical theory of gravity (which was an attempt to explain why Newton's theories worked) but that didn't mean that people stopped looking at why gravity works.
His argument is clear as day, quantity != quality. Just because there's a "million manhours" put into something does not automatically make it true. Whether it's true or not is completely separate from how much effort has been poured into it.
Hasn't this argument been used before? Last I checked there was still no empirical evidence that pirating = less sales, and plenty of circumstantial evidence that it either correlates negatively with lowered sales (more pirating = more sales) or has no correlation at all.
Pirating does not automatically equate to less sales, no matter what the RIAA would have you believe.
And even as a programmer having the source to your OS isn't all that useful or needed. I've got both linux and windows machines, and I do most of my development on windows, because the end user doesn't care if your code is perfectly integrated with the source code of some distro of linux, they care if it runs on windows. And with the current trend towards cross-platform code having the OS code is only going to get less and less important to programmers.
Realistically the only people who care about having the source to their OS are in the open-source community. Your average individual, and even your average programmer doesn't care because it doesn't matter on a day-to-day basis.
A 100:1 ratio of junk to gold with 100 games on the market is a far different environment than a 100:1 ratio of junk to gold with 1,000,000 games on the market. In the first case there's only 1 good game out there, in the second there's 1000. Same ratio, far different result. All you need is the ability to ferret out those gold game from the junk, which is entirely possible, and then the more games on the market (with the same or better ratio) the better.
Making a 1-to-1 copy would require copying the security system, which would be copyright infringement as you don't have a license to copy it. Making any copy at all is illegal right now, which is what is so stupid.
Arizona's no different, there's a leeway. You can, of course, be ticketed for 1 mile over (just as in other states) but you're almost never ticketed unless you're at least 5 over.*
*Information straight from a driving instruction class given to people who have minor violations.
So, dehumanizing Bush for his intelligence is cool, and even funny, but making a monkey picture of a black person, irregardless of their potential intentions, is horribly offensive? Seriously, we have no idea what the intention behind the image was, and given the recent trend of monkey pictures of politicians (bush, clinton, hillary clinton, rice, etc) and the fact that monkey comparisons have not been around for a while it's entirely possible to imagine that the picture was not racially charged at all when it was created.
Simple intelligence jokes, same as bush. Just because someone sounds intelligent doesn't mean you can't joke about their intelligence.
Following a trend?
How about this, give me one reason to compare clinton to a monkey (there are pictures out there, and have been for years). Then see if it works on Michelle Obama as well, I'd bet it does.
"If some guy gets beaten up in an argument between those two people, it's between them. If some guy gets beat up over his race, it's also a warning/threat to all others of his race."
Ah, so you know who made this image and what their goal was then. We have a picture that resembles a similar series of pictures of earlier presidents. Jumping from that to "it's racist" is just silly. It's like saying that if some white guy gets beaten up in an argument between him and another white guy its between them, but if one's black then it's racist. We don't know the intent of the picture. Assuming that it was racist is not only an assumption but kind of silly in light of the fact that there are dozens of monkey pictures of white people.
"Pretending race doesn't exist, on the other hand, is just a way of pretending that racism doesn't exist, and so will inevitably perpetuate it."
Wrong. Pretending race doesn't exist does nothing to solve the problem, but it also does nothing to perpetuate it. In fact if everyone in the world pretended that race didn't exist we'd have a society indistinguishable from one where no one recognizes race.
"No, obviously not. Likening Michelle Obama to a monkey is insulting her because she is black, and is therefore racist. Likening Bush to a monkey is not insulting him because he is white, and so is not racist."
??? Where they heck are you getting that from? Let me see if I know what you're saying.
Putting up monkey pictures of every white president in recent history - A non-racist joke about...what exactly? Putting up monkey pictures of a black first lady - A racist joke about how she is black.
Is that what you're saying? Because if so, why do you think the jokes are any different? Why wouldn't the picture of Michelle Obama be using the same joke as the ones about Bush? The idea that the same joke told about a black person and a white person have different meanings and one is offensive is just stupid and semi-racist. The same joke told about any two people has the same meaning, period, irregardless of that person's looks.
Racism: "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others." "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."
Any discrimination based on differences in race (which is kind of a silly concept anyways IMHO) is racism. Period.
Exactly. There are how many monkey pictures of Bush out there? I recall seeing one in a newspaper's politics section once, and no one even bats an eye. then one comes out about Michelle Obama and suddenly it's horribly offensive and racist. No, it's a joke, the same one that's been made about dozens of presidents and other important people before her. Somehow just because her skin contains more melatonin the joke is now horribly offensive.
Come on people, at least be consistent. If comparing people to monkeys is horribly offensive then where were you when Bush was getting this treatment? Probably sitting at home laughing about it.
Assume for the moment we both have a pseudo-random number generator and the same seed value. We both move miles apart. At the same instant we get a random number from our generator, then compare them. We almost certainly got the same value, miles apart, instantaneously. From a certain point of view you could say something has been transmitted (if you didn't understand the concept of a pseudo random number generator) and yet it's impossible to use this method to send any information because neither side can control what the next value will be. Same thing with entanglement, we can control what particles become entangled, and measure the entanglement, but we can't control it at all, and will almost certainly never be able to. We're just measuring random values at two different locations that happen to be the same, and that's useful for transmitting information.
Precisely. FTL transmission of information is still impossible with current science, and we have good reason to believe it will stay that way. FTL transmission of something that's not information is definitely possible, and it doesn't violate any theories.
Uh, because that would be incorrect? One infinity is not necessarily equal to another, not to mention infinity isn't a number, nor is it a constant or variable. It's a concept, and you can't add, subtract, multiple or divide concepts, so you can't do anything like that to infinity.
There's a calculus theory whose name escapes me that allows you to solve for what X/Y equals when X and Y are both infinite functions using their derivatives. I remember taking tests where we basically had lim (x->oo, y->oo) of (x+10)/(y^2) and we had to determine what it equaled. Sure you could simplify that to oo/oo and then say it equals 1, but you'd get that question wrong.
ROFL. You're saying you want the customer's data, which was likely needed by the employee to do their job, to be hidden from them? Good luck with that one, what's next? Not telling waiters your order because you want to protect your personal data?
Seriously though, you have absolutely no evidence that the data was mishandled by T-Mobile, just by an employee who they are going after now. Would you blame T-Mobile if a hacker got in and stole their data? How about if it was subpoenad by the government and then stolen?
If you're standing on the breaks long enough for the fluid to evaporate without doing anything else (shift to neutral, shut off car, jump out door like action hero...all right, that last one's probably not a good idea, but you get the picture) then it's not the brakes which failed you, but simply your lack of knowledge about how to stop a car that did.
Yeah, that sounds like WAY too many lines of code to be feasible. Just a rough estimate, I have a 1500 line java program* that's pretty normal (not compact or anything) and it's about 60KB source, 40KB compiled, so using that same metric a 100,000,000 line block of code would be about 2.5 GB of code. That seems ridiculously unfeasible (the source would be around 4 GB with that metric)
* Yeah, it's probably not coded in java, but that was the only available code more than a couple hundred lines on my computer atm
"Mechanical and hydraulic systems are much better understood."
Computer aren't exactly a new-fangled technology, and most cars built after the 70's or so have had some form of by-wire throttle control (I'm speaking, of course, of electronically controlled anti-lock brake systems which, while not fully by-wire, include a by-wire system alongside the mechanical one). I always find it amazing how people can talk about computer controlled systems are not being 'not well understood' in this day and age. Not well programmed, perhaps (though the analog there would be poorly fabricated parts, a problem that was dealt with much as poorly coded systems are being dealt with now-a-days), but not well understood? Really?
This isn't a new technology, it's been around for a while in one form or another. Sure it's less mature than conventional hydraulic, but hydraulic are much less mature than banging two sticks together, doesn't make the sticks better than hydraulic. I think my signature sums it up quite nicely, just because drive-by-wire is something relatively new (50yrs of use) and hydraulic something relatively old doesn't make one better or worse than the other, that depends on how they function. If you want to compare the two systems that way be my guest, but just stating that drive-by-wire is worse because it's newer is hogwash.
Slashdot Mirror
Spend money? Why would you do that when the free anti-virus softwares are far superior to their commercial counterparts. As for the rest of your options the only one that's even remotely valid is not using IE, I presume your 2nd and 4th options are just jokes.
Signed a windows user who has never been infected (and has checked his logs recently to verify that fact).
Uhh...the people in a checkpoint line are far more densely packed than people on a plane, so ignoring that factor in your analysis is a bit of a mistake. Not to mention that, as the GP said, there's no security (or at least none that would stop a luggage bomb) before you reach the checkpoint, so size isn't a huge issue.
But ignoring all of that the goal of terrorism is to cause terror, and where do people feel safer, a plane, or the security line before a plane?
"There comes a point where the scientific evidence in support of a theory is so overwhelming that those who deny its truth are either ignorant or denialists."
Ah, so the tiny flaws in somelike like, say, gravity and its quantum interactions should be ignored because there's enough evidence in support of einsteinian gravity that anyone who denies it's absolute truth is ignorant then? You might want to go inform the scientists who are investigating it so they can stop.
Science doesn't stop just because there's a lot of evidence in favor of one theory. There was a ton of evidence in favor of Le Sage's mechanical theory of gravity (which was an attempt to explain why Newton's theories worked) but that didn't mean that people stopped looking at why gravity works.
His argument is clear as day, quantity != quality. Just because there's a "million manhours" put into something does not automatically make it true. Whether it's true or not is completely separate from how much effort has been poured into it.
Hasn't this argument been used before? Last I checked there was still no empirical evidence that pirating = less sales, and plenty of circumstantial evidence that it either correlates negatively with lowered sales (more pirating = more sales) or has no correlation at all.
Pirating does not automatically equate to less sales, no matter what the RIAA would have you believe.
And even as a programmer having the source to your OS isn't all that useful or needed. I've got both linux and windows machines, and I do most of my development on windows, because the end user doesn't care if your code is perfectly integrated with the source code of some distro of linux, they care if it runs on windows. And with the current trend towards cross-platform code having the OS code is only going to get less and less important to programmers.
Realistically the only people who care about having the source to their OS are in the open-source community. Your average individual, and even your average programmer doesn't care because it doesn't matter on a day-to-day basis.
A 100:1 ratio of junk to gold with 100 games on the market is a far different environment than a 100:1 ratio of junk to gold with 1,000,000 games on the market. In the first case there's only 1 good game out there, in the second there's 1000. Same ratio, far different result. All you need is the ability to ferret out those gold game from the junk, which is entirely possible, and then the more games on the market (with the same or better ratio) the better.
Making a 1-to-1 copy would require copying the security system, which would be copyright infringement as you don't have a license to copy it. Making any copy at all is illegal right now, which is what is so stupid.
Arizona's no different, there's a leeway. You can, of course, be ticketed for 1 mile over (just as in other states) but you're almost never ticketed unless you're at least 5 over.*
*Information straight from a driving instruction class given to people who have minor violations.
Beach Party?
So, dehumanizing Bush for his intelligence is cool, and even funny, but making a monkey picture of a black person, irregardless of their potential intentions, is horribly offensive? Seriously, we have no idea what the intention behind the image was, and given the recent trend of monkey pictures of politicians (bush, clinton, hillary clinton, rice, etc) and the fact that monkey comparisons have not been around for a while it's entirely possible to imagine that the picture was not racially charged at all when it was created.
Simple intelligence jokes, same as bush. Just because someone sounds intelligent doesn't mean you can't joke about their intelligence.
Following a trend?
How about this, give me one reason to compare clinton to a monkey (there are pictures out there, and have been for years). Then see if it works on Michelle Obama as well, I'd bet it does.
"If some guy gets beaten up in an argument between those two people, it's between them.
If some guy gets beat up over his race, it's also a warning/threat to all others of his race."
Ah, so you know who made this image and what their goal was then. We have a picture that resembles a similar series of pictures of earlier presidents. Jumping from that to "it's racist" is just silly. It's like saying that if some white guy gets beaten up in an argument between him and another white guy its between them, but if one's black then it's racist. We don't know the intent of the picture. Assuming that it was racist is not only an assumption but kind of silly in light of the fact that there are dozens of monkey pictures of white people.
"Pretending race doesn't exist, on the other hand, is just a way of pretending that racism doesn't exist, and so will inevitably perpetuate it."
Wrong. Pretending race doesn't exist does nothing to solve the problem, but it also does nothing to perpetuate it. In fact if everyone in the world pretended that race didn't exist we'd have a society indistinguishable from one where no one recognizes race.
"No, obviously not. Likening Michelle Obama to a monkey is insulting her because she is black, and is therefore racist. Likening Bush to a monkey is not insulting him because he is white, and so is not racist."
??? Where they heck are you getting that from? Let me see if I know what you're saying.
Putting up monkey pictures of every white president in recent history - A non-racist joke about...what exactly?
Putting up monkey pictures of a black first lady - A racist joke about how she is black.
Is that what you're saying? Because if so, why do you think the jokes are any different? Why wouldn't the picture of Michelle Obama be using the same joke as the ones about Bush? The idea that the same joke told about a black person and a white person have different meanings and one is offensive is just stupid and semi-racist. The same joke told about any two people has the same meaning, period, irregardless of that person's looks.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Racism: "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."
"hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."
Any discrimination based on differences in race (which is kind of a silly concept anyways IMHO) is racism. Period.
Exactly. There are how many monkey pictures of Bush out there? I recall seeing one in a newspaper's politics section once, and no one even bats an eye. then one comes out about Michelle Obama and suddenly it's horribly offensive and racist. No, it's a joke, the same one that's been made about dozens of presidents and other important people before her. Somehow just because her skin contains more melatonin the joke is now horribly offensive.
Come on people, at least be consistent. If comparing people to monkeys is horribly offensive then where were you when Bush was getting this treatment? Probably sitting at home laughing about it.
Assume for the moment we both have a pseudo-random number generator and the same seed value. We both move miles apart. At the same instant we get a random number from our generator, then compare them. We almost certainly got the same value, miles apart, instantaneously. From a certain point of view you could say something has been transmitted (if you didn't understand the concept of a pseudo random number generator) and yet it's impossible to use this method to send any information because neither side can control what the next value will be. Same thing with entanglement, we can control what particles become entangled, and measure the entanglement, but we can't control it at all, and will almost certainly never be able to. We're just measuring random values at two different locations that happen to be the same, and that's useful for transmitting information.
Precisely. FTL transmission of information is still impossible with current science, and we have good reason to believe it will stay that way. FTL transmission of something that's not information is definitely possible, and it doesn't violate any theories.
Uh, because that would be incorrect? One infinity is not necessarily equal to another, not to mention infinity isn't a number, nor is it a constant or variable. It's a concept, and you can't add, subtract, multiple or divide concepts, so you can't do anything like that to infinity.
There's a calculus theory whose name escapes me that allows you to solve for what X/Y equals when X and Y are both infinite functions using their derivatives. I remember taking tests where we basically had lim (x->oo, y->oo) of (x+10)/(y^2) and we had to determine what it equaled. Sure you could simplify that to oo/oo and then say it equals 1, but you'd get that question wrong.
"An OS that runs on 90% of computers in the world is a de facto strategic weapon."
So when we hear about the NSA working on XP then we need to be worried.
(Fun fact, win7 has about 3% market share atm, XP has >70% as of October '09)
ROFL. You're saying you want the customer's data, which was likely needed by the employee to do their job, to be hidden from them? Good luck with that one, what's next? Not telling waiters your order because you want to protect your personal data?
Seriously though, you have absolutely no evidence that the data was mishandled by T-Mobile, just by an employee who they are going after now. Would you blame T-Mobile if a hacker got in and stole their data? How about if it was subpoenad by the government and then stolen?
Odd...looks like slashdot throws away the less than sign symbol, that was supposed to be less than 50 yrs.
If you're standing on the breaks long enough for the fluid to evaporate without doing anything else (shift to neutral, shut off car, jump out door like action hero...all right, that last one's probably not a good idea, but you get the picture) then it's not the brakes which failed you, but simply your lack of knowledge about how to stop a car that did.
Yeah, that sounds like WAY too many lines of code to be feasible. Just a rough estimate, I have a 1500 line java program* that's pretty normal (not compact or anything) and it's about 60KB source, 40KB compiled, so using that same metric a 100,000,000 line block of code would be about 2.5 GB of code. That seems ridiculously unfeasible (the source would be around 4 GB with that metric)
* Yeah, it's probably not coded in java, but that was the only available code more than a couple hundred lines on my computer atm
"Mechanical and hydraulic systems are much better understood."
Computer aren't exactly a new-fangled technology, and most cars built after the 70's or so have had some form of by-wire throttle control (I'm speaking, of course, of electronically controlled anti-lock brake systems which, while not fully by-wire, include a by-wire system alongside the mechanical one). I always find it amazing how people can talk about computer controlled systems are not being 'not well understood' in this day and age. Not well programmed, perhaps (though the analog there would be poorly fabricated parts, a problem that was dealt with much as poorly coded systems are being dealt with now-a-days), but not well understood? Really?
This isn't a new technology, it's been around for a while in one form or another. Sure it's less mature than conventional hydraulic, but hydraulic are much less mature than banging two sticks together, doesn't make the sticks better than hydraulic. I think my signature sums it up quite nicely, just because drive-by-wire is something relatively new (50yrs of use) and hydraulic something relatively old doesn't make one better or worse than the other, that depends on how they function. If you want to compare the two systems that way be my guest, but just stating that drive-by-wire is worse because it's newer is hogwash.