Sounds great. Let's start with you. Every breath you take expels CO2 into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change which affects every person on the planet.
Much as I love a good tu-quoque, the above doesn't really apply in any meaningful way. Breathing is carbon-neutral.
I was always wondering what happened to good old fashion ROM in a socket. If you want an upgrade, a chip can be FedExed* to you
Upgrading that way is a little bit more difficult now that Apple glues their computer cases together.
never mind the fact that this has been posted here well after it's already been on every other media outlet.. but why is this on
Are freedom-of-speech issues not one of Slashdot's common themes?
so, standing up to islamist extremists is now a sign of christian terrorism??? in what world???
Often in this world, because "standing up to islamist extremest" often devolves into "persecuting any muslims we can find, to get revenge for what the extremists did". What happens is the islamist extremists do something horrible, which so outrages/terrorizes the local non-muslim population and/or government that they end up responding by doing something horrible to the local muslim population.
That's why it's critical to understand that the distinction to make is terrorist/non-terrorist, and not muslim/non-muslim. Otherwise you just get a never-ending spiral of retaliatory violence, with militants on both sides attacking non-militants on the other side (and radicalizing more non-militants to become militants for the next round).
Which makes me wonder...is the STL such a mess because Alexander Stepanov didn't understand it? Or was it because he did?
I imagine he didn't understand what he was getting himself into until it was already too late to stop. If you haven't ever experienced the "oh dear God, what is this abomination I have created?" moment, you're not yet properly a C++ programmer.
It's like making schools and other places gun free zones: if a person is already planning to commit an illegal act (robbery, murder, etc) then tacking on one more illegal act isn't a big deterrent.
Here's the scenario of concern: you're at work as a schoolteacher, and in the hallway you see a man you don't recognize, and he's carrying a gun. Do you call 911 or not? In a state where open carry is illegal, that decision is pretty easy to make: "guy carrying gun in a school" very likely means trouble. In a state where people are allowed to open carry and do so regularly, things are not so clear. I guess you can go and politely ask the guy if he's about to shoot up the school? If you're willing to risk becoming his first victim, maybe. Or you can assume he's on the level and do nothing, but if he later starts executing first graders you'll have to live with the guilt for the rest of your life. Either way, the presence of a guy with a gun creates a difficult and stressful situation for everyone else.
Slashdot should surely know the difference between getting "hacked" and unintentionally downloading and executing a trojan horse.
I'm not sure the difference is significant, outside of playing post-disaster blame games... in one case, the software in your computer got tricked; in the other case, the software in your skull got tricked, but either way you're equally screwed.
You should also question if giving these criminals money doesn't also indirectly make YOU a criminal
That's actually a good question -- what does the law say about this situation?
Another (not so) fun scenario: if Al Quaeda has kidnapped your children, and you pay a $100,000 ransom to get your children back, can you now be prosecuted for aiding and abetting a terrorist organization?
I feel bad for the victims of these vile bastards, but at the same time I think that if that doesn't get them into the habit of regularly backing up their files, then NOTHING will.
I was thinking this was an ingenious technique for educating the public on how to use BitCoin to pay for things. I think BitCoin has finally found its "killer app"...
Posting in the damn NYT that the hackers are true to their word assures that they have credibility, and just torpedoes the strategy above.
Journalism is about reporting what actually happened. Deliberately misrepresenting what happened, in order to game your readers, OTOH, is not journalism, it's propaganda.
(Obligatory snarky comments about the New York Times' behavior during the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq can now be posted below)
The Mac in theory is not that much less hackable, but an attacker (a) will generally not be able to encrypt all the files in the system, only ones for that user and (b) the user will simply be able to go back through the TM backup and recover un-encrypted files.
I agree that Time Machine is great, but what is going to stop the Mac port of CryptoWall (or whatever it will be called) from encrypting your Time Machine volume as well as everything else?
Surely that will be the first thing they think of (or if they aren't so bright, the second thing they think of, after the first round of Mac victims just laugh at them and restore from backup).
You use *an* SSD.
He uses an solid state disks?
Apparently listening to the world's scientists and acknowledging reality is now a "radical position".
Pretending that all is well with the climate, and that our only problem is that our entire scientific community is delusional, OTOH -- that's the reasonable and moderate position.
This right here though is kind of hard to ignore, since we know the CIA has never told the truth to the American people about anything unless congress speciifcally drags it out of them or there is a leak....so....I think its safe to assume that none of these incidents were them, and in fact, they can't rule any out....and even the fact that they are commenting on this strongly implies a coverup.
You realize, of course, that for anyone following your logic, the CIA can get them to believe whatever the CIA wants them to believe, simply by stating the opposite.
If you really don't trust the CIA to tell the truth (and I don't blame you for that), the rational response is to ignore anything the CIA says, since there is no way to tell whether it's true or not. Always believing the opposite of what they say is just as bad as always believing what they say.
clearly somebody must think some aspect of it is legit, or there wouldn't be so many shows about it.
TV shows are selected based on legitimacy. They're selected based on whether or not they are likely to get people to watch advertisements.
I find you lack of faith in the forth dithturbing. - Darse ("Darth") Vader
