I combine noise-cancelling headphones with earplugs and (optionally) music. The cancelling leaves some audio artifacts (especially with voices) that seem to be blocked well by earplugs. Music helps me ignore any sound that does get through.
But Who decides which words Are capitalized?
Wow. It's truly an embarrassment to
I can't argue with your list, and I can't argue with the fact that most of the shitholes in the world are run by muslim extremists.
But then we get to this:
To me things are clear, this religion will never stop until either the last muslim is dead or the whole world is muslim.
This is the most ignorant and, frankly, stupid thing I've ever seen modded to +5, and I've been here a while.
I've got a muslim friend who is quite peaceful and tolerant. Did you mean "every last muslim (except for DahGhostfacedFiddlah's friend) is dead"?.
Except that there are entire sects of muslims who are dedicated to peace (pay particular attention to their view of "Jihad"). Perhaps you really meant "every last muslim (except for DahGhostfacedFiddlah's friend and members of some sects) is dead"?
Look, I haven't heard anyone claim that there aren't violent muslims out there. I've heard very few claim that Islam isn't responsible for more violence - today - than its contemporaries. But to ignore the billion or so muslims who aren't actively trying to kill us and lumping them in with the - what - 1000 or so that actually carried out the attacks you listed?
That's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever seen.
To anyone considering taking on this challenge, bear in mind that developing software and developing a community are vastly different things. If you're already technical, you'll need to pay a lot more attention to the latter.
Few things make you seem as ignorant as when you insist on typing "X-Box" instead of "Xbox". I'm the biggest fucking grammar Nazi on the planet
You may be a grammar Nazi, but I'm an accuracy Nazi, and I have to make exception to that statement.
For instant, being an anti-vaccination advocate would make you seem more ignorant.
I could care less what you watch, but if you claim Fox News is fair and balance, you probably seem more ignorant.
I would of listed more, but its getting late. Their are alot more examples out they're if you look.
Don't accuse the OP of nonsense. He is a knower of 4 corner simultaneous 24 hour Days that occur within a single 4 corner rotation of Earth.
That way, john, john, and john can all have different names.
(In unicode, the o's are o, ο, and о...or they would be, if
...flying toasters were a cultural meme.
Those days haven't gone - they've just evolved. Now it's flying toasted foods, combined with lolcats.
Well then. I find myself agreeing with everything you say, so let's leave it at that.
From the responses I received, it's clear that I inadvertently wrote some flamebait.
I certainly don't advocate criminal charges for designers of insecure systems, as you might see for a civil engineer. I was trying to suggest that the core of the problem - insecure systems - is lost in the he-said-she-said of hackers vs douchebag-beureaucrats.
Your argument about "no such thing as a secure system" applies just as well to life-safety engineering. Rare, unforeseen events can have huge consequences. You build a bridge to code, and then one day you get wind-gusts at the exact right resonant frequency, and the bridge collapses.
No one gets blamed, but the cause is reviewed and the codes are updated and the next guy who forgets them gets in trouble.
There are a number of well-known attacks for which there is no longer any excuse. SQL injection is one of those. Now, software tends to be more complex than civil engineering, so I don't expect perfection from systems. But I do expect web-connected software to be written as if it's being attacked all the time (it is), and for security holes to be taken as seriously as that warrants.
Other responses have suggested that a civil engineer wouldn't be held accountable if their building collapsed due to sabotage. I argue that they certainly would if all public buildings were being sabotaged all the time, and their particular building collapsed from a molotov cocktail.
==
As an aside, I also take some exception to the claim that there "is no such thing as a secure system". When we see security failures like this one, it's not through social engineering or physical access. It's through a standard HTTP(s) request. It is possible design a secure system given that assumption.
Yes, router or server security issues can open security holes. And for non-trivial software, it's effectively impossible to prove that a system is secure. But provable or not, there are plenty of systems on the web that can be used exactly as permitted, while not exposing a single security flaw when accessed over HTTP(s). Secure.
You know, we blame civil engineers when their buildings collapse, maybe it's time to start blaming computer "engineers" when their systems do. Now, I know first-hand how hard it is to design secure computer systems, and I'm well aware there's a fine line between "holding to account" and a witchhunt, but we're nowhere near that line as it stands.
In every single one of these stories I hear the mainstream media gasp about the "dangerous hacker". I see
How on earth did they produce such a hopelessly stupid system?
Maybe if we could get everyone asking this question, the conversation would shift.
Seriously, the only possible way to answer this question is to follow through with the experiment. Legal precedent can't be made without test cases, and current legal framework has never needed to define "person" outside of our species.
My guess - in the context of Western countries - is that if the resulting being is able to communicate - vocally, written, or fluent signing - they would be considered a legal person. If not directly through the courts, then through legislation resulting from the eventual public outcry.
And if we, as a species, intend to follow through on creating sapient experimental animals, then this won't be the last decision by a long shot. What about creatures created from whole cloth (custom from-scratch DNA) or human-animal hybrids? Any of which may or may not have all the mental faculties of your average (or sub-average) human?
All of this is going to be determined in the courts. And in the unlikely event it becomes prevalent, I'm an optimist. I think we're actually going to see a more nuanced and enlightened view of "lower" animals and a discussion of the line at which "livestock" become "slaves".
No one's suggesting we breed with it - merely that we incubate it using our best tool for such tasks.
Try using quotes.
"c sucks" - About 21,200 results
"objective c sucks" - About 26,500 results (how this can co-exist with the above result, no one knows)
"java sucks" -- About 22,800 results
The last time this topic came up, someone posted a link to the short story Manna. I found it well worth the read.
The story explores two vastly different ways of greeting a near-total automation of labour.
The next person to mention spaghetti stacks to me is going to have his head knocked off. -- Bill Conrad
