Math can't be that logical if you can use imaginary and irrational numbers to solve a problem.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Indeed. Witness the unmitigated mess which are today's web pages, filled with mountains of complex code creating unintuitive navigation and unnecessarily complex layouts.
KISS has officially been abandoned in favor of crazy language tricks just because the programmer could.
But do you drive at +240 kph, make rapid acceleration to get you to 96 kph in two seconds, all while trying to stay ahead of the guy who's trying to pass you?
Yeah, thought not.
And, as a guard, you never thought, well this is fucking stupid ??
Have you ever tried to reason with a PHB? Especially when your argument, however correct and well-supported, doesn't come from someone who has that specific responsibility?
This shouldn't be a surprise. It's the same thing with networked systems. It's not outside threats which pose the problem, it's the people on the inside who either inadvertently or deliberately cause the problems.
Once you've granted someone access to your data, no amount of firewalls, air gaps or anything else can prevent that person from doing damage in some form, even if only taking that data and giving it someone else on the outside.
In this case, since the co-pilot was on the inside and had the ability to override the security code to open the door, the damage was done long before he crashed the plane.
Actually when I read that comment, I thought: "it IS good to consider that this is not solely a Russian problem". I didn't necessarily see an appeal to the bandwagon approach to "morality". The person could have meant that, too, but since it was not specified, we don't actually know that.
But this is Slashdot, where assuming you know the poster's intent (through some sort of psychic powers, I guess) is somehow not considered arrogant.
As this is government (i.e. taxpayer) money, you stop paying Nothrop Grumman until they grant access to the employees.
Since, as people like to say, the government doesn't create jobs, cutting off funding won't have any effect so there can't be any complaints. In fact, stopping payments on a project which is this far over budget would be good PR: a private company unable to do what they've been paid to do so the government is cutting them off.
I can hardly wait for the inevitable posts from while males complaining that if there's discrimination going on, they're not seeing it except against themselves. Their whining is so...
White males are the one group that it's tacitly deemed "okay" to discriminate against. Especially if they happen to be Christian, and even more so if they're Protestant ("WASP").
You just can't have a civil, enlightened society if there's ANY grounp it's okay to fuck with. Even if you think they deserve it. Even if retaliation, based on group identity, against those who didn't personally decide historical events (with their enduring consequences) is somehow your idea of "justice", and simultaneously not your idea of "vengeance". Reversing the tide doesn't cause the state of "tide-free". And it isn't going to.
Otherwise, like if a single individual -- or single institution -- or small group of institutions -- made all these bad decisions, I would be perfectly fine with shunning and refusing to trust that person based on an observed track record. But what you have with the group-guilt scenario is this implicit idea that a large group of people, including those who had no input into the process, should bear some guilt for it. That's a total flat-out rejection of any sort of accountability or individuality.
If you want some kind of one-ness or collective, you don't get it this way. Dystopias are created by trying to find more efficient ways of doing it like that. No, you start by honoring the individual and letting those flourish, interact, and coalesce as they will.
I believe it was a series of counter suits combined with public boycotting that finally ended these people in most areas. You know, the ones that would send a few million snail mails to the FCC when someone said something they didn't like, and had numerous people fired from jobs because their viewpoint was not the same. Similar actions are needed against the extremists.
I've yet to witness a Majority which was truly Moral in both word and deed.
This reminds me of my dad's 5 rules for life (slightly asciified, and probably from someone before him):
^ That way is up
v That was is down
All men are assholes
All women are crazy
Beer is good.
I prefer red wine, myself. Like maybe a good, dry cabernet sauvignon. But to each their own! Enjoy that beer, my friend. Salud!
Yes, I submitted an article about how Wikipedia canned a gaggle of feminist editors from Wikipedia for spewing crap on gender related entries and it never saw the light of day, yet this agitprop makes the grade? Okay, the day will come and indeed is coming when this clear bigotry will reflect very badly indeed on slashdot editors. I know I'd certainly never hire one of them based on their past performance.
I wouldn't hire them anyway, based in sheer incompetence. The most readily observed incompetence: calling oneself an "editor" while remaining unable to spell-check or understand and apply the 5th-grade English grammar in which most news stories are deliberately written.
IMHO everyone should have that amount of time off.
Why? You may value time off. That doesn't mean everyone does. When I was younger, I routinely worked 60-80 hour weeks, and loved it. My work was much more interesting than anything I could sit at home and watch on TV. I got a lot of bonuses for getting stuff done, and at that age the extra money was far more important than time off. Now that I am older, with a family, and stable finances, I prefer the opposite tradeoff. But I am not going to force my choices onto anyone else.
The problem is, the workaholics and institution types effectively have forced their ways on everyone else. Worker productivity has steadily risen since at least the 1950s, meanwhile wages (indexed against inflation) have remained relatively stagnant. That would be equitable if the number of hours worked per week had been reduced, but it hasn't (that, by the way, is what steadily improving technology could have brought us, but it's never enough, the owners want more, more more).
That means someone's getting screwed, and unless most of your revenue comes from investments or other unearned income, that includes you. If you don't work the overtime and place your corporation above your family, you're "not a team player". Because these are conflicting goals, they cannot all be simultaneously satisifed. One must be chosen at the expense of all others, meaning some group who want it one way are going to force this upon everyone else. Currently, in so many work environments, this favors those who want more work and less free time.
Rather than call it pure coincidence, which I deliberately and knowingly stopped short of saying, I was implying that it is not. I simply didn't care to get into the minutia of precisely how that happened and what the exact sequence of events were, since my point did not depend on the details, only on the truth that things happened in this manner.
No, it wouldn't. Repeated tests have shown this will not happen. If you think a hole the width of a pencil will cause a plane to lose pressure that quickly, you might want to check your physics book again.
Also, terrorist holds lady with knife to neck and tells you put down your weapon (while unseen terrorist sneaks up behind you with box-cutter).
So on a crowded plane, there would be no one behind you to see this second terrorist sneak up behind you? Even if they hold a knife to someone's neck, you're still defeating their purpose of taking over the plane. The pilot now has time to radio an emergency and make a rapid descent or throw the plane into violent maneuvers to upset their balance.
I like this, too, but what's to stop the bad guys from faking the secret frequency and crashing the plane from the safety of their hideout?
And people say I have an active imagination. How do you propose the bad guys fake this signal from a cave in Pakistan to a plane flying over the Alps? Or over the Indian Ocean? You do realize the power required to send this signal, the technology to continually track the plane in flight and the equipment needed to do all this isn't something you can go to your local Radio. . . er, Best Buy and pick up on a whim.
Stop over thinking this. Today, if someone tries to hijack a plane from within the passenger compartment, they will fail. They might be able to kill a few people on board, but they will most likely die in the process and so will not accomplish their mission.
There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the information!