oink, flap ... oink, flap ... oink, flap

Orcle does come with a kitchen sink. However, it costs extra if more than one person is in the kitchen at the same time.

The second is wrong. "Begging the question" as a logical fallacy is a mistranslation of a Latin term. (Your signature would leave one to believe that you would be less favorably inclined towards the group basing their phrases on mistranslations of Latin.) The term is better translated as "Demanding the first principle" and is better understood today as "Circular Reasoning."

Just because people have been doing it wrong for hundreds of years does not mean that we have to purpetuate that wrong. Language evolves. Language is designed to help convey understanding between individuals. I would argue that the first is better understood by more people and the second more confusing. Therefore the first is better at accomplishing the design of language. It is time to rename the second to a more descriptive term that is better understood by more people and stop berating people for using the term "incorrectly."

One of the reasons people like the Tom Bombadil section is because of the character development.

Remember, the book was about little, ordinary people that can do great things, even while big, great people are doing great things all around them. The book was not about little people outshining big people, nor was it about great people overshadowing the efforts of little people. On complaint about the movie was that it was more about Aaragon and Legolas with Gimli being the comic relief than it was about the Hobbits.

As for the character development, the Tom Bombadil was one of the first things that said, "This is not a simple trip across the forest. This is a dangerous journey and you better be ready." In the book the RingWraith drove them into the dark forest, and they almost got killed because they did not take the journey serious enough. When they got to Bree, they tried to fall back into the easy ways of the shire, only to be almost killed again by RingWraiths because they weren't paying attention. Only this time, they "found" a guide to help them in their character development. By the time they dealt with WeatherTop and finally made it to Rivendell, they were ready to start the journey to Mordor.

The Scouring of the Shire, another section left out by the movie, was the final step that the Hobbits had to take to realize that they were no longer children or ordinary people, but had become great people with large responsibilities. They no longer needed to rely on their guides or other races to take care of their own troubles. Their accomplishments did not belittle the other races, but finally became equals with them. And as equals, they were expected to take care of their own troubles. With great power comes great responibility. (The words are from Spider Man, but the theme is ancient.)

Sorry, my sanity check bounced. Insufficient sanity, or something like that.

I would try a reality check, but that account has been missing for some time.

Windows in buildings actually follow the same principle. (Computer Windows is a completely different topic not addressed in these posts.) Windows are built to allow access as well. The primary access for windows is light. Either sunlight to warm or provide illumination, or for vision of what is on the other side.

To secure windows, you either need to limit how much light is allowed, such as making the window only 6 inches square, or placing barriers on either side of the window to make it more difficult for things other than light to enter. Such barriers coud include signs to discourage, hedges, bars, dogs (on either side), traps, moats, and/or landmines. (Some of those options may have questionable legal issues depending on where your building is.)

As with doors, the questions remain, is the stuff inside worth someone's time or effort to get in, and how much am I willing to spend to prevent access. The books dealt specifically with raising awareness about locks, so I concentrated on that aspect. But, if the stuff inside is sufficiently valuable, whole perimeter security needs to be addressed. Is tunnelling a viable option? What about vents? Even if the vent or window is too small for a person to enter, can something be put inside that will compromise the security from the inside?

My dad was a locksmith, so I learned a bit here and there about lock-picking as well as physical security.

It was best expressed to me this way. Most people believe that locks are meant to prevent access. This is incorrect. Locks are there to allow access. After, all, if you want to prevent access, build a wall, not a door with a lock. The lock is there to limit access. Ideally, a standard lock limits access to those people with a key or with knowledge of the combination. But a simple lock only prevents access to honest people or to those without the time or desire to enter. (These days, that is a very small segment of the popluation.) With each group of people that you wish to keep out, the cost of security goes up. Reinforced doors, sturdier frames, multiple locks, higher quality locks, combinations of different types of locks, electronic keys and biometrics are all steps to preventing different groups of people from entering. With each level of security, there is an increased cost, and, with most levels, and increased inconvenience to those who have permission to enter.

I am sure that most people here know the questions to ask when determining computer security, and the same questions apply to physical security. It comes down to How can someone gain access?, and What am I willing to spend to prevent it?

I think it is good that these books are published, because many people are clueless about physical security. "Put an expensive lock on it. We should be okay." I was surprised to learn how much of my prossesions I kept, simply because it wasn't worth someone's time or effort to steal it.

That depends. Did you put the words, "Heroin inside. Handle with care." on the outside of the package? Did it still ship with those words on the box?

I realize that many people over use XKCD comics. But the above comic
1. was on topic
2. reflected the general sentiment of this thread
3. was one I had not seen before
and
4. was downright funny.

With the way it was rated, I am not surprised that the person chose to post it anonymously.

I am still trying the Steven Wright method. He managed to have his licence photo taken out of focus. That way, when the cops pull him over, they stare at the photo for a second and then say, "Here. You can go."

Despite my best effors, I have not been able to accomplish this ... yet.

You may not have experienced them, but many of us have.

The magnet issue happened to my supervisor, but I was there at the time. What made it difficult was that he would bring the disks in to the shop completely trashed. It took over a week and 5 sets of replacement floppies before we figured out the trouble.

Stapling, however, happened to me personally. An office assistant was told to bring the floppy to our shop and was given a paper with our address on it. She was specifically told not to paper clip the address to the floppy so as to prevent bending, so she stapled it. Surprisingly, we were able to gently pry the staple out an recover the data. But it prompted us to have fun with other customers. We took a bad floppy, put it in the protective sleeve, covered it with a piece of paper that said "Important Data. Do NOT erase" and stapled it to the disk and sleeve about 20 times. We then placed it out on the counters next to the demo machines and counted how many people tried to slide the disk out of the sleeve. Several people asked us if we could put it in to see what was on the disk, a few tried to slide it out, and at least four tried to put the disk, sleave, staples and paper into the drive.

My favorite experience happened when someone tried to return a game as defective. He stated that it worked the first time, but he took it to a friends house and it didn't work. When he brought it home, it didn't work. When I asked him if I could see the disk, he took it out of his shirt pocket and unfolded it. It was still in the the sleeve. I put my hands behind my back and asked him to turn the disk over and read the warning on the back of the sleeve. When he got to the "Do Not Bend" warning, he looked up and said, "That's probably why it doesn't work, isn't it?"

As a kid, I loved many of the Fredric Brown short stories. It amazed me that most of them were written in the '50s. He explored concepts such a time travel, alien visitors, imortallity and power in short stories that were amazing. I loved this beginning (and ending) to "Knock."

One of his more famous stories, Arena, was made into a Star Trek episode, although I liked the story better. My favorite story is a just a few paragraphs about a many who invents a machine to manipulate time.

Fredric Brown helped me to understand how limited my imagination really was and prompted me to expand it. What is more amazing to me is how well these stories still hold up today.

Space Cadet, written in 1948, had a throw-away line about cell phones as well. The protagonist is standing in a line and gets a call from his father. Someone else in the same line notices and asks if it was family calling. When confirmed, the second person claims that he stowed his phone in his luggage to prevent such calls.

When I first read this story as a child, I wondered about how long the phone cord would have to be. It wasn't until several years later, when cell phones did arrive, that I realized how limiting my view was. I assumed that because he used the word "phone" that it was like the old AT&T desk phones that I knew about. Later, when I talked to my brother about this, he claimed that he always pictured a walkie-talkie type of device that happened to be called a "phone."

Heinlein always had some good predictions as well as some strange blind spots about the future. In one book he talks about mag-lev type trains, food dispensers, and space travel, but at the same time, the protagonist cooks on a wood-fire stove, and computers are programmed from a set of paper books by flipping switches.

Poorly implemented?? How can you say that? Is it because when you try to install and older version of their middleware on a newer OS it complains because of the name of the screensaver? Or because they hide their log files in so many different places that you have to play "Where's Waldo" to trouble shoot anything?

But they have gotten better, haven't they? They used to complain when you installed their software that the account wasn't named "root." It didn't matter if the account had the permission that were needed, it just had to have the right name. Now they let you install it if the account has the permissions it needs. I admit that they are still working on running their software on a non-login account, but they will get there...in a few year or so.

Sign Language, using the "appropriate" signs, can be very effective.