It's not a universal constant that reversing charges has to be difficult, and nor is it that you should incur overdraft fees that aren't reimbursed when a charge is reversed. It's down to the banks to handle the practical implementation in a way that consumers would agree with, but that does nothing to change the evidence suggesting that the concept itself, when properly implemented, is very successful.
To be honest, I don't see what the fuss is about. If I see a charge I don't agree with, I have it reversed, and confront the billing party, though that's yet to happen. I don't see how anything short of a good portion of cynicism could keep people from using this. I haven't done anything to pay any utility, telco or ISP bill for over a year. Even my rent is handled automatically. Saves me a lot of trouble.
IE8 is obviously something Microsoft wishes to push for integration purposes, and they obviously want business customers to upgrade. It's only logical and practical that they provide an upgrade path through selectable backwards compatibility. It's takes significant consideration when switching internal enterprise applications, but for most smaller businesses, upgrading to IE8 is something that just happens when the update is pushed, and that can lead to a lot of trouble if the rendering methods are changed for critical internal web apps. This is a case where an instantaneous upgrade to strictly standard rendering just would not be the best thing to do.
Yes, in the name of unconditionally appeasing standards preachers everywhere, let's push a browser that could render a huge number of especially smaller businesses crippled due to their internal web apps being left broken from a usability perspective.
"Intranet" translates to "enterprise network" in the real world. Enterprise web applications are pretty much all written for IE compatibility. Taking this away by default would be pointless and downright ridiculous. Leaving it in, but letting you flick a switch once your apps are standards compliant, where exactly is the basis for outrage in that?
WiiMurder! Video games will at last be murder simulators outside of the crooked minds of sensationalistic journalists and "think of the children" politicians!
Why are these "what if?" questions getting media attention still? An endless array of people attempting good commentary have been asking this very same question for many years now, and the opinions have always been divided. There's nothing new or insightful about this, and I don't see how it has any place on the front page of slashdot.
That's a ridiculous argument. Georgia is a small country, and if you can use vicinity to justify bombing targets in or near the capital of Georgia, you can use to to justify bombing any part of Georgia. It just doesn't work like that. The only ones doing any bombings from the air by now are the Russians anyway.
Double standards? What on Earth makes you assume that I supported the outcome of the Balkan and Iraqi conflicts? I'm not applying any double standards. Keep your intellectually dishonest assumptions to yourself.
The people affected may have been citizens of Russia, but they're citizens of Russia because Russia has been handing out citizenships to South Ossetians like it was going out of fashion. You're incredibly naive if you believe that Russia gave these people citizenships for any reason other than to have a vaguely legitimate reason to invade Georgian sovereign territory, should the Georgian government decide to retaliate against the terrorist attacks carried out by these "Russian" separatists.
You talk about the reason for having governments, while advocating the backhanded invasion of another country, and challenging legitimate Georgian sovereignty. I think you need to revise your motivations for supporting the Russians, so that they aren't self-contradictory.
As far as the world is concerned, they're within Georgian borders. It's an internal issue that Russia should ever unilaterally act on. Even if one would argue that they should, Russia is going well beyond any justifiable response by bombing targets close to Tbilisi.
Your analogies are flawed in that Germany never invaded countries or regions that *wanted* to be part of the German regime. That's the point I'm making. It's also a lot easier for Russia to immediately mobilise aid than it is for Georgia. Especially when Georgian forces would be destroyed if they even tried to bring it in. You're eating the "good guy" image that Russia is trying to assume raw.
Firstly, not all of them are fleeing into Russia. Busloads are evacuated into Georgia as well. Secondly, it would be somewhat understandable for separatists wanting to flee to Russia, regardless of who started the aggression, wouldn't it?
I may come off sounding confrontational, but my issue is not as much with the reported conflict as it is with blind adherence to news reported by unreliable sources. I can see the ambiguity, though, as frustration got the better of me.
I can't see how you would arrive at that assumption. Treating any media reporting with a bit of scepticism isn't closing ones eyes to facts; it's merely taking into account the very real possibility of the reported facts being less than factual. This is especially likely in situations where conflicting reports exist. Such as this particular situation.
Funny that you should leave out ".. and horribly unreliable "second hand eyewitness accounts", while suggesting that -I'm- the gulliable one for being sceptical about the accuracy of your claims.." when citing my posts.
By your logic, my claims would trumph yours, had I been posting this from South Ossetia. Merit, evidence or insight into the conflict irrlevant. You also fail to acknowledge that I don't base any of my claims off of any claims made by media. You're either trolling this thread, or you're simply too caught up in proving everyone else wrong that you can't keep it on topic. In any case, I've had enough of this futile exercise.
Where do you see me claiming that Georgia never had troops in South Ossetia? It'd be somewhat strange for a sovereign nation not to have a military presence within its own borders. Because, you know, South Ossetia is Georgian sovereign territory.
What is it exactly that my point is? What I'm claiming is that you're asserting everything you say as being factual, despite being based off of historically inaccurate, biased, manipulative and propagandist media, and horribly unreliable "second hand eyewitness accounts", while suggesting that -I'm- the gulliable one for being sceptical about the accuracy of your claims.
You claim that I'm a troll, but you're so caught up in your "you're wrong, I'm right" game that you've completely lost track of what it is that I'm really saying.
The point of this entire discussion is that the facts are provided by unreliable sources, and put both sides in favourable light. Yours are no more genuinely factual than mine. The difference is, though, that your media is controlled by the government, and the government of your country has a history of altering any inconvenient truth to a justification for their actions, regardless of legality and morality.
You're blindly eating their propaganda, believing it to be genuine fact, and you're projecting your gullible nature into this discussion.
You're obviously being spoon-fed by domestic propaganda when you feel able to assert without doubt that the Georgian military attacked Russian forces first. You seem to be an almost frighteningly complete example of how media can manipulate people. Russia has been bombing Georgia, something both sides agree on, yet you seem to think that the Georgians are responsible for the deaths and the carnage, and that Russia are the mighty saviours of South Ossetia.
Wouldn't that break if concurrent attacks were happening? Sure, you could bind the hold-down timer to a specific IP address, but then people would just start randomising their addresses.
I haven't been too far into the technical aspects of this issue, but from what I gather, it is related to brutally "predicting" the source ports used for recursion, and injecting fraudulent responses?
It would generate more traffic, sure, but wouldn't an immediately obvious solution be to demand multiple confirmatory replies to recursion, each request using a different randomisation algorithm for the source port used?
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a universal constant that reversing charges has to be difficult, and nor is it that you should incur overdraft fees that aren't reimbursed when a charge is reversed. It's down to the banks to handle the practical implementation in a way that consumers would agree with, but that does nothing to change the evidence suggesting that the concept itself, when properly implemented, is very successful.
I'm using automated payment.
To be honest, I don't see what the fuss is about. If I see a charge I don't agree with, I have it reversed, and confront the billing party, though that's yet to happen. I don't see how anything short of a good portion of cynicism could keep people from using this. I haven't done anything to pay any utility, telco or ISP bill for over a year. Even my rent is handled automatically. Saves me a lot of trouble.
IE8 is obviously something Microsoft wishes to push for integration purposes, and they obviously want business customers to upgrade. It's only logical and practical that they provide an upgrade path through selectable backwards compatibility. It's takes significant consideration when switching internal enterprise applications, but for most smaller businesses, upgrading to IE8 is something that just happens when the update is pushed, and that can lead to a lot of trouble if the rendering methods are changed for critical internal web apps. This is a case where an instantaneous upgrade to strictly standard rendering just would not be the best thing to do.
Yes, in the name of unconditionally appeasing standards preachers everywhere, let's push a browser that could render a huge number of especially smaller businesses crippled due to their internal web apps being left broken from a usability perspective.
"Intranet" translates to "enterprise network" in the real world. Enterprise web applications are pretty much all written for IE compatibility. Taking this away by default would be pointless and downright ridiculous. Leaving it in, but letting you flick a switch once your apps are standards compliant, where exactly is the basis for outrage in that?
What, peeking in on others in the neighbourhood having sex?
Cheap +5 Funny: just say "Comcast sucks because {insert bastard tactic here}"
WiiMurder! Video games will at last be murder simulators outside of the crooked minds of sensationalistic journalists and "think of the children" politicians!
Why are these "what if?" questions getting media attention still? An endless array of people attempting good commentary have been asking this very same question for many years now, and the opinions have always been divided. There's nothing new or insightful about this, and I don't see how it has any place on the front page of slashdot.
That's a ridiculous argument. Georgia is a small country, and if you can use vicinity to justify bombing targets in or near the capital of Georgia, you can use to to justify bombing any part of Georgia. It just doesn't work like that. The only ones doing any bombings from the air by now are the Russians anyway.
Double standards? What on Earth makes you assume that I supported the outcome of the Balkan and Iraqi conflicts? I'm not applying any double standards. Keep your intellectually dishonest assumptions to yourself.
The people affected may have been citizens of Russia, but they're citizens of Russia because Russia has been handing out citizenships to South Ossetians like it was going out of fashion. You're incredibly naive if you believe that Russia gave these people citizenships for any reason other than to have a vaguely legitimate reason to invade Georgian sovereign territory, should the Georgian government decide to retaliate against the terrorist attacks carried out by these "Russian" separatists.
You talk about the reason for having governments, while advocating the backhanded invasion of another country, and challenging legitimate Georgian sovereignty. I think you need to revise your motivations for supporting the Russians, so that they aren't self-contradictory.
As far as the world is concerned, they're within Georgian borders. It's an internal issue that Russia should ever unilaterally act on. Even if one would argue that they should, Russia is going well beyond any justifiable response by bombing targets close to Tbilisi.
Your analogies are flawed in that Germany never invaded countries or regions that *wanted* to be part of the German regime. That's the point I'm making. It's also a lot easier for Russia to immediately mobilise aid than it is for Georgia. Especially when Georgian forces would be destroyed if they even tried to bring it in. You're eating the "good guy" image that Russia is trying to assume raw.
Firstly, not all of them are fleeing into Russia. Busloads are evacuated into Georgia as well. Secondly, it would be somewhat understandable for separatists wanting to flee to Russia, regardless of who started the aggression, wouldn't it?
The fact that this is modded insightful is frightening in itself.
I may come off sounding confrontational, but my issue is not as much with the reported conflict as it is with blind adherence to news reported by unreliable sources. I can see the ambiguity, though, as frustration got the better of me.
I can't see how you would arrive at that assumption. Treating any media reporting with a bit of scepticism isn't closing ones eyes to facts; it's merely taking into account the very real possibility of the reported facts being less than factual. This is especially likely in situations where conflicting reports exist. Such as this particular situation.
Mind elaborating on where it is that I close my eyes to anything?
No. I may be exposed to it through local media, but I'm not the one taking any of it as absolute truth.
Funny that you should leave out ".. and horribly unreliable "second hand eyewitness accounts", while suggesting that -I'm- the gulliable one for being sceptical about the accuracy of your claims.." when citing my posts.
By your logic, my claims would trumph yours, had I been posting this from South Ossetia. Merit, evidence or insight into the conflict irrlevant. You also fail to acknowledge that I don't base any of my claims off of any claims made by media. You're either trolling this thread, or you're simply too caught up in proving everyone else wrong that you can't keep it on topic. In any case, I've had enough of this futile exercise.
Where do you see me claiming that Georgia never had troops in South Ossetia? It'd be somewhat strange for a sovereign nation not to have a military presence within its own borders. Because, you know, South Ossetia is Georgian sovereign territory.
What is it exactly that my point is? What I'm claiming is that you're asserting everything you say as being factual, despite being based off of historically inaccurate, biased, manipulative and propagandist media, and horribly unreliable "second hand eyewitness accounts", while suggesting that -I'm- the gulliable one for being sceptical about the accuracy of your claims.
You claim that I'm a troll, but you're so caught up in your "you're wrong, I'm right" game that you've completely lost track of what it is that I'm really saying.
The point of this entire discussion is that the facts are provided by unreliable sources, and put both sides in favourable light. Yours are no more genuinely factual than mine. The difference is, though, that your media is controlled by the government, and the government of your country has a history of altering any inconvenient truth to a justification for their actions, regardless of legality and morality.
You're blindly eating their propaganda, believing it to be genuine fact, and you're projecting your gullible nature into this discussion.
You're obviously being spoon-fed by domestic propaganda when you feel able to assert without doubt that the Georgian military attacked Russian forces first. You seem to be an almost frighteningly complete example of how media can manipulate people. Russia has been bombing Georgia, something both sides agree on, yet you seem to think that the Georgians are responsible for the deaths and the carnage, and that Russia are the mighty saviours of South Ossetia.
Get real.
"-We- didn't start the war"?
Sounds to me like all you're doing is eating a different brand of propaganda.
Wouldn't that break if concurrent attacks were happening? Sure, you could bind the hold-down timer to a specific IP address, but then people would just start randomising their addresses.
I haven't been too far into the technical aspects of this issue, but from what I gather, it is related to brutally "predicting" the source ports used for recursion, and injecting fraudulent responses?
It would generate more traffic, sure, but wouldn't an immediately obvious solution be to demand multiple confirmatory replies to recursion, each request using a different randomisation algorithm for the source port used?