It's no different than fitness clubs / gyms. They are able to provide their services at the prices they do because they know that less than 1/3rd of paying members actually use the facility once per week or more. If everybody used the gym every day, they would have to build gyms 3 times larger and charge 3 times more.
My firefox 2.0.0.6 under XP worked perfectly. Or would you say that it failed perfectly?? In either case, the 'exploit' functioned as described. Spooky.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you.
That, quite honestly, was one of the most insightful comments I've seen on /. to date. Thank you.
Problem is when botnets come into play. Now we're back to square one.
[citation needed]
Agreed.
It's no different than fitness clubs / gyms. They are able to provide their services at the prices they do because they know that less than 1/3rd of paying members actually use the facility once per week or more. If everybody used the gym every day, they would have to build gyms 3 times larger and charge 3 times more.
Dollars and Cents.
I can with a pretty high degree of certainty that this is the most off-topic thread I've ever seen on /.. And that says a lot.
http://slashdot.org/~brian.gunderson/journal/168251
That's a first for me!
Their help system seems to indicate a full-scale deployment. Eventually.
http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=77695&topic=12763
Speaking of biometrics, I once heard someone mispronounce 'Retinal Scan' as 'Rectal Scan'... Now *that* would be interesting...
Funniest comment in a long time. Well done.
But will it blend?
Cant you just connect the shield to ground on one end?
Holy long post, batman. Pun intended.
You just slashdotted a whole lotta webcams.
Are you more concerned with ./ metadata than the content itself? He made a good point.
Looks like they've done a pretty good job! http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/coolest-mock_up-evah/gu y-creates-iphone-from-scratch-even-better-than-the -real-thing-288136.php
Considering that the average video gamer is, what, like 14? 15? -- I see no surprise here.
My firefox 2.0.0.6 under XP worked perfectly. Or would you say that it failed perfectly?? In either case, the 'exploit' functioned as described. Spooky.
Cory? What are you doing posting here? I thought you wrote for BB.
Looks alot better viewed as source. Next time, try "Plain Old Text" format selection...
I'm about as big a google fan as can be. My (severely down-modded) comment was simply a humorous observation.
Rule # 1 : No badmouthing Google on /.
Rule # 2 : No badmouthing Google on /.
With a pair of 22" lcd's in front of me, I can have a lot 'visible' that I'm still not really looking at...