"Another problem is that some criminal hackers may exhibit traits associated with clinical personality disorders such as the narcissistic personality disorder"
Now THAT is about 90% of people.
If you want to know what narcissistic personality disorder really is, try "The Drama of the Gifted Child" by Alice Miller.
Whenever I see such emotionally charged statements, I tend to take them with a grain or two of salt, especially when they're coming from people who are supposed to be rational, like security researchers...
Lets be honest , "anyone" is a relative term here - anyone whos a whizz with low level logica gate analysis plus knows some chemistry and has access to occiliscopes etc may be able to do it - a normal office guy like me can't. Perhaps a bit too much false modesty on the part of the article author.
It's not like everyone has to make their own. You can always have one or two such guys produce multiple cards that a interested sponsor may pay for.
Maybe the fact that 90% of the time people don't have change on them? Society as a whole is becoming a lot more dependent on ATM cards, credit cards, etc as opposed to cash money. This means that people don't have coinage nor dollars, but instead a plastic card in their wallet. I have seen machines that take cards and coins and even dollar bills. This seems like the best idea. Any te
Large amounts of money that is being used today is virtual money sitting in bank accounts and transferred directly to and fro such accounts. So it's no doubt convenient from economies worldwide to make the switch asap.
that's just it, most of them want that traffic, but they also want to be paid for the privilege of having a link to the article. it's just them being greedy.
Or desperate. With Internet and all, newspapers don't exactly have exclusivity nowadays. Sure, some people might actually appreciate a well-crafter piece of professional commentary. On the other hand lots of people just want quick info, be it TV or Internet. Some even watch Twitter for news. I bet profits from running a newspaper house isn't exactly what it used to be.
If it weren't contiuous every cracker on the Net engaged in dictionary attack could be held liable:
"Hey they quoted more than 1M words from NY Times including 'user', 'guest', 'root', 'admin', 'territory'.... 'cabbage', 'walnuts'! Sue them!"
That'd make it easier for courts to convict them and it would be a great thing for the whole planet! The only downside would be that we'd have to invent a new language nobody else ewssez just to uwoid the lowsouts.:)
Because that's what most teenagers aspire to. It takes guts to admit that the pretty world view you were raised with just doesn't cut it in the real world, and that you're completely lost. So instead, most teenagers get angry, act like they know everything, lash out, break stuff, smoke chemicals...
... to escape the painful reality. And possibly call it 'fun'.
Are you saying that these sorts of games "kill you", "kill other people" and are "genocide machines"? Aside from your moronic argument that harmful things ought to be against the law (McDonalds, anyone?), what are you trying to prove here? There is not one lick of evidence that violent video games cause real world harm. There may be a certain amount of (questionable) evidence the show correlation between real world violence and video game violence, but correlation !=causation. I know that this is China, where the government gets to make up their own rules and a video game ban in the least of their problems, but we don't need to defend their actions!
My point (which you obviously, and maybe even intentionally, missed by a mile) was the hypocrisy of claiming that something is bad for you, then allowing it to happen. If you don't intend to do jack shit about it (because you believe you must not), then STFU about it.
Oh, and as for the cigarettes thing -- the reason it is not against the law is that prohibiting things tends to be extremely ineffective (forbidden fruit/black market) -- we can help more people quit by making cigarettes prohibitively expensive through taxes, as well as making it inconvenient and undesirable through public smoking bans and education.
Oh pleez. What's next: people can run faster with their legs missing, than with heavy shoes?
Sure it does. And a lot of other things. But a conscious intervention by the user is a great tool. And it's not just the human computation that is interesting. It's also the fact that Google keeps incorporating every bit of knowledge that could make the search engine more potent, while others mostly either engage in failed experiments, or try to do what Google's done a long time ago.
dude, you really believe bing is an inferior technology. It has less market share. less market share != inferior technology. If you look at search results from the bing and google, if you remove branding, it's almost impossible to tell the which is which.
Dude, it's not inferior, it's merely outdated. See, if you compare the results from both, and carefully go over the details, you'll notice why Google is where it's at, and why Bing will never get there.
Notice that what essentially looks like two almost-identical sets of results is not the whole point. On Google's result page, I can promote a result, comment on it, or even remove it. Why? Because that's human computation. So you see, google is not just a stupid tin-can that's been fed algos to get you crapola results. It actually listens to users (however small the number of those that actually moderate results may be) and it benefits from that. It's not being nice to us, but it's just using us... in a incredibly smart way, and we all benefit from that. So, why bing works out an even better algo, Google will have to do nothing but use our brains, and it'll still be much ahead of Bing for a loooong time.
I guess it's better than just saying games are not ok and letting everyone buy them... Like with cigarettes. Yeah, smoking kills you. Smoking kills other people. Cigarettes are genocide machines. So why the fuck do you allow people to sell them in the first place?!
Well, if you mean in the psychological sense (as in not 'what' but 'how'), then there are many answers out there, most of which gravitates towards parental responsibility. Responsibility, that is, in upholding and executing the way of upbringing that ultimately leads to a mindset of a reactionary, fascistic individual, regardless of what it manifests itself as ('etnocentrism', nationalism, redneckism, and all other extreme isms).
You can read about it at least in this one place (I also recommend it). Also, refer to Alice Miller's work if you are interested.
Yes, because government officials can't be bribed. Especially not by corporations that have lots of money.
Why would a government official need to be bribed? He most likely already owns a company or has a good buddy that owns a company which would benefit from his actions anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Now THAT is about 90% of people.
If you want to know what narcissistic personality disorder really is, try "The Drama of the Gifted Child" by Alice Miller.
Whenever I see such emotionally charged statements, I tend to take them with a grain or two of salt, especially when they're coming from people who are supposed to be rational, like security researchers...
but is Vista ready for the desktop?
Of course it is! It's just that hardware vendors won't release specs so that the community can develop drivers. And games don't work on it.
Lets be honest , "anyone" is a relative term here - anyone whos a whizz with low level logica gate analysis plus knows some chemistry and has access to occiliscopes etc may be able to do it - a normal office guy like me can't. Perhaps a bit too much false modesty on the part of the article author.
It's not like everyone has to make their own. You can always have one or two such guys produce multiple cards that a interested sponsor may pay for.
In San Francisco you can only open carry your "oscilloscope".
You mean to tell me you can't carry your friend's "oscilloscope"?
Maybe the fact that 90% of the time people don't have change on them? Society as a whole is becoming a lot more dependent on ATM cards, credit cards, etc as opposed to cash money. This means that people don't have coinage nor dollars, but instead a plastic card in their wallet. I have seen machines that take cards and coins and even dollar bills. This seems like the best idea. Any te
Large amounts of money that is being used today is virtual money sitting in bank accounts and transferred directly to and fro such accounts. So it's no doubt convenient from economies worldwide to make the switch asap.
that's just it, most of them want that traffic, but they also want to be paid for the privilege of having a link to the article. it's just them being greedy.
Or desperate. With Internet and all, newspapers don't exactly have exclusivity nowadays. Sure, some people might actually appreciate a well-crafter piece of professional commentary. On the other hand lots of people just want quick info, be it TV or Internet. Some even watch Twitter for news. I bet profits from running a newspaper house isn't exactly what it used to be.
if the elements thus reproduced are the expression of the intellectual creation of their author
"I love you too, Honey Bunny!"
How many of you said Pulp Fiction when they saw it? And it's just 6 words.
How about "Luke, I'm your father"?
This is free advertisement for newspapers, and as they should know free advertisement is almost as awesome as free beer!
Maybe they don't drink?
They didn't say it had to be continuous...
If it weren't contiuous every cracker on the Net engaged in dictionary attack could be held liable:
"Hey they quoted more than 1M words from NY Times including 'user', 'guest', 'root', 'admin', 'territory'.... 'cabbage', 'walnuts'! Sue them!"
That'd make it easier for courts to convict them and it would be a great thing for the whole planet! The only downside would be that we'd have to invent a new language nobody else ewssez just to uwoid the lowsouts. :)
Yes, yes, I'm sure you're 100% rational and logical.
Agreed
Not when they are wearing a cone of silence.
Yes grammar and spelling are always there to help you out. Most self-righteous fools resort spell-checking and grammar-correction in the end.
Because that's what most teenagers aspire to. It takes guts to admit that the pretty world view you were raised with just doesn't cut it in the real world, and that you're completely lost. So instead, most teenagers get angry, act like they know everything, lash out, break stuff, smoke chemicals...
... to escape the painful reality. And possibly call it 'fun'.
You watch too much movies, dude. Get real.
Are you saying that these sorts of games "kill you", "kill other people" and are "genocide machines"? Aside from your moronic argument that harmful things ought to be against the law (McDonalds, anyone?), what are you trying to prove here? There is not one lick of evidence that violent video games cause real world harm. There may be a certain amount of (questionable) evidence the show correlation between real world violence and video game violence, but correlation !=causation. I know that this is China, where the government gets to make up their own rules and a video game ban in the least of their problems, but we don't need to defend their actions!
My point (which you obviously, and maybe even intentionally, missed by a mile) was the hypocrisy of claiming that something is bad for you, then allowing it to happen. If you don't intend to do jack shit about it (because you believe you must not), then STFU about it.
Oh, and as for the cigarettes thing -- the reason it is not against the law is that prohibiting things tends to be extremely ineffective (forbidden fruit/black market) -- we can help more people quit by making cigarettes prohibitively expensive through taxes, as well as making it inconvenient and undesirable through public smoking bans and education.
Oh pleez. What's next: people can run faster with their legs missing, than with heavy shoes?
Yes, they are a piece of cake, once you realize you can do that. That's what makes it so effective.
Sure it does. And a lot of other things. But a conscious intervention by the user is a great tool. And it's not just the human computation that is interesting. It's also the fact that Google keeps incorporating every bit of knowledge that could make the search engine more potent, while others mostly either engage in failed experiments, or try to do what Google's done a long time ago.
dude, you really believe bing is an inferior technology. It has less market share. less market share != inferior technology. If you look at search results from the bing and google, if you remove branding, it's almost impossible to tell the which is which.
Dude, it's not inferior, it's merely outdated. See, if you compare the results from both, and carefully go over the details, you'll notice why Google is where it's at, and why Bing will never get there.
Notice that what essentially looks like two almost-identical sets of results is not the whole point. On Google's result page, I can promote a result, comment on it, or even remove it. Why? Because that's human computation. So you see, google is not just a stupid tin-can that's been fed algos to get you crapola results. It actually listens to users (however small the number of those that actually moderate results may be) and it benefits from that. It's not being nice to us, but it's just using us... in a incredibly smart way, and we all benefit from that. So, why bing works out an even better algo, Google will have to do nothing but use our brains, and it'll still be much ahead of Bing for a loooong time.
I guess it's better than just saying games are not ok and letting everyone buy them... Like with cigarettes. Yeah, smoking kills you. Smoking kills other people. Cigarettes are genocide machines. So why the fuck do you allow people to sell them in the first place?!
Yes, but you are still merely describing the symptoms without ever daring the see the root. Or dare you? ;)
Well, if you mean in the psychological sense (as in not 'what' but 'how'), then there are many answers out there, most of which gravitates towards parental responsibility. Responsibility, that is, in upholding and executing the way of upbringing that ultimately leads to a mindset of a reactionary, fascistic individual, regardless of what it manifests itself as ('etnocentrism', nationalism, redneckism, and all other extreme isms).
You can read about it at least in this one place (I also recommend it). Also, refer to Alice Miller's work if you are interested.
RMS is their head, no doubt.
Yes, because government officials can't be bribed. Especially not by corporations that have lots of money.
Why would a government official need to be bribed? He most likely already owns a company or has a good buddy that owns a company which would benefit from his actions anyway.