My point was that use of DRM is easily excused by saying "pirates", but the real motivation behind it is to limit the rights of paying consumers. Pirates break any DRM, so it doesn't really affect them.
Tech Support: Right. What's the program you use to view the web?
User: Web.
Nope. Can't see how this would be a problem. Ever.
But I think they were going for the same idea that Microsoft had when they added "Internet" and "Email" links to the start menu in XP. Generic shortcuts that launched whatever program you had setup as your default. At least Microsoft didn't rename the entire programs...
Basically, NoScript got upset that AdBlock made it possible to block ads on their site. (Note: by default, the NoScript site gets opened on every update.) So NoScript issued an update that crippled AdBlock's ability to block anything. This was discovered and NoScript, under pressure, changed to automatically add a forced white-list for their own site. Eventually, that was changed to allow opt-out, and then removed entirely. But the trust is still damaged; I haven't used NoScript since then.
Of course, such a device has to be under the control of the customer. Not the ISP.
This can easily be rolled into a little box that gets updates regularly from its maker, with the current markers for bot traffic, not unlike how we deal with malware on computers already. Just that this time the box is not prone to user idiocy, clicking "yeah, go on" whenever some trojan wants a new home.
So on the one hand, you say you want to put control into the hands of the user to avoid the ISPs. Then you follow that by saying you want to put control into the hands of the maker to avoid the idiocy of the users.
This doesn't quite make sense to me. Why should we assume the makers of an anti-botnet box are any better than ISPs?
I share your doubt. Women may lead more democratically, but that doesn't always come out with the best outcome... Different? Yes. Better? Not always. The title tries to twist the words of the summary.
I didn't read the article.
the Chinese government being upfront about their censorship
You don't actually think the Chinese government goes out of their way to tell the Chinese people that they're being censored, do you? Most Chinese people don't know that they're being censored, and frankly don't care.
And it's worth noting that Texas is not a "failing Texas sized state economy," but is doing well relatively with significant economic growth compared to other large states.
Well, from my understanding of "Operation Shady RAT", they found out which organizations/gov'ts were targeted by taking over/siezing one of the info-collection and zombie-controlling computers. Much of the speculation that it was China is based on the fact that the hackings targeted the US, Taiwan, Vietnam, South Korea, etc...
For all we know, it could be North Korea or the US doing it. The fact that the controlling computer indicates only those targets could be a frame in case they get caught. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more control computers targeting other sets of countries and organizations. I also wouldn't be surprised if China really is behind it.
No, seriously. I don't think you were wrong, I'd just be interested to see the changes the other admin was trying to make/prevent, and to what level they were taking it.
When I first learned about Wikipedia, I made a change here or there to improve clarity of points. They were all relatively minor grammatical fixes and kept the same idea that was already there. Almost every single one was reverted. I couldn't get more reason than that I was not logged in, and the editor didn't trust/like anyone who would edit from an "anonymous" IP address. (At the time, I was not interested in creating an account and saw no benefit to it. I still feel the same way. But now I don't even bother if the content is bad.)
Irrelevant, he wasn't in a state of mind to obey police however he was just fine a few minutes earlier while breaking into cars?
Uh... Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Don't answer; I already know: It never existed.)
I've not read a single article that even claimed he was the one breaking into cars. The police were called because someone was suspected of breaking into cars. The caller didn't even know, they just suspected. And then the cops came and guessed that this shirtless, bearded dude with a backpack was the person suspected of breaking into cars.
They wanted to search him, and he resisted. They then proceeded to beat the living shit out of him until there was no living shit left. He's dead now.
How do you know that Kelly Thomas wasn't just a homeless schizo in the wrong place at the wrong time? For people who aren't schizo, it's easy enough to say "just go along with what they say or you will die", but there will always be people who are not capable of doing that. Does that mean they should die, even without proof of wrongdoing? Or are you suggesting that non-conformance to the idea of a "normal" person is enough wrongdoing to constitute death without trial? It's impossible to prove, but I bet that if he was clean-shaven and wearing a shirt, he would be alive today.
Java is not dead. Maybe it's not the hip language anymore, but it definitely is not dead.
Just like COBOL is not dead. Sure, it's not the hip language, but so many legacy systems are built on it that it's basically guaranteed to live for quite a while longer. I suspect Java will have the same fate.
There are quite a few situations where the bloat of Java doesn't fit. One of those is writing operating systems and drivers. Another is writing games. Sure, there are a few games here and there (Altitude, Minecraft) written with Java; however, a significantly greater number of games are written in C++.
It's kind of like Lua vs Python. When you need a huge set of libraries built into the language's standard library, go with Python. When you don't need all that bloat, use Lua.
Slashdot Mirror
Be careful not to confuse marketing with demand.
They are both advertised as IP67 dust- and water-resistant.
Google's marketing claims they're even safe to wear while showering:
https://play.google.com/store/...
https://play.google.com/store/...
Not sure I'd do that if I got one...
My point was that use of DRM is easily excused by saying "pirates", but the real motivation behind it is to limit the rights of paying consumers. Pirates break any DRM, so it doesn't really affect them.
Just hope that you're not allergic to penicillin!
Come on now. Do people really believe that DRM protects products from piracy?
From TFA:
This was the 23rd face transplant carried out since doctors began performing the procedure seven years ago.
So there's 6 cases that have not yet been reviewed. I wonder why they were excluded from the sample... Too soon after transplant to review?
Tech Support: What web browser are you using?
User: Web.
Tech Support: Right. What's the program you use to view the web?
User: Web.
Nope. Can't see how this would be a problem. Ever.
But I think they were going for the same idea that Microsoft had when they added "Internet" and "Email" links to the start menu in XP. Generic shortcuts that launched whatever program you had setup as your default. At least Microsoft didn't rename the entire programs...
A good review of the issue was documented on the website of yet a different extension: DownThemAll! - Can I trust NoScript any longer?
Basically, NoScript got upset that AdBlock made it possible to block ads on their site. (Note: by default, the NoScript site gets opened on every update.) So NoScript issued an update that crippled AdBlock's ability to block anything. This was discovered and NoScript, under pressure, changed to automatically add a forced white-list for their own site. Eventually, that was changed to allow opt-out, and then removed entirely. But the trust is still damaged; I haven't used NoScript since then.
I stopped taking NoScript seriously when they thought it was a good idea to deliberately disable AdBlock and obfuscate the code that did so.
Whoop-de-damn-doo...
Of course, such a device has to be under the control of the customer. Not the ISP.
This can easily be rolled into a little box that gets updates regularly from its maker, with the current markers for bot traffic, not unlike how we deal with malware on computers already. Just that this time the box is not prone to user idiocy, clicking "yeah, go on" whenever some trojan wants a new home.
So on the one hand, you say you want to put control into the hands of the user to avoid the ISPs. Then you follow that by saying you want to put control into the hands of the maker to avoid the idiocy of the users.
This doesn't quite make sense to me. Why should we assume the makers of an anti-botnet box are any better than ISPs?
> TSA?
What about the TSA? Nobody likes it, but I don't think anyone has a better idea.
I think most people have a better idea: Do away with it.
It's a giant waste of money/time that offers only "security theater" in place of security.
I share your doubt. Women may lead more democratically, but that doesn't always come out with the best outcome... Different? Yes. Better? Not always. The title tries to twist the words of the summary. I didn't read the article.
the Chinese government being upfront about their censorship
You don't actually think the Chinese government goes out of their way to tell the Chinese people that they're being censored, do you? Most Chinese people don't know that they're being censored, and frankly don't care.
And it's worth noting that Texas is not a "failing Texas sized state economy," but is doing well relatively with significant economic growth compared to other large states.
Oh, really?
Well, from my understanding of "Operation Shady RAT", they found out which organizations/gov'ts were targeted by taking over/siezing one of the info-collection and zombie-controlling computers. Much of the speculation that it was China is based on the fact that the hackings targeted the US, Taiwan, Vietnam, South Korea, etc...
For all we know, it could be North Korea or the US doing it. The fact that the controlling computer indicates only those targets could be a frame in case they get caught. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more control computers targeting other sets of countries and organizations. I also wouldn't be surprised if China really is behind it.
Oh yeah. That'll work. I'm sure I'll be able to use that for DNS just like I can use Bitcons to pay my bills.
(Oops! Did I forget the i in Bitcon?)
Names expire after 12000 blocks unless renewed with an update
So... not that it'll ever happen, but what happens when there are more than 12000 namecoin top level "domains"? That's a pretty short-sighted limit...
[citation needed]
No, seriously. I don't think you were wrong, I'd just be interested to see the changes the other admin was trying to make/prevent, and to what level they were taking it.
When I first learned about Wikipedia, I made a change here or there to improve clarity of points. They were all relatively minor grammatical fixes and kept the same idea that was already there. Almost every single one was reverted. I couldn't get more reason than that I was not logged in, and the editor didn't trust/like anyone who would edit from an "anonymous" IP address. (At the time, I was not interested in creating an account and saw no benefit to it. I still feel the same way. But now I don't even bother if the content is bad.)
Irrelevant, he wasn't in a state of mind to obey police however he was just fine a few minutes earlier while breaking into cars?
Uh... Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? (Don't answer; I already know: It never existed.)
I've not read a single article that even claimed he was the one breaking into cars. The police were called because someone was suspected of breaking into cars. The caller didn't even know, they just suspected. And then the cops came and guessed that this shirtless, bearded dude with a backpack was the person suspected of breaking into cars.
They wanted to search him, and he resisted. They then proceeded to beat the living shit out of him until there was no living shit left. He's dead now.
How do you know that Kelly Thomas wasn't just a homeless schizo in the wrong place at the wrong time? For people who aren't schizo, it's easy enough to say "just go along with what they say or you will die", but there will always be people who are not capable of doing that. Does that mean they should die, even without proof of wrongdoing? Or are you suggesting that non-conformance to the idea of a "normal" person is enough wrongdoing to constitute death without trial? It's impossible to prove, but I bet that if he was clean-shaven and wearing a shirt, he would be alive today.
Java is not dead. Maybe it's not the hip language anymore, but it definitely is not dead.
Just like COBOL is not dead. Sure, it's not the hip language, but so many legacy systems are built on it that it's basically guaranteed to live for quite a while longer. I suspect Java will have the same fate.
Right. The whole subject is junk. Just look at TFS:
New evidence always seems to emerge to support or refute such a link.
Ok. So there's 2 options: support, refute. But then:
This marks the 3rd study this month and the 4th major one this year, all with different conclusions
If each has different results, then we have:
inconclusive (not one of two possible outcomes stated)
I disagree.
There are quite a few situations where the bloat of Java doesn't fit. One of those is writing operating systems and drivers. Another is writing games. Sure, there are a few games here and there (Altitude, Minecraft) written with Java; however, a significantly greater number of games are written in C++.
It's kind of like Lua vs Python. When you need a huge set of libraries built into the language's standard library, go with Python. When you don't need all that bloat, use Lua.
They would make far less money that way...
That's part of the fun of saying it :)
I can only imagine what would happen if he were to get up on stage and start speaking about security practices..
That's just the thing. Security isn't his specialty, or the specialty of most of the "security" industry. They deal in exploits and writing trojans.
Think of them like you think of the US Department of Defense. Again, dealing with the complete opposite of what the name implies.