The reason the guy doesn't want the email to leak is because it deals with an ongoing tender. Which he lost, but if you know companies like that, they're not going to take it lying down.
They could have broken privacy laws with this but if they didn't: what if, based on the evidence that they had, they just simply thought the boy was being a major asswipe? There is no *obligation* to use Skype, right?
Hardly. I'm not from the US, but I feel very much te same about Iran. I also say: let 'm drown. They run a pretend democracy that still have at least half of the population keep the current set of fear-driven, fear-mongering elite in charge, They simply cannot be persuaded to not fund and otherwise stimulate all sorts of terror groups that do all sorts of stupid and dangerous shiat all over the world. They purposely suppress women and gays. They do all that and still keep expecting to be treated with respect. I say: let 'em go under good this time. Relativism with respect to what the US does *is* apples and oranges.
He was also in a pressure suit the severely limited his motion. Maybe he was just too busy to talk, trying to figure out how to get certain things done.
Other cellphone makers are leaving a lot of 'easy' niches open IMHO: - You need a shop in high street. Android is too generic, Samsung is too much of everything else (TV's and stuff) - Nokia could have an 'Apple store' and get away with it. - You need security and robustness. Smartphones are moving from a hipster-thing to a commodity right now, so it's time you start addressing companies to use smartphones for company uses. And then I mean properly - with security inside the phone, bigger batteries and compatibility with office tools. Huge market. - Stop doing everything that's irritating about Apple: no app-store, no iTunes obligation, no stupid connectors, no wrong way to hold it. No selling your soul to placate His Steveness. Emphasize it. Android does that, but not enough - it has no commercial incentive: make sure that hipsters are on the defensive - it's easy: they're hipsters.
Because 'assuming that the universe is really a simulation' is being paranoid (and thoroughly so). And paranoia is a function of our biology. Something to do with predators, you should look it up.
You write it up as if it were somehow ridiculous and beyond the realm of the possible. But I wouldn't put it past a US court at all. 'Child endangerment' an' all that.
Yes it is. Because inverse NAT requires you to specify where to send the traffic *to*. I'm a great proponent of IPv6 myself, but this argument of the IETF is bogus. Besides, 'centrally administered firewall' on each machine ? I think I see a flaw in your method.
Yes, it was obviously a joke. But then again, a) people have a right to take what is a joke, as not a joke, especially when that person has their finger potentially on the button (see also: Ronald Reagan we start bombing in fifteen minutes), and b) the comment was made on a superfluous, digital medium, not on a fully notarized official press-release, giving it somewhat the same level of seriousness.
The 'intervention' criterium I can get along with - it means you're going out of your way to do something that can be interpreted as facilitating illegal activity. The other two criteria, however, I think are bogus: 'new audience' - this is about news, new audience is what it is supposed to do, and 'profit' is senseless as an argument. Typical Dutch aversion to capitalism.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason the guy doesn't want the email to leak is because it deals with an ongoing tender. Which he lost, but if you know companies like that, they're not going to take it lying down.
Someone with a name like that, is bound to be awesome!
They could have broken privacy laws with this but if they didn't: what if, based on the evidence that they had, they just simply thought the boy was being a major asswipe? There is no *obligation* to use Skype, right?
Seriously, it does.
We've been saying this for years, but then again - our company makes data diodes.
Hardly. I'm not from the US, but I feel very much te same about Iran. I also say: let 'm drown. They run a pretend democracy that still have at least half of the population keep the current set of fear-driven, fear-mongering elite in charge, They simply cannot be persuaded to not fund and otherwise stimulate all sorts of terror groups that do all sorts of stupid and dangerous shiat all over the world. They purposely suppress women and gays. They do all that and still keep expecting to be treated with respect. I say: let 'em go under good this time. Relativism with respect to what the US does *is* apples and oranges.
Did you mount it with noatime and nodiratime ?
'Protests' or whatever you call them, didn't just occur in Lybia and/or Egypt.
Spinoza made a compelling case for 'nature' /being/ 'god', so I don't see how the two were any different. No need for a separate definition.
He was also in a pressure suit the severely limited his motion. Maybe he was just too busy to talk, trying to figure out how to get certain things done.
Other cellphone makers are leaving a lot of 'easy' niches open IMHO:
- You need a shop in high street. Android is too generic, Samsung is too much of everything else (TV's and stuff) - Nokia could have an 'Apple store' and get away with it.
- You need security and robustness. Smartphones are moving from a hipster-thing to a commodity right now, so it's time you start addressing companies to use smartphones for company uses. And then I mean properly - with security inside the phone, bigger batteries and compatibility with office tools. Huge market.
- Stop doing everything that's irritating about Apple: no app-store, no iTunes obligation, no stupid connectors, no wrong way to hold it. No selling your soul to placate His Steveness. Emphasize it. Android does that, but not enough - it has no commercial incentive: make sure that hipsters are on the defensive - it's easy: they're hipsters.
Because 'assuming that the universe is really a simulation' is being paranoid (and thoroughly so). And paranoia is a function of our biology. Something to do with predators, you should look it up.
And use kubuntu instead!
No *you* lie! Posting on Slashdot and maintaining that you have a wife. And having sex with her and everything! Tss.
You must be really popular.
Why are you in support?
You don't use it as fertilizer over plants that have already sprouted; you plow it into the earth.
How is 60GHz going to reach any relevant distance at all without frying my brain at the same time?
What vanity.
You write it up as if it were somehow ridiculous and beyond the realm of the possible. But I wouldn't put it past a US court at all. 'Child endangerment' an' all that.
Besides that, NAT *is* effectively a security measure - it masks your source address. It's like half-tunnel mode.
Your argument is all about the lack of bits in an IPv4 address, not about NAT per se.
Yes it is. Because inverse NAT requires you to specify where to send the traffic *to*. I'm a great proponent of IPv6 myself, but this argument of the IETF is bogus. Besides, 'centrally administered firewall' on each machine ? I think I see a flaw in your method.
Yes, it was obviously a joke. But then again, a) people have a right to take what is a joke, as not a joke, especially when that person has their finger potentially on the button (see also: Ronald Reagan we start bombing in fifteen minutes), and b) the comment was made on a superfluous, digital medium, not on a fully notarized official press-release, giving it somewhat the same level of seriousness.
The 'intervention' criterium I can get along with - it means you're going out of your way to do something that can be interpreted as facilitating illegal activity. The other two criteria, however, I think are bogus: 'new audience' - this is about news, new audience is what it is supposed to do, and 'profit' is senseless as an argument. Typical Dutch aversion to capitalism.