That's the key. The lady signed up to Myspace with the intent to torture the girl. I'm willing to bet quite a few parents pulled their kids off Myspace because of this, resulting in less ad views, resulting in financial harm.
Isn't it amazing that they couldn't exploit a Vista box with stock software, but they could do the Mac? It required them to install 3rd party software (Although extremely common 3rd party software, to be fair).
Security through obscurity is dead.
Of course you would make it different. Of course, you also have absolutely no clue about anything on a bomb except what you learned from playing CS, so I'm not exactly sure your opinion means much, but thanks for sharing it.
Only if we decide we care about curing this in the third world. I don't say this from a personal standpoint, but from the politician's standpoint. People in the third world dying off is a good thing, in that they don't take resources from other people there. There is no advantage gained in saving them all, and a big advantage gained in letting them die off.
Again, not my beliefs, but I guarantee you it's the beliefs of those in power.
Same as mine. We were the first people on the block to have one, so all Christmas and every Friday night after everyone was at our house, drinking beers and playing Duck Hunt.
Partially. However, remember, they DO have to be friendly about it. If not, they run the risk of people jumping ship to some other ISP who isn't doing the filtering. It has to be shown off in a way that will get parents to be ok with it, to get the uneducated to be ok with it, and to get old people to be ok with it. Until it can do that, it will appear a bogeyman. They (ISPs in general) have to find a way so that they look like the GOOD guys in all of this.
Looks like I'll be cancelling my Netflix account for awhile then. Once again, it proves that companies make it easier to just pirate stuff than it is to try and legally pay for it.
Why should they have to be? If they want to leave it as a buggy interface that doesn't work with everything, that's their decision. There is no reason for a governmental agency to step in to argue with a private business about a non-critical sector to public defense or safety. Why is some 1% Browser getting to use a government agency to help make up the fact that their browser isn't liked by the common people?
especially considering how well Sony offered complete backward compatibility so perfectly on the PS2. Nowadays, it's lost so much relevence that the "feature" is almost non-existent on the PS3 and exists only an incrimental add-on for the most mediocre of titles on the 360. (Legal issues on who owns what on the original Xbox's hardware, not withstanding...)
To be fair, complaining about the Playstation backwards compatibility, and comparing it next to the Xbox, isn't a fair fight. The Xbox doesn't even come close, especially if you look at the generation 1 PS3's (60 gig, with hardware based emulation).
While 20% is definitely a high enough number to worry with, consider other options. You can design for XP, which then runs on Vista just fine. Or you can design for Vista, which won't work on the XP system.
Those numbers in a vacuum don't mean anything though. What was the upgrade rate from ME/2k to XP? Also, I don't know whether they do or not, but if they're complaining about developing only for Vista, I sure hope they don't have anything that is *nix/Mac compatible, as Vista easily beat every flavor of those.
The fact they couldn't predict that the general public didn't want to lose access to information is astounding. There is no greater way to make someone want something than to restrict it.
That I think is the biggest point. This appears to be another case of Johnny come lately's mad that they didn't do something first. "We know you figured it out, and created it all. But... uh... give us it anyways!"
The way it works is kind of odd. Each ticket stands on it's own as a 50/50 chance. So, each ticket is considered seperatly, such that if one ticket loses, the next ticket does not have a "better" chance to win. However, for you the player, you're increasing your odds of winning in general by buying more tickets. The trick to figuring this out is looking at your chances of LOSING. I know, sounds dumb. But you have a 50% chance of winning or losing per ticket, right? So that's.5 chance. Now, your chance of losing twice in a row is.5 *.5, or.25. Which means your chance of winning at least once between your two tickets is.75, or 75%. If three tickets, it becomes.5 *.5 *.5, and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the key. The lady signed up to Myspace with the intent to torture the girl. I'm willing to bet quite a few parents pulled their kids off Myspace because of this, resulting in less ad views, resulting in financial harm.
Eh
Yes, let's do our absolute best to not advance technology. Let's make it criminal to think as fast as possible!
But will it blend?
The first two days did exactly this. On the third day, they brought in the 3rd party apps.
Isn't it amazing that they couldn't exploit a Vista box with stock software, but they could do the Mac? It required them to install 3rd party software (Although extremely common 3rd party software, to be fair). Security through obscurity is dead.
Of course you would make it different. Of course, you also have absolutely no clue about anything on a bomb except what you learned from playing CS, so I'm not exactly sure your opinion means much, but thanks for sharing it.
Only if we decide we care about curing this in the third world. I don't say this from a personal standpoint, but from the politician's standpoint. People in the third world dying off is a good thing, in that they don't take resources from other people there. There is no advantage gained in saving them all, and a big advantage gained in letting them die off. Again, not my beliefs, but I guarantee you it's the beliefs of those in power.
It's ugly and weird and scary :(
Same as mine. We were the first people on the block to have one, so all Christmas and every Friday night after everyone was at our house, drinking beers and playing Duck Hunt.
Partially. However, remember, they DO have to be friendly about it. If not, they run the risk of people jumping ship to some other ISP who isn't doing the filtering. It has to be shown off in a way that will get parents to be ok with it, to get the uneducated to be ok with it, and to get old people to be ok with it. Until it can do that, it will appear a bogeyman. They (ISPs in general) have to find a way so that they look like the GOOD guys in all of this.
Do you get bonus points if you find the dolphins? And where the hell is the end of it all, I want a sammich.
Looks like I'll be cancelling my Netflix account for awhile then. Once again, it proves that companies make it easier to just pirate stuff than it is to try and legally pay for it.
So it's a way of getting the nitty-gritty of issues, which won't be shown to Joe Average, who wouldn't have a clue what it was anyways? Cool.
Why should they have to be? If they want to leave it as a buggy interface that doesn't work with everything, that's their decision. There is no reason for a governmental agency to step in to argue with a private business about a non-critical sector to public defense or safety. Why is some 1% Browser getting to use a government agency to help make up the fact that their browser isn't liked by the common people?
Yes yes, news that a sequel to a huge well selling franchise might be coming. Obvious cat is obvious!
While 20% is definitely a high enough number to worry with, consider other options. You can design for XP, which then runs on Vista just fine. Or you can design for Vista, which won't work on the XP system.
Those numbers in a vacuum don't mean anything though. What was the upgrade rate from ME/2k to XP? Also, I don't know whether they do or not, but if they're complaining about developing only for Vista, I sure hope they don't have anything that is *nix/Mac compatible, as Vista easily beat every flavor of those.
The fact they couldn't predict that the general public didn't want to lose access to information is astounding. There is no greater way to make someone want something than to restrict it.
That I think is the biggest point. This appears to be another case of Johnny come lately's mad that they didn't do something first. "We know you figured it out, and created it all. But... uh... give us it anyways!"
The way it works is kind of odd. Each ticket stands on it's own as a 50/50 chance. So, each ticket is considered seperatly, such that if one ticket loses, the next ticket does not have a "better" chance to win. However, for you the player, you're increasing your odds of winning in general by buying more tickets. The trick to figuring this out is looking at your chances of LOSING. I know, sounds dumb. But you have a 50% chance of winning or losing per ticket, right? So that's .5 chance. Now, your chance of losing twice in a row is .5 * .5, or .25. Which means your chance of winning at least once between your two tickets is .75, or 75%. If three tickets, it becomes .5 * .5 * .5, and so on.