That's not fair, computers back then were still being programmed by flipping light bulbs on and off. They were barely more than university science experiments.
You're dead on about the telecom company though (that's right, there was only one of them).
like potatoes or buggy whips.
Fun fact: more buggy whips are sold today than there were in the 1800's (you can find a buggy whip maker in just about any major city).
Actually, I would consider being able to read as the criteria for "literacy".
But at what reading level should you be considered "literate"? While 99% of American adults can read something (making them technically literate), it is estimated that 20% of them are functionally illiterate - that is they can read less than about 2,000 words.
This makes reading things like warning labels and food ingredient lists virtually impossible, since the vast majority of those 2,000 words (or less) come from those "See spot run" sight reading books. People with less than a 2,000 word reading vocabulary cannot even read a newspaper. I would personally consider a newspaper at the very low end of the reading spectrum, you only need 10,000 or so words to read it, which would make a good minimum if we could rely on them to stick around for the next hundred years.
Children are not taught phonics, and while the majority of children can pick up on the phonetic meaning of the letters in each word, there is a large percentage that does not, and they receive zero assistance to correct the problem. They are simply pushed through the school system and left to fend for themselves.
I don't know if it is getting ridiculous as much as the law itself is just confusing and unclear.
It doesn't need to be, the original laws on the subject were pretty easy to understand, and pretty reasonable. Each time they revise it though it just gets worse and worse.
I really wish people would stop using the term "Photoshopping".
But they actually used Photoshop, it's in teh EXIF data, so "Photoshopping" is very appropriate. The vast majority of such editing jobs are done in Photoshop as well, so the term almost always applies. The other imaging tools are chump change compare to the big P.S.
Or are you against using brands when they are appropriate?
But why so little mention of Halliburton (= big American corporation) who were actually responsible for the drilling site?
Halliburton wasn't responsible for the drilling site, TransOcean was. Halliburton was responsible for the Blowout Preventor that failed.
Anyway you answered your own question, Halliburton is an American company, and going after TransOcean (a Swiss company) wold open it up to Halliburton, so they obviously have to be the victims here! It had to be BP that commanded them not to fully test the BOP after the MMS signed off on the tests as completed. Don't get mad at MMS though! They only signed off on the tests as complete because Halliburton/TransOcean promised that they would finish them! The US government is the victim here too! How the hell were they supposed to know that BP would force the other two fine, upstanding American and Swiss companies to not finish the testing after the MMS signed off on it?
Clearly BP was behind all of it, and should bear 100% of the responsibility (even though 25% of the well is owned by Anadarko - another American company).
You don't complain about it with computers, why the hell are you complaining about it with cameras?
Or do you complain about the fact that if you remove and replace the CMOS battery your bios will invariably be set to some pint in the 1990's or something?
The first photo had some easy to spot glitches and EXIF data that indicated the photo was nine years old.
And, according to the same EXIF data, it was taken with camera that is only 3 years old, which means BP has time travel technology and could have prevented the whole thing in the first place! Instead they chose to WASTE it by going back in time to snap a photo, and then photo-shopping it in the present.
In case you didn't get it, I'm calling you an idiot. If you let a camera run out of battery power it will usually reset to an old date. Since nobody really cares about such dates, people often don't bother to change it.
I disagree. It's clearly a half-assed (no pun intended) job of lube application, so they obviously aren't all that interested in the dolphins.
If they were serious they'd be using the more expensive "top lube" penetration preparation technique whereby they capture the dolphins and use a targeted application of lube directly in and around the blowhole. It really isn't all that much more expensive considering they will need to capture the dolphins at some point anyway, which is further evidence that their heart really isn't into the whole "dolphin rape" thing.
Now, a wide lube dispersal job is the most effective method of lubing up smaller fish, like various types of sardines, so take from that what you will.
He forgot to add "so far" to the end of it, that's all.
It's like that day you have that is absolutely, unequivocally the worsts day in your life. Later, you may realize that's it's only the worst day in your life so far.
You don't even want to know the body count of the "Putting some burgers on the grill" ceremony. It's abominable.
The actual count for that ceremony is much smaller than the "Going out to Hooters with the guys for beers and wings" ritual, but they are much, much bigger animals being sacrificed.
Unfortunately, the major vendors will be violently against such a thing, so it's something the researchers themselves will have to implement. In doing so they'll probably lose friendly relations with major vendors - and by "lose friendly relations" I mean be slandered constantly.
It's not like one guy wrote Windows - there are teams and teams of engineers. Microsoft employs thousands of them - there were about 1000 who wrote Windows 7, for example. Each part of the operating system is divided up into manageable components. Each of those components is divided into manageable parts, and each of those parts is divided into manageable functions, on down until you have a handful of engineers responsible for one small section of the OS.
When a vulnerability is disclosed, the white-hat researchers have already found the exact code that needs fixing, all you have to do is hand it to the group responsible for that section and say "fix it".
If it involves several groups, then the groups have to work together. They had to work together to build the thing, so it's nothing new for them. I really can't imagine any one vulnerability in Windows that would require more than 60 days to fix - that's a long time to deal with this sort of thing, and they have more than enough people to do the job. The only thing that should take that long is something that requires a fundamental change to the core of the OS, and thus requires large scale integration and testing before it can be released. There are very, very, very few issues like that that come along. Even then, there is usually a temporary patch you can come up with until you have time to work the real fix into a service pack or other major update.
It's a lot better than the 720 day upper bound* that Microsoft uses, though.
* I don't actually think they have an "upper bound" that starts from when they discover the vulnerability. The clock for the upper bound doesn't seem to start until the vulnerability is publicly disclosed. I'm sure the only reason that 720 day old high-severity vulnerability was fixed was because some Microsoft was bored that day.
He actually gave his reasons for disclosure in the disclosure itself.
Hcp vulnerabilities are a well known attack vector for Windows, and given that the specific vulnerability he found has existed in Windows XP for 9 years, he felt it was very likely that black hats had found the same technique and as such there was a very high likelihood that it was being actively exploited in the wild. I'm sure the ease with which it can be executed factored in as well - it's literally just a one-line hcp url with execution code in it. Therefore, he felt full disclosure so security professionals could begin mitigating the issue (i.e. disable help center) was more important than giving Microsoft ample time to fix the problem.
Personally, I agree. Microsoft has a history of sitting on high-severity vulnerabilities for years if they aren't disclosed publicly, and this was an extremely easy to execute exploit. The prudent course here was to get the information out ASAP, with little more than a courtesy call to Microsoft before he did.
Yeah, those are extremely low output. It would probably be a lot more descriptive to call them "radiation batteries" instead of "nuclear" (though "nuclear" is not incorrect, it's just not fission or fusion power).
They last forever, but you'd be lucky if you could start your car with one, let alone drive it on a nuclear battery.
Ya know, you had me there for a while--right up to your sig. Now I just figure you're another Libertarian nutcase, "the autistics of politics."
In other words "You know, your ideas about energy are wonderful, but I must assume they are terrible because you have a different political ideology than me."
Thanks for pointing out for the world to see just how big a fucking moron you are.
It would be like the world in "The Invention of Lying" where every film is just some guy reading passages in history books.
Journalists aren't supposed to be writers of fiction.
They tend to fudge that, though, which is probably why a lot of people aren't paying attention any more. It's just another form of entertainment now, there is little that is pertinent, and if it is pertinent, you can't tell what's real because the story is so heavily biased by the journalist's personal views.
A journalist of integrity should be digging up all relevant parts of a story, yet they rarely - if ever - do.
Slashdot Mirror
...in 1955? How about computers?
That's not fair, computers back then were still being programmed by flipping light bulbs on and off. They were barely more than university science experiments.
You're dead on about the telecom company though (that's right, there was only one of them).
like potatoes or buggy whips.
Fun fact: more buggy whips are sold today than there were in the 1800's (you can find a buggy whip maker in just about any major city).
Actually, I would consider being able to read as the criteria for "literacy".
But at what reading level should you be considered "literate"? While 99% of American adults can read something (making them technically literate), it is estimated that 20% of them are functionally illiterate - that is they can read less than about 2,000 words.
This makes reading things like warning labels and food ingredient lists virtually impossible, since the vast majority of those 2,000 words (or less) come from those "See spot run" sight reading books. People with less than a 2,000 word reading vocabulary cannot even read a newspaper. I would personally consider a newspaper at the very low end of the reading spectrum, you only need 10,000 or so words to read it, which would make a good minimum if we could rely on them to stick around for the next hundred years.
Children are not taught phonics, and while the majority of children can pick up on the phonetic meaning of the letters in each word, there is a large percentage that does not, and they receive zero assistance to correct the problem. They are simply pushed through the school system and left to fend for themselves.
I don't know if it is getting ridiculous as much as the law itself is just confusing and unclear.
It doesn't need to be, the original laws on the subject were pretty easy to understand, and pretty reasonable. Each time they revise it though it just gets worse and worse.
This is getting really frickin ridiculous.
They are being sued for not blocking copyrighted data, and then sued for holding a copy in their filter so that they can block further copies? WTF?
What do you even say to that kind of idiot?
I really wish people would stop using the term "Photoshopping".
But they actually used Photoshop, it's in teh EXIF data, so "Photoshopping" is very appropriate. The vast majority of such editing jobs are done in Photoshop as well, so the term almost always applies. The other imaging tools are chump change compare to the big P.S.
Or are you against using brands when they are appropriate?
But why so little mention of Halliburton (= big American corporation) who were actually responsible for the drilling site?
Halliburton wasn't responsible for the drilling site, TransOcean was. Halliburton was responsible for the Blowout Preventor that failed.
Anyway you answered your own question, Halliburton is an American company, and going after TransOcean (a Swiss company) wold open it up to Halliburton, so they obviously have to be the victims here! It had to be BP that commanded them not to fully test the BOP after the MMS signed off on the tests as completed. Don't get mad at MMS though! They only signed off on the tests as complete because Halliburton/TransOcean promised that they would finish them! The US government is the victim here too! How the hell were they supposed to know that BP would force the other two fine, upstanding American and Swiss companies to not finish the testing after the MMS signed off on it?
Clearly BP was behind all of it, and should bear 100% of the responsibility (even though 25% of the well is owned by Anadarko - another American company).
You don't complain about it with computers, why the hell are you complaining about it with cameras?
Or do you complain about the fact that if you remove and replace the CMOS battery your bios will invariably be set to some pint in the 1990's or something?
That's because they filmed it all on location.
Now that's brilliant! What better place to fake a moon landing than on the moon itself!
You sir have exposed the truth once and for all! You're my hero.
The first photo had some easy to spot glitches and EXIF data that indicated the photo was nine years old.
And, according to the same EXIF data, it was taken with camera that is only 3 years old, which means BP has time travel technology and could have prevented the whole thing in the first place! Instead they chose to WASTE it by going back in time to snap a photo, and then photo-shopping it in the present.
In case you didn't get it, I'm calling you an idiot. If you let a camera run out of battery power it will usually reset to an old date. Since nobody really cares about such dates, people often don't bother to change it.
kthxbye!
That was debunked in the comments.
I disagree. It's clearly a half-assed (no pun intended) job of lube application, so they obviously aren't all that interested in the dolphins.
If they were serious they'd be using the more expensive "top lube" penetration preparation technique whereby they capture the dolphins and use a targeted application of lube directly in and around the blowhole. It really isn't all that much more expensive considering they will need to capture the dolphins at some point anyway, which is further evidence that their heart really isn't into the whole "dolphin rape" thing.
Now, a wide lube dispersal job is the most effective method of lubing up smaller fish, like various types of sardines, so take from that what you will.
He forgot to add "so far" to the end of it, that's all.
It's like that day you have that is absolutely, unequivocally the worsts day in your life. Later, you may realize that's it's only the worst day in your life so far.
Isn't that a happy feeling!
You don't even want to know the body count of the "Putting some burgers on the grill" ceremony. It's abominable.
The actual count for that ceremony is much smaller than the "Going out to Hooters with the guys for beers and wings" ritual, but they are much, much bigger animals being sacrificed.
I don't know if that makes it better or worse.
Proper makeup application enhances beauty, it doesn't attempt to replace it.
Yeah, but a 0 on the beauty scale enhanced to be 10x more "beautiful" is still a 0.
What are you supposed to do then? Just cover it up completely! Most any woman could probably get to 1 or 2 status that way.
Well, since he posted 5 days later, it sounds like that's exactly what he did.
Unfortunately, the major vendors will be violently against such a thing, so it's something the researchers themselves will have to implement. In doing so they'll probably lose friendly relations with major vendors - and by "lose friendly relations" I mean be slandered constantly.
I think it would be worth it though.
I disagree.
It's not like one guy wrote Windows - there are teams and teams of engineers. Microsoft employs thousands of them - there were about 1000 who wrote Windows 7, for example. Each part of the operating system is divided up into manageable components. Each of those components is divided into manageable parts, and each of those parts is divided into manageable functions, on down until you have a handful of engineers responsible for one small section of the OS.
When a vulnerability is disclosed, the white-hat researchers have already found the exact code that needs fixing, all you have to do is hand it to the group responsible for that section and say "fix it".
If it involves several groups, then the groups have to work together. They had to work together to build the thing, so it's nothing new for them. I really can't imagine any one vulnerability in Windows that would require more than 60 days to fix - that's a long time to deal with this sort of thing, and they have more than enough people to do the job. The only thing that should take that long is something that requires a fundamental change to the core of the OS, and thus requires large scale integration and testing before it can be released. There are very, very, very few issues like that that come along. Even then, there is usually a temporary patch you can come up with until you have time to work the real fix into a service pack or other major update.
It's a lot better than the 720 day upper bound* that Microsoft uses, though.
* I don't actually think they have an "upper bound" that starts from when they discover the vulnerability. The clock for the upper bound doesn't seem to start until the vulnerability is publicly disclosed. I'm sure the only reason that 720 day old high-severity vulnerability was fixed was because some Microsoft was bored that day.
He actually gave his reasons for disclosure in the disclosure itself.
Hcp vulnerabilities are a well known attack vector for Windows, and given that the specific vulnerability he found has existed in Windows XP for 9 years, he felt it was very likely that black hats had found the same technique and as such there was a very high likelihood that it was being actively exploited in the wild. I'm sure the ease with which it can be executed factored in as well - it's literally just a one-line hcp url with execution code in it. Therefore, he felt full disclosure so security professionals could begin mitigating the issue (i.e. disable help center) was more important than giving Microsoft ample time to fix the problem.
Personally, I agree. Microsoft has a history of sitting on high-severity vulnerabilities for years if they aren't disclosed publicly, and this was an extremely easy to execute exploit. The prudent course here was to get the information out ASAP, with little more than a courtesy call to Microsoft before he did.
Open-source voice recognition is in really infant stages
It's a very old infant, too. :/
Your best bet for text to speech is to use Google's TTS services - they are impressively accurate (though still nowhere near perfect).
If it's going to be cutting out a lot of time, it may be worth buying a commercial product.
Yeah, those are extremely low output. It would probably be a lot more descriptive to call them "radiation batteries" instead of "nuclear" (though "nuclear" is not incorrect, it's just not fission or fusion power).
They last forever, but you'd be lucky if you could start your car with one, let alone drive it on a nuclear battery.
And the original post had absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism. Not in any way, shape, or form.
So why the hell is anybody arguing about it?
Ya know, you had me there for a while--right up to your sig. Now I just figure you're another Libertarian nutcase, "the autistics of politics."
In other words "You know, your ideas about energy are wonderful, but I must assume they are terrible because you have a different political ideology than me."
Thanks for pointing out for the world to see just how big a fucking moron you are.
It would be like the world in "The Invention of Lying" where every film is just some guy reading passages in history books.
Journalists aren't supposed to be writers of fiction.
They tend to fudge that, though, which is probably why a lot of people aren't paying attention any more. It's just another form of entertainment now, there is little that is pertinent, and if it is pertinent, you can't tell what's real because the story is so heavily biased by the journalist's personal views.
A journalist of integrity should be digging up all relevant parts of a story, yet they rarely - if ever - do.
Editorializing news makes it less useful. Period.
Yeah, it's really more like tubes filled with trucks, with stop lights and roundabouts all over the place!