can't count how many times I've bounced between different options 2 or 3 levels down and had to start over b/c my mouse moved a few pixels the wrong way.
And there lays your problem. And the problem with Windows UIs since XP. W2K's menu was the pinnacle for keyboard-navigation orientated people like me: Ctrl+ESC (Open Start menu) -> (P)rograms -> (T)ools -> (<First character of program in "Tools" I wish to launch>). That sounds more complicate and time consuming than it is in practice. It's done in less than 2-3 seconds. And tose are only the programs I use from time to time. The "needed on a daily basis" ones have a shortcut on the desktop with assigned keyboard shortcuts (CTRL+ALT+P for Command Prompt, i.e.), which is even faster.
A launcher that forces me to use a mouse (Win7, I'm looking at you and yeah - Classic Shell to the rescue!), is forcing me to waste my time with it. Nothing to be proud of, if you ask me.
The point of the competition is that you show up with your exploit, and run it.
This article linked in another post above disagrees:
Miller, a Pwn2Own regular who makes headlines every year for his work breaking into fully patched Mac OS X machines, says he is skipping the contest this year because of the new rules that require on-the-spot writing of exploits.
This this is science. We have skeptics who questioned the initial results.
You left out an important part. Something which makes it true scientific behaviour: The publishers themselves were the first skeptics. They basically said "Here's what we've got, this doesn't look right for all what we know, please help us to discover where we were wrong. In the meantime we'll do further tests so that we all have more material to look at."
Freedom of speech is a human right. From a moral standpoint, jurisdiction is irrelevant: Europeans have as much right to free speech as Americans do, even if the law doesn't recognize it.
Privacy is a human right. From a moral standpoint, jurisdiction is irrelevant: Americans have as much right to privacy as Europeans do, even if the law doesn't recognize it.
This is one good reason to just not put up information to these sites.
The problem is more about information about me put up by other people without my (written) consent. And it doesn't have to be "something stupid". Some people like me simply enjoy privacy. So even a very innocent picture of me about - say, a walk in the park, is something I don't want to see published by someone else.
Now go and convince the shareholders of that, since Apple as a publicly traded company ONLY has a responsibility to them. [...]
Done. I am convinced. Now let Apple do their part.
Please stop wielding this "think of the shareholders - they won't allow it" nonsense all the time. Just because I hold a few Apple/GM/McDOnald/whatever shares doesn't mean I'm stupid, blind and unethical. I'm looking for decent investments, but that doesn't mean that I feel the need to squeeze out even the last cent from it. And I bet a lot of other "shareholders" (=people like you and me who hold small stocks) will agree with me on this.
"Teh ebil shareholders" is as much a cheap excuse as "teh ebil pirates" for the content mafia.
You may not have been steamrolled, but you're there to make the experience enjoyable for someone who bought their tank
Hmm, most of the time I feel it's the opposite way. As soon as a gold tank shows up, everyone goes "Let's kill that (insert gold tank name here)".
I think WoT is a very good example of F2P done right. It's fun for both types of players and just because someone wields his wallet around, it doesn't make him a winner automatically.
However, even in the extreme case of Luxembourg, the weight of the voter compared to the european average is 10.86x (last election), not over a thousand votes as you state.
You're right, my memory failed me terribad. However Luxembourg:Germany is 5:99 citizens per seat: Seats per inhabitants (German). The point is that it's a compromise, one you can agree with or not, but it violates basic democratic rules, IMHO.
The European Parliament was also democratically elected, by the same citizens, at a European level.
Elected? Yes. Democratically? That depends. A few basic requirements for being a real democratic election don't apply to EU Parliament elections. One of those basics is 1 man = 1 vote, which has two implications: First, no one has more than one vote in the election and second each vote weighs the same. The later isn't the case in the EU. A vote from Luxembourg is worth more than 1,000 votes from France, U.K. or Germany, for example, due to the way the countries are represented within the parliament (number of seats).
If you don't want women to wear a burqua, simple enough, convince them.
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. This has nothing to do with conviction/belief, but with too many girls and women forced to wear the burka by their (male) family (members). They get killed for not obeying to their demands. This is to protect those girls and women who want to execute their freedom rights.
In certain aspects he acted indeed very progressive. But not because he was open-minded, but because a) he need to do so in order for his war plans to work out and b) in pure revenge and retaliation of what he thought was unfair treatment of "those up there" of him.
A few progressive points of top of my head:
High ranking jobs in administration and military were reserved for upper class citizens and nobles. Hitler changed that so that no longer birth was the required in order to get promoted but actual qualification. He did so because he could never become an officer in the WW I Reichswehr.
(Equal) Jobs for women. Because he needed the men at the front, women took over jobs at home, even those with responsibility involved - something that was a pure male domain before him.
Higher pay for overtime, night shifts, work on bank holidays. He needed the war industry to run around the clock in order to fullfill the Wehrmacht's supply/replacement needs. Paying overtime made sure people would work night shifts.
Let me stress again that this was not because he was a progressive. But the actions themselves do qualify as being progressive. And I'm very glad that his "plan" didn't work out.
In the same way that U.S. authorities enforced the warrant against MegaUpload (HK based company, owned by german-finnish citizen currently residing in NZ...): Uni-, bi-, multiliteral contracts, I guess.
But I fear for our good-but-still-not-enough german laws. I'll bet they'll be watered down to a great degree.
And this is how science is supposed to work: have facts, formulate theory that matches facts. If facts change, adjust theory to new facts. That's what a scientist will do and that's what he asks for from his peers by submitting his findings to the scientific community (see those "faster-than-light" neutrinos, for example). A scientist will change his mind if evidence says so (earth seems not to be the center), whereas people with a political agenda insist on their long time opinion (church: earth must be the center).
I'm 52 years old, since I was a kid I've been hearing predictions [...] of the earth getting much colder;
Here's a nice article from one of the authors of that infamous 70's Global Cooling Study, that was mentioned all over the press.
Let me quote a very insightful paragraph from that article:
Ironically, inside the scientific world, this switch of sign of projected effects is viewed as precisely what responsible scientists must do when the facts change. Not only did I change my mind, but published almost immediately what had changed and how that played out over time. Scientists have no crystal ball, but we do have modeling methods that are the closest approximation available. They can't give us truth, but they can tell us the logical consequences of explicit assumptions. Those who update their conclusions explicitly as facts evolve are much more likely to be a credible source than those who stick to old stories for political consistency. Two cheers for the scientific method!
Basically, he's a wannabe-hacker who knows how to play the media in his favour, but everyone I know who knows anything about computers finds him a piece of disgusting trash. He's a scammer, a con man, a career criminal. If you told me anything he so much as touched is legit, I'd want a full forensic examination to make sure.
So much this!
Kim(ble) is a convicted crook. Whatever one might think about the Megaupload case itself, taking Kim out of business is a service to mankind, IMHO.
Metrics aren't bad in themselves, but bad metrics are terrible.
Metrics are bad, because there always will be at least one person who tries to gamble the system. So the manager needs to put some effort into finding out if and how people try to gamble the system. That's a lot wasted time the manager could use to do important stuff. Or the manager doesn't care about gambling the metrics system... which leads either to honest devs becoming demotivated and leaving the company or every dev starting to gamble the system. That's because we're humans
Metrics are good when used for measuring (the work of) machines.
Why? Because it was a similar thing back then. "Copy Protection" that didn't let you make a backup of your disks (or HD install it).
For such floppy disks, VGACopy was the tool of choice. It copied disc sectors, not files and it didn't bail out when it encountered a "bad block" or an "oversized disk" or other "errors" that were introduced as copy protection schemes.
Besides that, it was also a useful disk copying tool, as it allowed for copying floppy disks in one go, whereas the built-on DOS tools forced you to swap source and destination disk 2-3 times during the copy process.
We need copyright reform, and hopefully the pirate parties draw attention to that fact. But copyright abolition is a cure worse than the disease.
There were two (german) articles (and a book) about copyright in Europe and Germany's development from a basically all agricultural country to one of Europe's leading industrial nations in the early 1900s. it compares the U.K. and Germany in terms of copyright laws from 17something on, a time where the U.K. already had a copyright law, Germany not.
This period correlates with rampant "pirating" of all things printed in Germany. Publishers copied any book they could get hold of and reprinted (=sold) it themselves. That lead to a) very low book prices, which in turn made those books available and affordable for the masses and b) led to an explosion in inventions inspired by those books by people that otherwise would never have thought of inventing anything at all. People, that never had the chance (and money) to visit a university. A bunch of autodidacts, if you will.
So it really stands to question if the cure is worse. The book/those articles suggest the opposite.
If I hire you to write a closed-source program for me, and you write the program but then release the source code, even if there's no copyright law making this specifically illegal, you've still failed to fulfil your contract.
IANAL, therefore the question is: is such a contract still enforcable then? We all know you can put lots of illegal stuff in EULAs/ToS/contratcs. Just because it's written there, doesn't necessarily mean it can be uphold in court.
Slashdot Mirror
Running Man gets mentioned a lot here, though my first thought was The Long Walk and then Running Man.
I'm pretty sure you're looking for 2400 A.D. I played it on the Apple ][c, too.
And there lays your problem. And the problem with Windows UIs since XP. W2K's menu was the pinnacle for keyboard-navigation orientated people like me: Ctrl+ESC (Open Start menu) -> (P)rograms -> (T)ools -> (<First character of program in "Tools" I wish to launch>). That sounds more complicate and time consuming than it is in practice. It's done in less than 2-3 seconds. And tose are only the programs I use from time to time. The "needed on a daily basis" ones have a shortcut on the desktop with assigned keyboard shortcuts (CTRL+ALT+P for Command Prompt, i.e.), which is even faster.
A launcher that forces me to use a mouse (Win7, I'm looking at you and yeah - Classic Shell to the rescue!), is forcing me to waste my time with it. Nothing to be proud of, if you ask me.
This article linked in another post above disagrees:
You left out an important part. Something which makes it true scientific behaviour: The publishers themselves were the first skeptics. They basically said "Here's what we've got, this doesn't look right for all what we know, please help us to discover where we were wrong. In the meantime we'll do further tests so that we all have more material to look at."
Privacy is a human right. From a moral standpoint, jurisdiction is irrelevant: Americans have as much right to privacy as Europeans do, even if the law doesn't recognize it.
Let me introduce you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Just like you assume that I (or he) don't. FYI, in Germany that (="owning my data") is a constitutional right.
The problem is more about information about me put up by other people without my (written) consent. And it doesn't have to be "something stupid". Some people like me simply enjoy privacy. So even a very innocent picture of me about - say, a walk in the park, is something I don't want to see published by someone else.
Done. I am convinced. Now let Apple do their part.
Please stop wielding this "think of the shareholders - they won't allow it" nonsense all the time. Just because I hold a few Apple/GM/McDOnald/whatever shares doesn't mean I'm stupid, blind and unethical. I'm looking for decent investments, but that doesn't mean that I feel the need to squeeze out even the last cent from it. And I bet a lot of other "shareholders" (=people like you and me who hold small stocks) will agree with me on this.
"Teh ebil shareholders" is as much a cheap excuse as "teh ebil pirates" for the content mafia.
Hmm, most of the time I feel it's the opposite way. As soon as a gold tank shows up, everyone goes "Let's kill that (insert gold tank name here)".
I think WoT is a very good example of F2P done right. It's fun for both types of players and just because someone wields his wallet around, it doesn't make him a winner automatically.
You're right, my memory failed me terribad. However Luxembourg:Germany is 5:99 citizens per seat: Seats per inhabitants (German). The point is that it's a compromise, one you can agree with or not, but it violates basic democratic rules, IMHO.
Elected? Yes. Democratically? That depends. A few basic requirements for being a real democratic election don't apply to EU Parliament elections. One of those basics is 1 man = 1 vote, which has two implications: First, no one has more than one vote in the election and second each vote weighs the same. The later isn't the case in the EU. A vote from Luxembourg is worth more than 1,000 votes from France, U.K. or Germany, for example, due to the way the countries are represented within the parliament (number of seats).
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. This has nothing to do with conviction/belief, but with too many girls and women forced to wear the burka by their (male) family (members). They get killed for not obeying to their demands. This is to protect those girls and women who want to execute their freedom rights.
In certain aspects he acted indeed very progressive. But not because he was open-minded, but because a) he need to do so in order for his war plans to work out and b) in pure revenge and retaliation of what he thought was unfair treatment of "those up there" of him.
A few progressive points of top of my head:
Let me stress again that this was not because he was a progressive. But the actions themselves do qualify as being progressive. And I'm very glad that his "plan" didn't work out.
Erhm ... that's lateral, of course ...
In the same way that U.S. authorities enforced the warrant against MegaUpload (HK based company, owned by german-finnish citizen currently residing in NZ ...): Uni-, bi-, multiliteral contracts, I guess.
But I fear for our good-but-still-not-enough german laws. I'll bet they'll be watered down to a great degree.
And this is how science is supposed to work: have facts, formulate theory that matches facts. If facts change, adjust theory to new facts. That's what a scientist will do and that's what he asks for from his peers by submitting his findings to the scientific community (see those "faster-than-light" neutrinos, for example). A scientist will change his mind if evidence says so (earth seems not to be the center), whereas people with a political agenda insist on their long time opinion (church: earth must be the center).
Here's a nice article from one of the authors of that infamous 70's Global Cooling Study, that was mentioned all over the press.
Let me quote a very insightful paragraph from that article:
So much this!
Kim(ble) is a convicted crook. Whatever one might think about the Megaupload case itself, taking Kim out of business is a service to mankind, IMHO.
No mod points today, so please accept this comment as my appreciation instead. :-)
Metrics are bad, because there always will be at least one person who tries to gamble the system. So the manager needs to put some effort into finding out if and how people try to gamble the system. That's a lot wasted time the manager could use to do important stuff. Or the manager doesn't care about gambling the metrics system ... which leads either to honest devs becoming demotivated and leaving the company or every dev starting to gamble the system. That's because we're humans
Metrics are good when used for measuring (the work of) machines.
For such floppy disks, VGACopy was the tool of choice. It copied disc sectors, not files and it didn't bail out when it encountered a "bad block" or an "oversized disk" or other "errors" that were introduced as copy protection schemes.
Besides that, it was also a useful disk copying tool, as it allowed for copying floppy disks in one go, whereas the built-on DOS tools forced you to swap source and destination disk 2-3 times during the copy process.
This whole "low on social skills"-phrase is a badly camouflaged euphemism for "bad at lying". Thank you very much for that compliment!
There were two (german) articles (and a book) about copyright in Europe and Germany's development from a basically all agricultural country to one of Europe's leading industrial nations in the early 1900s. it compares the U.K. and Germany in terms of copyright laws from 17something on, a time where the U.K. already had a copyright law, Germany not.
This period correlates with rampant "pirating" of all things printed in Germany. Publishers copied any book they could get hold of and reprinted (=sold) it themselves. That lead to a) very low book prices, which in turn made those books available and affordable for the masses and b) led to an explosion in inventions inspired by those books by people that otherwise would never have thought of inventing anything at all. People, that never had the chance (and money) to visit a university. A bunch of autodidacts, if you will.
So it really stands to question if the cure is worse. The book/those articles suggest the opposite.
IANAL, therefore the question is: is such a contract still enforcable then? We all know you can put lots of illegal stuff in EULAs/ToS/contratcs. Just because it's written there, doesn't necessarily mean it can be uphold in court.