I don't know about you, but I wouldn't feel represented by hackers cracking into websites. I also don't think that to be the best approach for protesting against net censoring laws. At best, it increases the general population's feeling that WWW is actually World Wild Web and that something has to be done to tame it. It just happens that the Aussie Government may be doing the wrong something.
How would it be like if the Al Qaida began a terrorism campaign to protest against the latest anti-freedom measures adopted in the US?
Because, as many others pointed and will point out, the plagiarist is taking credit on originality that belongs to somebody else.
It's not bad just because it's been ruled to be bad. It's bad because plagiarism allows anyone to do a quick search in "obscure" literature, pick up some particularly interesting piece and resell it as being his own original work. It's great for the plagiarist, may be good to the public, but not so for the original creator.
You can be informative and entertaining over other people's work, as long as you give them credit.
You don't need to claim authorship to be entertaining.
I always wondered why religious people focused on evolution and not so much on geology
Because evolution dictates that men evolved from a series of organisms thorough billions of years instead of being materialized from dust by God in His image.
Religion is all about the relationship between God(s) and men. Any conflicts with other things are merely allegoric and become of minor importance...
Your knowledge on smartcard authentication seems to be faulty:
1. In GSM cards, the correct PIN gives you the right to use internally stored encryption keys to generate a temporary token. You don't have the right to read the key, just to use it. It's the card that does the encryption. Your fake card can say the PIN is correct all it wants, but it won't have the right keys to generate a token. Of course, PIN authentication must be enabled or you'll always have the right to use the key.
2. You have a very limited number or retries. If you fail 3 times, your PIN is locked in the card. If you fail to unluck the PIN with the PUK another 3 times, you'll need the admin PIN. If you fail the admin PIN 5 times, there's no way to unlock the card.
It doesn't mean that's how banking cards work. it's just to show you that your arguments aren't granted just because it's a card based PIN authentication.
Would it not be even theoretically possible to mandate warning a web user before showing content that is determined to be "objectionable" beyond a certain standard, determined by what is considered "highly objectionable" by a significant majority (such as 75% of a large number of assessors).
I seem to remember this being the case in the past, as many websites begin with a page saying something like:
This website contains potentially offensive material that may not be suitable to all viewers. You must be 18 years or older to continue.
[I'm 18 years or older. Continue] [I'm NOT 18 years or older. Cancel]
Actually, he's on to something. The Google logo could have changed between queries as they usually do on special occasions. Maybe they thought about it but preferred to KIS to the S.
Even if I sympathize with the victims of record companies, I see a small but important difference between blackmail and the mentioned situation.
This situation: I caught you infringing my copyright. Pay me $500 or I'll take you to court.
Blackmail: I caught you infringing the copyright of somebody else. Pay me $500 or I'll tell them.
The claim from Lord Lucas is that the copyright infringement may be false since another person might have done it using the victim's resources. This seems to be false accusation rather than blackmail. Or can one be blackmailed with false accusations?
It seems to me that time flies when our brain is too busy to keep track of time, and the opposite happens when our brain is underloaded, hence having lots of processing slots to dedicate to time tracking.
I suppose that It wouldn't be impossible for an older brain to have less processing slots than a younger brain and fall into the former case more often.
Well, you could just, like, not go there, you know? It's not like you're being forced to.
The problem here is that not only Mr. and Mrs. Microsoft are going there but they're saying that they're pretty happy with the local laws. So it makes one wonder which is worse:
1. They really believe that, or 2. They don't believe it but they say it anyway just to get even more dirty money.
Maybe, but I don't see the work of Unions convincing anybody of worker's skills, unless it involves arm bending or other negotiation-by-pressure methods.
It's more like convincing managers of how they can't fight the power of the masses rather than how they're underestimating their employees.
As I was saying, I remain unconvinced that these tactics are required in the CS field, at least for now.
Slashdot Mirror
It's about time they started having something more useful than that aerial view of theirs. It's not like I'm flying to my destination.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't feel represented by hackers cracking into websites. I also don't think that to be the best approach for protesting against net censoring laws. At best, it increases the general population's feeling that WWW is actually World Wild Web and that something has to be done to tame it. It just happens that the Aussie Government may be doing the wrong something.
How would it be like if the Al Qaida began a terrorism campaign to protest against the latest anti-freedom measures adopted in the US?
Because, as many others pointed and will point out, the plagiarist is taking credit on originality that belongs to somebody else.
It's not bad just because it's been ruled to be bad. It's bad because plagiarism allows anyone to do a quick search in "obscure" literature, pick up some particularly interesting piece and resell it as being his own original work. It's great for the plagiarist, may be good to the public, but not so for the original creator.
You can be informative and entertaining over other people's work, as long as you give them credit.
You don't need to claim authorship to be entertaining.
So why focus on evolution ?
As I said before:
Religion is all about the relationship between God(s) and men. Any conflicts with other things are merely allegoric and become of minor importance...
Of course, that's just my opinion...
I have found that asking them how antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have come about so quickly usually shuts them up.
Your naysayers are less creative than mine. Here they say "elementary! God made them".
Some people believe that the world is flat, too.
Nonsense! We all know that Earth is banana shaped.
I always wondered why religious people focused on evolution and not so much on geology
Because evolution dictates that men evolved from a series of organisms thorough billions of years instead of being materialized from dust by God in His image.
Religion is all about the relationship between God(s) and men. Any conflicts with other things are merely allegoric and become of minor importance...
Your knowledge on smartcard authentication seems to be faulty:
1. In GSM cards, the correct PIN gives you the right to use internally stored encryption keys to generate a temporary token. You don't have the right to read the key, just to use it. It's the card that does the encryption. Your fake card can say the PIN is correct all it wants, but it won't have the right keys to generate a token. Of course, PIN authentication must be enabled or you'll always have the right to use the key.
2. You have a very limited number or retries. If you fail 3 times, your PIN is locked in the card. If you fail to unluck the PIN with the PUK another 3 times, you'll need the admin PIN. If you fail the admin PIN 5 times, there's no way to unlock the card.
It doesn't mean that's how banking cards work. it's just to show you that your arguments aren't granted just because it's a card based PIN authentication.
The problem is not that it's on-card authentication, but the way it was designed. It's just like this problem reported a while back.
Given recent news, he better register even if he's not in South Carolina.
Would it not be even theoretically possible to mandate warning a web user before showing content that is determined to be "objectionable" beyond a certain standard, determined by what is considered "highly objectionable" by a significant majority (such as 75% of a large number of assessors).
I seem to remember this being the case in the past, as many websites begin with a page saying something like:
This website contains potentially offensive material that may not be suitable to all viewers. You must be 18 years or older to continue.
[I'm 18 years or older. Continue] [I'm NOT 18 years or older. Cancel]
Psst... don't tell anyone, but I actually added some common and annoying ad names to my "hosts" pointing to 127.0.0.1.
Haha! You almost got me, faking that you haven't seen neither the ad nor the parody! Oh wait...
Actually, he's on to something. The Google logo could have changed between queries as they usually do on special occasions. Maybe they thought about it but preferred to KIS to the S.
+++NO CARRIER
inKubus: "Damn! No wonder I never find anyone!"
Don't feed the troll!
Even if I sympathize with the victims of record companies, I see a small but important difference between blackmail and the mentioned situation.
This situation: I caught you infringing my copyright. Pay me $500 or I'll take you to court.
Blackmail: I caught you infringing the copyright of somebody else. Pay me $500 or I'll tell them.
The claim from Lord Lucas is that the copyright infringement may be false since another person might have done it using the victim's resources. This seems to be false accusation rather than blackmail. Or can one be blackmailed with false accusations?
Sorry, no car in this analogy...
It seems to me that time flies when our brain is too busy to keep track of time, and the opposite happens when our brain is underloaded, hence having lots of processing slots to dedicate to time tracking.
I suppose that It wouldn't be impossible for an older brain to have less processing slots than a younger brain and fall into the former case more often.
Well, you could just, like, not go there, you know? It's not like you're being forced to.
The problem here is that not only Mr. and Mrs. Microsoft are going there but they're saying that they're pretty happy with the local laws. So it makes one wonder which is worse:
1. They really believe that, or
2. They don't believe it but they say it anyway just to get even more dirty money.
No, it's a troll.
Or as my old math teacher used to say, "even a handicapped amoeba can do that".
You can buy the version that includes 3G if you want. $120 more.
Maybe, but I don't see the work of Unions convincing anybody of worker's skills, unless it involves arm bending or other negotiation-by-pressure methods.
It's more like convincing managers of how they can't fight the power of the masses rather than how they're underestimating their employees.
As I was saying, I remain unconvinced that these tactics are required in the CS field, at least for now.
Too much job-hopping is bad for your curriculum. Makes one wonder "what's wrong with this guy that he can't stay put on a place for 2 years"?
The hop must be paired with patience. My bet would be on this procedure:
1. Set a goal for your next job.
2. Look for it.
3. Don't hop until you find something at least very close to that.
Why, WKRP is great! Actually I don't know that, but the opening theme is catchy.
(...)and start forming a union, eh?
Thanks, but no thanks. I'm not yet convinced that the unimaginative or unskilled Computer Scientist needs to be leveraged up.