You mean people actually still think that web-based, free emails are secure?
As opposed to a client-based email, where you can simply get it all through the filesystem? Physical access is game-over. So if you have 30min with your ex's machine, that's pretty much game over, if residing in clients.
That's actually crazily unclear... from a href=http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/08/swedish-court-rules-tpb-admins-too-broke-to-pay-damages.ars>ARS:
The deal that might provide such assets, a buyout offer of SEK60 million from Global Gaming Foundry, is mired in problems. The company's chairman quit this week amid reports that GGF could not come up with the cash, that it was misstating the facts surrounding its negotiations, and that some insider trading of its stock might be taking place. The company's stock has been suspended from trading for the second time in the last three months, though GGF still says that it will present the buyout plan to its board this Thursday.
But who might GGF even buy the site from? The Pirate Bay defendants say that they transferred control to another company in 2006, which then transferred or sold ownership to a Seychelles-based company called Reservella. Ars has been able to confirm that "Reservella" was in fact registered in the Seychelles by the Mayfair Trust Group, a company which often sets up offshore corporations for others, though Mayfair would say nothing about the real owners. Everything about the deal suggests that The Pirate Bay defendants are still involved--including the fact that they still run the site, they were the ones who set up the negotiations with GGF, and they were the ones who explained the decision to sell.
I have read this entire discussion and to my dismay it sound much more in line with youtube comments than/., and no. I am not new here. This update is interesting because of Grand Central Dispatch, some minor new 64-bit apps, and specially, OpenCL.
OpenCL is going to change scientific computing, for good. NVIDIA's CUDA is great and all, but you get bogged to one vendor's platform. With OpenCL you can define compute kernels that will be run in the GPU, if the thing supports it. For neural networks, genetic algorithms, matrix stuff, fast fourier transform, etc, expect HUGE performance gains. Especially whenever there's an NVIDIA TESLA with 192 cores behind it you might find gains of 100x speed. I'll probably be modded as funny or some shit, but imho OpenCL is a game-changer for the scientific community.
Finally, ONE DAY, there will be a killer app for the general public using the power of the GPU. Then I hope everybody will understand.
In the meantime, I, and my students, will be studying and working with it.
There. I agree with what you're saying; it boils down to tradition. That's exactly why I think wikipedia *as it is right now* is not sustainable in the long run.
Also, I've never seen anybody in Academia or Business use wikipedia as a source
Well, this just proves that you work neither in Academia, nor in Business. I work in both (imagine that), and it is used all over the place. Not in publications of course, only for the actual research.
well, I'll bite your trolling, genius boy, despite your silly little ad hominem, I said specifically "as a source". If you will not cite it, then it's not a "source"; an *official* place to get info from. And this is what I'm pointing out above. EVERYBODY uses wikipedia (do I REALLY need to say that? Did you really understand it THAT backwards?), but there is a huge margin for improvement. If it were as respected as *official sources* are it would not be subject to being attacked as I pointed out above. I can conceive a wikipedia fork in which some articles are time-frozen and checked and commented on.
That is, you can cite the 2008 article on Douglas Hofstadter Computational Cognitive Architectures, and the article will be THE 2008's version, it will be checked by experts, while new advances are continuously going on on the real-time article. The 2008 article will have a DOI. There could be *comments* and *debates* from experts, also with their own DOI, concerning the frozen articles. (Take a look at the Behavioral and Brain Sciences journal).
In between this lack of trust in the quality of the information and the pre-web deletionist mentality which might have deleted paper cutters in Sept10th/01, there is space for a fork to attack wikipedia, just as there was space many years ago to attack Britannica. Entrepreneurs should look into this, because the VCs are.
Which brings up the next obvious question: Will the next milestone be 4 million articles, or 2 million articles!
Actually, you're pointing out a serious flaw in wikipedia. I believe it's possible that a fork of wikipedia might make to wikipedia what it did to Britannica. Think about this:
Deletionists have a mindset from those pre-web days; an article about paper cutters might very well have been deleted on Sept 10th 2001. If the article you're thinking is on another encyclopedia, then that's no good for your encyclopedia.
Also, I've never seen anybody in Academia or Business use wikipedia as a source (this of course is no surprise to anyone). But THE POINT is: if your encyclopedia is NOT a "reliable source"; then WTF is wrong with your encyclopedia?
I think at least these two obstacles prevent a major challenge for wikipedia to sustain itself in face of challengers. I don't know if wikipedia is sustainable as it is today. Oh, and google is craving to place ads in the web's encyclopedia, by the way.
Maybe they'll find a genetic predisposition of attraction to LCD screens and avoidance of sunlight.
Don't joke dude; the gene is named DEC2; I'm sure they'll find it.
In any case, this is VERY exploratory stuff. They have found the gene in two women only, but were able to replicate it in some poor little mice and fruit flies. Other than that, the lack of details is what is outstanding about the article.
Oh, for those tagging this as "registration required", just google the effing URL of the NYTimes article, as users that come from Google get a free ride. You gotta hand it to these newspapers guys; they want to block people while getting google love.
Solutions beyond ICANN don't seem easy. Say Google, Yahoo, & other advertisers would decide to also fight against this. I know that Google, and suspect that Yahoo also, punish pages with bare minimum, or copied content, and lots of CLICK NOW SMALL PENIS GUY! They could of course pagerank=0 OTHER, real websites that had the same ad providers these scammers use. But obviously that is not a solution they would touch; because of anti-trust issues. But perhaps they could lobby for legislation allowing such pageranking; in any case; that's far fetched.
Or if mozilla & other browsers could let users point out that "this is an ad-only webpage" and let users land elsewhere whenever the same typos occur. Than the effing/b/tards might destroy entire sites.
In any case, it should be criminal to create a webpage stealing feeds from others and loading it with ads; or a webpage that is just a fake search portal or a fake directory. It seems just crazy that people may end up paying huge sums from pirated music, while these jerks set up entire websites to profit from small penis guy & from grandma; the only people I *want* to believe would actually click on those ads.
Never ones to let a good deed go unpunished, scammers quickly learned to take advantage of a user-friendly policy that allowed a misregistered domain name--perhaps due to a typo--to be withdrawn at no cost. Scammers used this "Add Grace Period" to grab huge numbers of domains, throw up pages full of advertising, then withdraw the applications before the bill came due.
It was a practice known as "domain tasting," and it gave the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) a bad case of indigestion.
Here's a tip for you, son. Whenever you need to find out something, you may want to take a look at these interesting websites, for starters: Wikipedia or Google. Sometimes these websites have information for you. Now go on and give it a try. What's a goatse?
There is such a possibility, at least for some models! I own an SZ6 and I successfully flashed a slightly modified BIOS to enable VT - and it works just fine. You can also enable AHCI for the SATA controller, just ask Google for something like "SZ6 VT BIOS AHCI".
Slashdot Mirror
divorce dollars?
You mean people actually still think that web-based, free emails are secure?
As opposed to a client-based email, where you can simply get it all through the filesystem? Physical access is game-over. So if you have 30min with your ex's machine, that's pretty much game over, if residing in clients.
You will take my torrent of the entire pirate bay from my cold dead hands
The deal that might provide such assets, a buyout offer of SEK60 million from Global Gaming Foundry, is mired in problems. The company's chairman quit this week amid reports that GGF could not come up with the cash, that it was misstating the facts surrounding its negotiations, and that some insider trading of its stock might be taking place. The company's stock has been suspended from trading for the second time in the last three months, though GGF still says that it will present the buyout plan to its board this Thursday. But who might GGF even buy the site from? The Pirate Bay defendants say that they transferred control to another company in 2006, which then transferred or sold ownership to a Seychelles-based company called Reservella. Ars has been able to confirm that "Reservella" was in fact registered in the Seychelles by the Mayfair Trust Group, a company which often sets up offshore corporations for others, though Mayfair would say nothing about the real owners. Everything about the deal suggests that The Pirate Bay defendants are still involved--including the fact that they still run the site, they were the ones who set up the negotiations with GGF, and they were the ones who explained the decision to sell.
Don't you just hate it when they just accidentally the entire pirate bay?
This is what happens when you use the effing atom.
OpenCL is going to change scientific computing, for good. NVIDIA's CUDA is great and all, but you get bogged to one vendor's platform. With OpenCL you can define compute kernels that will be run in the GPU, if the thing supports it. For neural networks, genetic algorithms, matrix stuff, fast fourier transform, etc, expect HUGE performance gains. Especially whenever there's an NVIDIA TESLA with 192 cores behind it you might find gains of 100x speed. I'll probably be modded as funny or some shit, but imho OpenCL is a game-changer for the scientific community.
Finally, ONE DAY, there will be a killer app for the general public using the power of the GPU. Then I hope everybody will understand.
In the meantime, I, and my students, will be studying and working with it.
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter
There. I agree with what you're saying; it boils down to tradition. That's exactly why I think wikipedia *as it is right now* is not sustainable in the long run.
Oh sure, we all should only use "reliable sources", like CNN's "Body proves BigFoot no myth, hunters say" story.
Also, I've never seen anybody in Academia or Business use wikipedia as a source
Well, this just proves that you work neither in Academia, nor in Business. I work in both (imagine that), and it is used all over the place. Not in publications of course, only for the actual research.
well, I'll bite your trolling, genius boy, despite your silly little ad hominem, I said specifically "as a source". If you will not cite it, then it's not a "source"; an *official* place to get info from. And this is what I'm pointing out above. EVERYBODY uses wikipedia (do I REALLY need to say that? Did you really understand it THAT backwards?), but there is a huge margin for improvement. If it were as respected as *official sources* are it would not be subject to being attacked as I pointed out above. I can conceive a wikipedia fork in which some articles are time-frozen and checked and commented on.
That is, you can cite the 2008 article on Douglas Hofstadter Computational Cognitive Architectures, and the article will be THE 2008's version, it will be checked by experts, while new advances are continuously going on on the real-time article. The 2008 article will have a DOI. There could be *comments* and *debates* from experts, also with their own DOI, concerning the frozen articles. (Take a look at the Behavioral and Brain Sciences journal).
In between this lack of trust in the quality of the information and the pre-web deletionist mentality which might have deleted paper cutters in Sept10th/01, there is space for a fork to attack wikipedia, just as there was space many years ago to attack Britannica. Entrepreneurs should look into this, because the VCs are.
Well, Francis Holburne just got slashdotted, so he's probably more noteworthy now.
not in a good way
subject's noteworthiness does not depend so much upon its literal existence in the real world.
Hi Nihixul, long time no see. So, are the meds working? Are the voices gone?
Which brings up the next obvious question: Will the next milestone be 4 million articles, or 2 million articles!
Actually, you're pointing out a serious flaw in wikipedia. I believe it's possible that a fork of wikipedia might make to wikipedia what it did to Britannica. Think about this:
Deletionists have a mindset from those pre-web days; an article about paper cutters might very well have been deleted on Sept 10th 2001. If the article you're thinking is on another encyclopedia, then that's no good for your encyclopedia.
Also, I've never seen anybody in Academia or Business use wikipedia as a source (this of course is no surprise to anyone). But THE POINT is: if your encyclopedia is NOT a "reliable source"; then WTF is wrong with your encyclopedia?
I think at least these two obstacles prevent a major challenge for wikipedia to sustain itself in face of challengers. I don't know if wikipedia is sustainable as it is today. Oh, and google is craving to place ads in the web's encyclopedia, by the way.
You seem to be assuming Google "do no evil"; I'm afraid you're a few years out of date: http://www.google.com/domainpark/
HOLY SHIT BATMAN!
So Google is one of the culprits in this? I need some valium.
Maybe they'll find a genetic predisposition of attraction to LCD screens and avoidance of sunlight.
Don't joke dude; the gene is named DEC2; I'm sure they'll find it.
In any case, this is VERY exploratory stuff. They have found the gene in two women only, but were able to replicate it in some poor little mice and fruit flies. Other than that, the lack of details is what is outstanding about the article.
Oh, for those tagging this as "registration required", just google the effing URL of the NYTimes article, as users that come from Google get a free ride. You gotta hand it to these newspapers guys; they want to block people while getting google love.
Or if mozilla & other browsers could let users point out that "this is an ad-only webpage" and let users land elsewhere whenever the same typos occur. Than the effing /b/tards might destroy entire sites.
In any case, it should be criminal to create a webpage stealing feeds from others and loading it with ads; or a webpage that is just a fake search portal or a fake directory. It seems just crazy that people may end up paying huge sums from pirated music, while these jerks set up entire websites to profit from small penis guy & from grandma; the only people I *want* to believe would actually click on those ads.
What was the purpose of "domain testing" anyway??
Money, young grasshopper. Money. From TFA:
Never ones to let a good deed go unpunished, scammers quickly learned to take advantage of a user-friendly policy that allowed a misregistered domain name--perhaps due to a typo--to be withdrawn at no cost. Scammers used this "Add Grace Period" to grab huge numbers of domains, throw up pages full of advertising, then withdraw the applications before the bill came due. It was a practice known as "domain tasting," and it gave the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) a bad case of indigestion.
is this a crossword game?
I wish more patent trolls troll the software troll
Here's a tip for you, son. Whenever you need to find out something, you may want to take a look at these interesting websites, for starters: Wikipedia or Google. Sometimes these websites have information for you. Now go on and give it a try. What's a goatse?
There is such a possibility, at least for some models! I own an SZ6 and I successfully flashed a slightly modified BIOS to enable VT - and it works just fine. You can also enable AHCI for the SATA controller, just ask Google for something like "SZ6 VT BIOS AHCI".
That's a great keylogger you got there, son
I love the fact that this will lower Intel's ability to interfere in the netbook market in a heavy-handed way.
Carl Sagan was deep into LSD & grass
don't tell anyone man