If you go to the original source (Make Room! Make Room!) not the movie adaptation (Soylent Green) it's not sarcastic at all. In the book, soylent is merely just a way to feed the overgrown population.
Or you call 911 with your phone (with current paid-for service) and can't get through because you're out in the middle of nowhere and the only signal you get is not the one you paid for, and since you're somewhere remote the chance of someone else coming across you is slim.
The frivolity and abuse was statement was only about the size of the monetary damages, not about the claim that it was defamation. So even removing the "flirts with" qualifier, it's still not a good overall ruling. The summary of this post completely misstates the ruling, which was primarily dismissed because the alleged defamation was not against the plaintiff, but was against the company he represents, and so the suit was brought by the wrong entity.
The main cause for dismissal of this wasn't that online reviews are not defamation. It was because the lawsuit was brought by the wrong entity (the lawyer who represents the website, rather than the corporation who owns the website) and that he failed to provide substantive proof of any monetary loss.
If it were brought by the right entity and there was proof of loss, it may not have gone the same way. The judge specifically said that the review did have defamatory language in it.
I can't believe the 16ft resolution image is getting so much press, when the 0.5m resolution image is so much better, and was announced ahead of time (And scheduled, as you can see from people forming shapes in it).
The PDF was an interesting read, though I agree that the money they are dishing out is pretty paltry for all the free review they are trying to garner. Furthermore, I think they are taking platform neutrality in the wrong direction by locking the idea in to the x86 architecture.
But about how it would work, they are basically enforcing strict limits on how the code can be structured. The limits are designed to make the code easily analyzed. Anything that falls outside the strict requirements is rejected. It doesn't work for antivirus because they have to deal with any code that comes in without restriction.
As to why it doesn't work for OS... There is no reason the basic concept wouldn't, aside from the performance penalty and increased code size. (Though further compiler optimization could minimize or eliminate some of that).
However, if you want to go that route of making an OS do it, you might as well pick up a decent modern RISC architecture, because you're already breaking compatibility with any past program for any OS on the x86 CPU. Most of what they are doing is basically taking something that is standard on RISC and shoehorning it into the CISC architecture of the x86. Namely that instruction boundries can be reliably tested for jumps. They enforce that by requiring jumps only to 32 byte boundries, and then verifying each 32 byte block for correctness. Combined with disallowing self modifying code and eliminating the stack completely, all code that executes can be properly analyzed ahead of time.
The concept looks sound to me (Experience working low level with x86 architecture) but the security still relies on the implementation. Off the top of my head I can think of several ways to break the sandbox depending on how it is implemented. However the PDF is quite short on the details to evaluate the implementation. Namely, what exactly qualifies as an allowed x86 instruction, and for the syscalls that are checked, what the check is, not to mention the potential for bugs in the syscall handler for what would otherwise be valid calls, and even potentially the state of the OS or process when the protected code is executed.
Overall, I don't think this is the right direction for the web platform. Theoretically interpreted byte code should be more secure because it doesn't do anything that the interpreter doesn't explicitly allow (Javascript, Java, Flash, etc) and we see where that got us.
Funny thing is it's a step back for Network Solutions security. You USED to be able to set it up to require a RSA key for domain changes, back when everything was done via odd forms over email.
Don't get me started on the number of online recruiter forms that ask you to list out the languages in a web form. If I tried to list out everything I could competently program in, I ran out of room in the entry field provided. And that doesn't even touch on the subject of the language agnostic nature of problem solving in programming and the fact that a good programmer can pick up any reasonable language in a few days.
My bet is on the stores to screw it up. Most stores get edgy about you whipping out a camera in their store. Now use that camera to potentially lose them money and see them throw a big hissy fit.
And McCain likes to have his cake and eat it too. Sure, his campaign can't raise any more money, but nothing is stopping the party from raising money and campaigning on his behalf. At least Obama is honest about his intentions to continue to raise money.
The clock only tells the correct time once every 5 minutes. The rest of the time it can run fast, slow, pause, etc. You can see this in the video near the beginning where it slows down very drastically, or near the end when it chimes the hour and is just going back and forth a few times before advancing.
From other comments, I gather he followed the rules in other states and was denied ballot access, or still had to fight for it, and the D and Rs didn't follow the rules in Texas and still get ballot access. From that point of view, it could very well be making a statement, just on a larger scale than Texas.
If you did that to California, it would be a bit fractal in a way. The map of California would look a lot like the map of the nation, with blue on the edges, a few blue spots in the middle, and red filling up most of the center.
As opposed to now where if you live in CA or NY (Or Texas, Arizona, Illinois, Nevada, Wyoming, Maryland, Kansas, etc etc etc) the candidates pretty much count on the foregone conclusion that your state will (Or will not) vote for them?
Slashdot Mirror
If you go to the original source (Make Room! Make Room!) not the movie adaptation (Soylent Green) it's not sarcastic at all. In the book, soylent is merely just a way to feed the overgrown population.
Reading comprehension fail?
From the summary (Not even the article, so this isn't a high bar): The iCloud service would then send users the text of that transcribed voicemail.
I guess "iCloud" is not in "the cloud"?
Or you call 911 with your phone (with current paid-for service) and can't get through because you're out in the middle of nowhere and the only signal you get is not the one you paid for, and since you're somewhere remote the chance of someone else coming across you is slim.
Pure O2? Have you never heard of oxygen toxicity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity
The frivolity and abuse was statement was only about the size of the monetary damages, not about the claim that it was defamation. So even removing the "flirts with" qualifier, it's still not a good overall ruling. The summary of this post completely misstates the ruling, which was primarily dismissed because the alleged defamation was not against the plaintiff, but was against the company he represents, and so the suit was brought by the wrong entity.
The main cause for dismissal of this wasn't that online reviews are not defamation. It was because the lawsuit was brought by the wrong entity (the lawyer who represents the website, rather than the corporation who owns the website) and that he failed to provide substantive proof of any monetary loss.
If it were brought by the right entity and there was proof of loss, it may not have gone the same way. The judge specifically said that the review did have defamatory language in it.
Doesn't seem so for me, however an alternate link to the same image in a different location...
https://twitter.com/#!/sfslim/status/111206909062811649.
http://www.geeked.info/burning-man-2011-geoeye-satellite-image/
I can't believe the 16ft resolution image is getting so much press, when the 0.5m resolution image is so much better, and was announced ahead of time (And scheduled, as you can see from people forming shapes in it).
The PDF was an interesting read, though I agree that the money they are dishing out is pretty paltry for all the free review they are trying to garner. Furthermore, I think they are taking platform neutrality in the wrong direction by locking the idea in to the x86 architecture.
But about how it would work, they are basically enforcing strict limits on how the code can be structured. The limits are designed to make the code easily analyzed. Anything that falls outside the strict requirements is rejected. It doesn't work for antivirus because they have to deal with any code that comes in without restriction.
As to why it doesn't work for OS... There is no reason the basic concept wouldn't, aside from the performance penalty and increased code size. (Though further compiler optimization could minimize or eliminate some of that).
However, if you want to go that route of making an OS do it, you might as well pick up a decent modern RISC architecture, because you're already breaking compatibility with any past program for any OS on the x86 CPU. Most of what they are doing is basically taking something that is standard on RISC and shoehorning it into the CISC architecture of the x86. Namely that instruction boundries can be reliably tested for jumps. They enforce that by requiring jumps only to 32 byte boundries, and then verifying each 32 byte block for correctness. Combined with disallowing self modifying code and eliminating the stack completely, all code that executes can be properly analyzed ahead of time.
The concept looks sound to me (Experience working low level with x86 architecture) but the security still relies on the implementation. Off the top of my head I can think of several ways to break the sandbox depending on how it is implemented. However the PDF is quite short on the details to evaluate the implementation. Namely, what exactly qualifies as an allowed x86 instruction, and for the syscalls that are checked, what the check is, not to mention the potential for bugs in the syscall handler for what would otherwise be valid calls, and even potentially the state of the OS or process when the protected code is executed.
Overall, I don't think this is the right direction for the web platform. Theoretically interpreted byte code should be more secure because it doesn't do anything that the interpreter doesn't explicitly allow (Javascript, Java, Flash, etc) and we see where that got us.
Funny thing is it's a step back for Network Solutions security. You USED to be able to set it up to require a RSA key for domain changes, back when everything was done via odd forms over email.
I find recruiters often miss the mark.
Don't get me started on the number of online recruiter forms that ask you to list out the languages in a web form. If I tried to list out everything I could competently program in, I ran out of room in the entry field provided. And that doesn't even touch on the subject of the language agnostic nature of problem solving in programming and the fact that a good programmer can pick up any reasonable language in a few days.
I've heard the liberal media moniker aimed at the NYT in the past. Probably by the far right extremists. For the records though I caught your sarcasm.
Depends if it's a random clerk or a manager that sees you. Clerks usually don't care.
My bet is on the stores to screw it up. Most stores get edgy about you whipping out a camera in their store. Now use that camera to potentially lose them money and see them throw a big hissy fit.
And I'm sure both of said voters will be paying close attention.
Personally I'm all for companies like Sony forcing such intrusive DRM on the public.
The quicker they cross the line where it inconveniences your average consumer, the quicker we'll get to the point where DRM becomes a total flop.
You're supposed to log out and into a different account before you sock puppet.
You know... If Savage/Hyneman ran the country... Would they just explore the extreme of every policy until the eventuality of a very large explosion?
And McCain likes to have his cake and eat it too. Sure, his campaign can't raise any more money, but nothing is stopping the party from raising money and campaigning on his behalf. At least Obama is honest about his intentions to continue to raise money.
There needs to be a way to mod a story down.
The clock only tells the correct time once every 5 minutes. The rest of the time it can run fast, slow, pause, etc. You can see this in the video near the beginning where it slows down very drastically, or near the end when it chimes the hour and is just going back and forth a few times before advancing.
Except that it IS a state election. What, you thought your vote was going straight to the presidential candidate?
From other comments, I gather he followed the rules in other states and was denied ballot access, or still had to fight for it, and the D and Rs didn't follow the rules in Texas and still get ballot access. From that point of view, it could very well be making a statement, just on a larger scale than Texas.
If you did that to California, it would be a bit fractal in a way. The map of California would look a lot like the map of the nation, with blue on the edges, a few blue spots in the middle, and red filling up most of the center.
As opposed to now where if you live in CA or NY (Or Texas, Arizona, Illinois, Nevada, Wyoming, Maryland, Kansas, etc etc etc) the candidates pretty much count on the foregone conclusion that your state will (Or will not) vote for them?