The thing to know about Gates' palace is that the "family quarters" actually cover only about 3000 sq. ft., deep inside the fortress. (Don't be too harsh about that: his kids have gotten kidnapping and death threats over the years.) While 3K sq. ft. certainly isn't small, it's hardly palatial. Most of the 66K sq feet are essentially a public space for receptions.
I don't think so. Looking at those in detail, Moz claims they were fixed on 4/13/2006, not earlier. That would mean they were still alive until 1.5.0.2 came out -- not that they were fixed in previous versions.
Sweet baby Jesus, it fixes 21 separate issues *all of which can be used to execute arbitrary code*! Did they have time to fix any vulnerabilities which were only "somewhat critical"?
Actually, that's not true. A patch for a vulnerability often provides a great deal more infomration about the vulnerability than the original exploit, particularly becouse it provides malicious people with code pattern samples which might expose other exploitable code. In that regard, Microsoft's response or providing a workaround to block the attack and then providing a correct and fully tested patch later is better then providing a half-baked patch.
I would not give credit for 802.11g to Apple, or gigabit ethernet. Bluetooth is Nokia's baby, all the way through. USB is Wintel, pure and simple -- Apple was pushing firewire. Legacy-free is a funny story -- Microsoft has been pushing it for years, but until after Apple greased the skids, no laptop vendor was legacy-free. Now, of course, they all are...
None of which supports Dell's claim to innovation, seeing as how their name isn't anywhere in that list.
This exchange captures the whole problem with clever headlines, actually, since you and I are agreeing violently. (Although my "headline" would have been better if I'd written "Truth immured in one nerd word".) I was referring to the word "slashvertisements", not the word "lifestyle".
Oh, and if you hadn't, then you would be able to get the book for free? Kewl! And if you say that you won't fall, then can you fly?
Look, I know it feels good to get something for nothing. I understand the attraction of theft, particularly if you can pretend it isn't. Unfortunately, if you don't accept the EULA, then all you've done is get an OEM coaster. You accept the EULA by using the product.
You may want a pony, but you aren't going to get it, any more than you're going to get the legal systems of the United States, Canada, or the EU memebers to change to suit your wants.
Here, I'll tell you what. Go order a book from Amazon, and, while clicking through the check out, yell "I don't agree to your terms." After you get the book, tell Visa that there's no contract, and you aren't going to pay your bill.
I do understand it -- evidently, you don't. To sign is to give a formal acceptance to in legal terms by means of an action. It has nothing (zero, zip, nada) to do with writing your name on paper, except insofar as that is one common way in which one signs contracts. You were given a choice, and told "going past this point constitutes acceptance of the terms of this contract." You choose to go on.
Lisp environments had garbage collection by the middle sixties, and were working on optimizing it by the early seventies, when I first learned the language. Snobol had it earlier, though.
Normally, I ignore posts like this, but this is priceless...
There is absolutely no contract between you and ArenaNet... what there is is an agreement
That's kind of like saying "The sky is not blue, it's blue." A contract is a legally binding agreement between two parties based on the exchange of things of mutual value. No more, and no less.
The EULA's you click through on a regular basis? Those are contracts, and the full weight of the court system is behind them.
Yes, but voiding a contract (usually) requires mutual consent or legal intervention based on onerous content. The posited circumstances involve unilateral violation of the terms of a legitimate contract.
Look, if I'm writing a hard real-time DSP application, I'm going to go with something which runs on an ARM7, I'll write my code in C with an "operating system" that consists of a polling loop to keep the chip asleep as much as possible. If I need multiple processes with process isolation, I'll look at NetBSD, or, perhaps, at Windows CE. If I'm looking for a network appliance which will run on a Linux friendly CPU in a standard configuration with next to no ASICs, then, I'll look at Linux alongside CE or NetBSD.
You're not breaking any laws by selling in-game items for real money. You're breaking the contract you made with the company when you agreed to use their services.
In fact, although violating a contract is not typically a criminal offense, it's certainly illegal, and it's certainly breaking the law. That's why you can be sued for "breach of contract".
Its reputation for quality is well-deserved in established and relatively collegial fields such as physics.
Its reputation for quality is tremendously ill-deserved in contentious or developiong fields. In those fields, "facts" become political, even (or perhaps especially) among scientists.
Its reputation for quality in work it, itself, commissions is totally unestablished -- Nature is not an investigative publication, historically.
I do not trust this report -- it's outside of Nature's area of historical expertise. I am not, at this point, going to say "fraud", but I am very suspicious of that particular piece of weasel-wording.
The Nature response contains some subtle "attornese" which ought to be called out.
In their response to Britannica's charge that they'd sent out text which was not taken from Brittanica, Nature's editors say
The company has, for example, claimed that in one case we sent a reviewer material that did not come from any Britannica publication. When the company made this point to us in private we asked for details, but it provided none. Now Britannica has identified the review in question as being on ethanol. We have checked the original e-mail that we sent to the reviewer who looked at the Britannica article on ethanol, and it is clear to us that all the reviewer's comments refer to specific paragraphs from Britannica.
Danger, WIll Robinson! This piece of Nature's rebuttal does not speak to Brittanica's charge. As far as we can tell, Nature might sent out edited and possibly unrepresentative text out of context, falsely attributing it to Brittanica, and all we would know is that the reviewer only commented on the Brittanica text.
If you say "Make me a sandwich woman", I can say "OK, you need to learn how to make sandwiches, and the get your sex changed, and then go to work at Subway. You'll be a sandwich woman." If you say "Buy me a sandwich woman," though, I'll be forced to explain that slavery is illegal.
Actually, the primary platform for Notes is Windows -- it's the client side. The primary platform for DOmino, on the other hand, is...Windows.
IBM's Linux port of Domino is notoriously, spectacularly, unforgettably BAD. But, hey, you have the source for the operating system -- fat lot of good that'll do you.
15 people? Jeebus! They have enough users to need a farm of three whole Exchange servers with associated Outlook infrastructure -- typically considered about a half-FTE position in most Exchange shops. Hell, Microsoft's entire 24 by 7 support for 65000 users with about 120K mailboxes takes less that fifteen people!
Slashdot Mirror
The thing to know about Gates' palace is that the "family quarters" actually cover only about 3000 sq. ft., deep inside the fortress. (Don't be too harsh about that: his kids have gotten kidnapping and death threats over the years.) While 3K sq. ft. certainly isn't small, it's hardly palatial. Most of the 66K sq feet are essentially a public space for receptions.
I don't think so. Looking at those in detail, Moz claims they were fixed on 4/13/2006, not earlier. That would mean they were still alive until 1.5.0.2 came out -- not that they were fixed in previous versions.
Metasploit isn't mentioned anywhere.
Sweet baby Jesus, it fixes 21 separate issues *all of which can be used to execute arbitrary code*! Did they have time to fix any vulnerabilities which were only "somewhat critical"?
Actually, that's not true. A patch for a vulnerability often provides a great deal more infomration about the vulnerability than the original exploit, particularly becouse it provides malicious people with code pattern samples which might expose other exploitable code. In that regard, Microsoft's response or providing a workaround to block the attack and then providing a correct and fully tested patch later is better then providing a half-baked patch.
I would not give credit for 802.11g to Apple, or gigabit ethernet. Bluetooth is Nokia's baby, all the way through. USB is Wintel, pure and simple -- Apple was pushing firewire. Legacy-free is a funny story -- Microsoft has been pushing it for years, but until after Apple greased the skids, no laptop vendor was legacy-free. Now, of course, they all are...
None of which supports Dell's claim to innovation, seeing as how their name isn't anywhere in that list.
This exchange captures the whole problem with clever headlines, actually, since you and I are agreeing violently. (Although my "headline" would have been better if I'd written "Truth immured in one nerd word".) I was referring to the word "slashvertisements", not the word "lifestyle".
How else are they going to figure out what to do with the stuff which is left over after their pairing collapses?
Oh, and if you hadn't, then you would be able to get the book for free? Kewl! And if you say that you won't fall, then can you fly?
Look, I know it feels good to get something for nothing. I understand the attraction of theft, particularly if you can pretend it isn't. Unfortunately, if you don't accept the EULA, then all you've done is get an OEM coaster. You accept the EULA by using the product.
You may want a pony, but you aren't going to get it, any more than you're going to get the legal systems of the United States, Canada, or the EU memebers to change to suit your wants.
Here, I'll tell you what. Go order a book from Amazon, and, while clicking through the check out, yell "I don't agree to your terms." After you get the book, tell Visa that there's no contract, and you aren't going to pay your bill.
I do understand it -- evidently, you don't. To sign is to give a formal acceptance to in legal terms by means of an action. It has nothing (zero, zip, nada) to do with writing your name on paper, except insofar as that is one common way in which one signs contracts. You were given a choice, and told "going past this point constitutes acceptance of the terms of this contract." You choose to go on.
What part of "by clicking this button, you are agreeing" did you miss, moron? You signed the agreement. You are bound -- even in Sweden and Germany.
Yes -- you used the software and clicked past the first screen.
Lisp environments had garbage collection by the middle sixties, and were working on optimizing it by the early seventies, when I first learned the language. Snobol had it earlier, though.
The EULA's you click through on a regular basis? Those are contracts, and the full weight of the court system is behind them.
Yes, but voiding a contract (usually) requires mutual consent or legal intervention based on onerous content. The posited circumstances involve unilateral violation of the terms of a legitimate contract.
Look, if I'm writing a hard real-time DSP application, I'm going to go with something which runs on an ARM7, I'll write my code in C with an "operating system" that consists of a polling loop to keep the chip asleep as much as possible. If I need multiple processes with process isolation, I'll look at NetBSD, or, perhaps, at Windows CE. If I'm looking for a network appliance which will run on a Linux friendly CPU in a standard configuration with next to no ASICs, then, I'll look at Linux alongside CE or NetBSD.
I do not trust this report -- it's outside of Nature's area of historical expertise. I am not, at this point, going to say "fraud", but I am very suspicious of that particular piece of weasel-wording.
In their response to Britannica's charge that they'd sent out text which was not taken from Brittanica, Nature's editors sayDanger, WIll Robinson! This piece of Nature's rebuttal does not speak to Brittanica's charge. As far as we can tell, Nature might sent out edited and possibly unrepresentative text out of context, falsely attributing it to Brittanica, and all we would know is that the reviewer only commented on the Brittanica text.
If you say "Make me a sandwich woman", I can say "OK, you need to learn how to make sandwiches, and the get your sex changed, and then go to work at Subway. You'll be a sandwich woman." If you say "Buy me a sandwich woman," though, I'll be forced to explain that slavery is illegal.
Actually, the primary platform for Notes is Windows -- it's the client side. The primary platform for DOmino, on the other hand, is...Windows.
IBM's Linux port of Domino is notoriously, spectacularly, unforgettably BAD. But, hey, you have the source for the operating system -- fat lot of good that'll do you.
"See that that haze? That's *smug*. Do you know what makes smug? That's right: the Linux users here."
15 people? Jeebus! They have enough users to need a farm of three whole Exchange servers with associated Outlook infrastructure -- typically considered about a half-FTE position in most Exchange shops. Hell, Microsoft's entire 24 by 7 support for 65000 users with about 120K mailboxes takes less that fifteen people!