Actually, many home routers do contain caching, recursive resolvers. The easiest way to tell is to look for a "DNS caching" option. Most routers I've seen have this disabled by default, but I haven't seen enough of them to make any kind of generalization from that.
Anything that does recursive DNS lookups and caches the results is susceptible to this attack. The patches help, but they don't solve the problem, they just make the attack more difficult.
First, their recommendations cover more than things which have been tested for decades. Since nano materials are generally new discoveries, they are likely referring to the vast majority of nano materials that are only starting to be experimented with. To say that some "nano" things have already been tested heavily doesn't imply that they all have been and doesn't exempt the remainder from requiring considerable testing.
Secondly, realizing that something has "nano" properties can itself bring new requirements for testing. For example, CFCs we believed to be completely inert -- that's why they became so prevelant. It was only when they started destroying ozone in the atmosphere that we realized they we hadn't tested that possibility. By applying the "nano" label to already-tested materials, we have to make sure that they have been tested for effects that may occur as a result of being that small; tests that may not have been done before the "nano" label was applied.
The "nano" label may not change chemical or physical properties of a material, but it may change our understanding of those properties.
Depending on the country, there are specifically exceptions for duplication as part of reporting.
For example, if I wanted to report on the opening of a new art gallery, I would probably want to include at least one picture of the art, as illustration of the event. Without being able to reproduce (even through photographing as part of a larger scene) those works, how could I illustrate the event? Wikipedia uses this exception all of the time for including things like screenshots and company logos.
In this case, I think it's fair to say that using the girl's photo, as an illustration of the fact that she made the photos available online, with proper attribution, would fall within fair use. If they used it exclusively as an example of the party itself, then there would likely be some case for copyright infringement.
No matter the case, even if she didn't grant publishing rights by putting it on her blog, she certainly granted viewing rights, which negates any claims to privacy.
Wait, wait, wait... You're questioning whether or not this girl was actually the woman's daughter?
I didn't see anywhere that the mother claimed that her daughter didn't make those statements. In fact, the mother specifically said that her daughter was exaggerating, which means she acknowledges the girl is her daughter.
Now, I agree that journalism has taken a dive over the years (CNN and FOX being great examples of that), but to imply that the newspaper didn't check facts by questioning (not even claiming) that the newspaper didn't confirm the identity of the daughter is to commit one of the worst propagandist sins imaginable: FUD.
Except entrapment involves the guilty party luring you into performing the act. The newspapers didn't convince this girl to throw a party so they could report on it; she threw the party of her own volition.
Entrapment works if a cop offers to sell you drugs; it doesn't work if you ask to buy some drugs from the cop.
From the article, I can't say how they can possibly claim defamation or breach of privacy. Defamation requires making a false claim. The article clearly doesn't state that the party was out of control or things were trashed. Instead, it merely lists quotes from people who claimed to have been at the party and had seen those things. Certainly the people quoted could be cited for defamation if they intentionally gave false statements, but so long as the paper was reporting what they were told (obviously from multiple sources), then they aren't making anything up.
I also don't see how they have a case for breach of privacy. The daughter and friends all gave open, willing statements of the events -- it's not like the reporters had to pry this information from them. Also, the fact that the daughter's account of the events were posted on a publicly viewable site designed to be viewed by complete strangers, they certainly had no expectation of privacy.
In the end, this sounds like a rich parent trying to cover up their dirty laundry. It's nothing new to see a person sue for defamation when somebody prints the harsh truth about them. Lawyers seem all too happy to jump on the opportunity. If only these people could use some of their time and aggravation to look introspectively and handle the situation maturely, rather than ranting and raving.
I realize MMORPGs (and most online services) are quite different from typical box-and-disc packaged software, but there is a good reason for phases like alpha, beta, and release, and it's directly related to the "indefinite beta" syndrome.
Part of the problem is image. As loose as the terms are, alpha means that things will be wholly incomplete and fragile. Users know to expect nothing. Beta should be mostly feature/content-complete, but will undoubtedly have bugs to be fixed and polish to be added. Beta should be a good idea of what the finished product will look like. Finally, release means it's done. As in DONE. A person buying a product off of the shelf expects the product to work always and entirely. They pay a lot of money for what they consider to be the entire product; patches make the product look flaky, whereas to-be-released content makes the product look incomplete. Both of these things devalue the finished product.
The fact that MMORPGs use rolling release cycles, adding content gradually, allows them to get away with some of these sins. Knowing that there can be a nearly-infinite amount of content allows the total value of the product to remain enigmatic, such that the excuse, "Their is more 'free' content to come," keeps the customer patiently waiting to get his value out of the product. It also means they can push out fixes more-or-less silently. If nothing else, it has generated a culture that is tolerant of unfinished development that requires consistent patching.
Release dates also have their place, mostly from a marketing point of view. Most people only make their major purchases at specific times of the year, Christmas being the most obvious one. Releases often happen in August or September because that gives the product time for exposure, review, and everything else that it takes for word to spread and customers to solidify their intentions to buy at Christmas. It's the same reason the Sears catalog comes out months before Christmas.
In terms of quality, release dates are a complete hinderance. As a developer, I can tell you that they are met with hefty distain. Still, they are virtually unavoidable -- you can keep tweaking and adding content and otherwise expanding the product indefinitely. Eventually you have to put your foot down and say, "We're done." Release dates are clear milestones to accomplish development cutoff. Development is expensive and doesn't result in income, so release dates are also a way for investors and bean counters to make sure they turn a profit in a timely manner.
So, saying that release dates are useless, pointless, or stupid, is to misunderstand their uses. Yes, they suck, but without them development would continue indefinitely. When it comes to the retail market, there often is no 2.0. Customers buy your product at 1.0 and if they don't like it, they usually don't come back after the first patch is released. It's just the way the market works.
Actually, Windex is a bad idea. The ammonia tends to eat plastics, which will take the anti-glare coating off of your display and the letters off of your keyboard. A slightly moist linen cloth is your best bet for cleaning computers.
Don't worry too much about your flu. Not only is your body now prepared for that particular strain of flu, but the virus doesn't last long without a host. By this point, you have nothing to worry about.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, many home routers do contain caching, recursive resolvers. The easiest way to tell is to look for a "DNS caching" option. Most routers I've seen have this disabled by default, but I haven't seen enough of them to make any kind of generalization from that.
Anything that does recursive DNS lookups and caches the results is susceptible to this attack. The patches help, but they don't solve the problem, they just make the attack more difficult.
Two points:
First, their recommendations cover more than things which have been tested for decades. Since nano materials are generally new discoveries, they are likely referring to the vast majority of nano materials that are only starting to be experimented with. To say that some "nano" things have already been tested heavily doesn't imply that they all have been and doesn't exempt the remainder from requiring considerable testing.
Secondly, realizing that something has "nano" properties can itself bring new requirements for testing. For example, CFCs we believed to be completely inert -- that's why they became so prevelant. It was only when they started destroying ozone in the atmosphere that we realized they we hadn't tested that possibility. By applying the "nano" label to already-tested materials, we have to make sure that they have been tested for effects that may occur as a result of being that small; tests that may not have been done before the "nano" label was applied.
The "nano" label may not change chemical or physical properties of a material, but it may change our understanding of those properties.
Depending on the country, there are specifically exceptions for duplication as part of reporting.
For example, if I wanted to report on the opening of a new art gallery, I would probably want to include at least one picture of the art, as illustration of the event. Without being able to reproduce (even through photographing as part of a larger scene) those works, how could I illustrate the event? Wikipedia uses this exception all of the time for including things like screenshots and company logos.
In this case, I think it's fair to say that using the girl's photo, as an illustration of the fact that she made the photos available online, with proper attribution, would fall within fair use. If they used it exclusively as an example of the party itself, then there would likely be some case for copyright infringement.
No matter the case, even if she didn't grant publishing rights by putting it on her blog, she certainly granted viewing rights, which negates any claims to privacy.
Wait, wait, wait... You're questioning whether or not this girl was actually the woman's daughter?
I didn't see anywhere that the mother claimed that her daughter didn't make those statements. In fact, the mother specifically said that her daughter was exaggerating, which means she acknowledges the girl is her daughter.
Now, I agree that journalism has taken a dive over the years (CNN and FOX being great examples of that), but to imply that the newspaper didn't check facts by questioning (not even claiming) that the newspaper didn't confirm the identity of the daughter is to commit one of the worst propagandist sins imaginable: FUD.
Except entrapment involves the guilty party luring you into performing the act. The newspapers didn't convince this girl to throw a party so they could report on it; she threw the party of her own volition.
Entrapment works if a cop offers to sell you drugs; it doesn't work if you ask to buy some drugs from the cop.
From the article, I can't say how they can possibly claim defamation or breach of privacy. Defamation requires making a false claim. The article clearly doesn't state that the party was out of control or things were trashed. Instead, it merely lists quotes from people who claimed to have been at the party and had seen those things. Certainly the people quoted could be cited for defamation if they intentionally gave false statements, but so long as the paper was reporting what they were told (obviously from multiple sources), then they aren't making anything up.
I also don't see how they have a case for breach of privacy. The daughter and friends all gave open, willing statements of the events -- it's not like the reporters had to pry this information from them. Also, the fact that the daughter's account of the events were posted on a publicly viewable site designed to be viewed by complete strangers, they certainly had no expectation of privacy.
In the end, this sounds like a rich parent trying to cover up their dirty laundry. It's nothing new to see a person sue for defamation when somebody prints the harsh truth about them. Lawyers seem all too happy to jump on the opportunity. If only these people could use some of their time and aggravation to look introspectively and handle the situation maturely, rather than ranting and raving.
I realize MMORPGs (and most online services) are quite different from typical box-and-disc packaged software, but there is a good reason for phases like alpha, beta, and release, and it's directly related to the "indefinite beta" syndrome.
Part of the problem is image. As loose as the terms are, alpha means that things will be wholly incomplete and fragile. Users know to expect nothing. Beta should be mostly feature/content-complete, but will undoubtedly have bugs to be fixed and polish to be added. Beta should be a good idea of what the finished product will look like. Finally, release means it's done. As in DONE. A person buying a product off of the shelf expects the product to work always and entirely. They pay a lot of money for what they consider to be the entire product; patches make the product look flaky, whereas to-be-released content makes the product look incomplete. Both of these things devalue the finished product.
The fact that MMORPGs use rolling release cycles, adding content gradually, allows them to get away with some of these sins. Knowing that there can be a nearly-infinite amount of content allows the total value of the product to remain enigmatic, such that the excuse, "Their is more 'free' content to come," keeps the customer patiently waiting to get his value out of the product. It also means they can push out fixes more-or-less silently. If nothing else, it has generated a culture that is tolerant of unfinished development that requires consistent patching.
Release dates also have their place, mostly from a marketing point of view. Most people only make their major purchases at specific times of the year, Christmas being the most obvious one. Releases often happen in August or September because that gives the product time for exposure, review, and everything else that it takes for word to spread and customers to solidify their intentions to buy at Christmas. It's the same reason the Sears catalog comes out months before Christmas.
In terms of quality, release dates are a complete hinderance. As a developer, I can tell you that they are met with hefty distain. Still, they are virtually unavoidable -- you can keep tweaking and adding content and otherwise expanding the product indefinitely. Eventually you have to put your foot down and say, "We're done." Release dates are clear milestones to accomplish development cutoff. Development is expensive and doesn't result in income, so release dates are also a way for investors and bean counters to make sure they turn a profit in a timely manner.
So, saying that release dates are useless, pointless, or stupid, is to misunderstand their uses. Yes, they suck, but without them development would continue indefinitely. When it comes to the retail market, there often is no 2.0. Customers buy your product at 1.0 and if they don't like it, they usually don't come back after the first patch is released. It's just the way the market works.
I'm curious, are you able to tell us what server you decided to switch to?
Actually, Windex is a bad idea. The ammonia tends to eat plastics, which will take the anti-glare coating off of your display and the letters off of your keyboard. A slightly moist linen cloth is your best bet for cleaning computers. Don't worry too much about your flu. Not only is your body now prepared for that particular strain of flu, but the virus doesn't last long without a host. By this point, you have nothing to worry about.