I watched the full version first and that was shortly after the story broke, if they released it later it was by a matter of hours or at most days.
stop bullshitting and outright lying.
"Woah woah... so you're saying Wikileaks is under no obligation to rise above the likes of FOX News and MSNBC? Really??"
you're obviously too dense to understand this but he was pointing out that editing is normal. normal because people don't watch an hour long video where 90% of it is nothing but the droning of an engine and shaky footage of nothing in particular.
they released both the full video and a shorter version with the most important bits. deal with it.
Again and again and again I hear this claim. The only concrete example I've ever seen was one local warlord who was named and later killed.
of course lots of people were being executed before that because of rumors of being informants, and people were killed after that over rumors of being informants. The taliban don't really care about being accurate. They're happy to kill anyone as long as it send the message "don't collaborate with the americans"
As you said one of the requirements of patentability is that the patent application describe the invention in such a manner so that others skilled in the art *can* practice the invention.
The patent is so vague, so meaningless, so full of bullshit that I was wondering if anyone here skilled in the art could actually use that patent as a guide to build whatever the hell it's patenting.
If not then it's not describing whatever it is in a meaningful enough way and shouldn't be valid.
Forget obviousness, that patent is useless as a patent since you learn nothing by reading it. it is nonsense.
Nah, someone will just root some of the US militarise own shitty, poorly patched windows NT boxes and use them as a platform for attack.
The US military will then MAD it's own network into the ground to show them who's boss.
Or even better.
If I want to take down some website, I don't have to do the hard work any more. Just find any insecure app or server in the same server farm and use it to launch some trivial attack against the US government. The US government then does my attack for me, DDoSing or blackholeing the entire datacentre and my target.
I've heard enough silly ideas over the years for systems of actively attacking machines which attack a network, sometimes in an automated fashion. Most automated ones are trivially subverted to use against third parties and the non-automated ones depend on the people in charge being able to find their arse with both hands... unfortunately it's the military.
There's no shortage of security holes found in linux. Given a linux distro that's even moderaly out of date it's almost trivial to find an exploit.
The main reasons we see less malware for linux is that the average linux user tends to know what they're doing and know what they shouldn't do. There's also the small matter of windows being the dominant OS. I don't know about you but if I was writing a virus I'd put my effort into attacking the most common system, not something that has a couple of percent of the market.
I don't know about anyone else here but now i really want to know how these things work. what protocols do they use? are they just glorified cellphones or something more? do they have unique ID's or crypto keys(ya right)?
but if it's not labled, well you're just a nerd curious about the part that fell out of your car. you're only taking it apart to try to figure out what it is and where in the car it bellongs.:-)
and if you post a load of youtube videos of it being taken apart with "hey guys, this part of my car just fell off , can anyone tell me what it is? I really want to fix my car" it only lends support to the story.
are you so sure there's no "except police" clause. Wasn't there a story a while back about a no-knock-wrong-address raid where the owner thought people were trying to kill his family, shot a cop and then got life in prison?
I sometimes wonder if society is stuck in some kind of sine wave. just as fashions come around again and again so might rebellion and conservatism generation to generation.
A calculator or any technology that does the work for you at an early stage just acts as a crutch so you don't have to learn. But that doesn't mean technology has no place.
Technology that challenges you rather than doing the work for you can help.
Something I'd like to see-
A program which poses large numbers of math problems to students, scaled the difficulty based on how many mistakes they make, throw in some kind of AI to guess what kinds of mistakes they're making and trys to tell them where they're going wrong. tallies their correct answers etc. it could even introduce new concepts once a student has reached a certain level of competence in the foundations.
It wouldn't be better than 1:1 with a really good and patient math teacher but I've had enough really awful math teachers who couldn't even do basic arithmetic without a calculator.
There's something depressing about watching a math teacher pause to use a calculator when adding two two digit numbers or multiply 3 single digit numbers.
I became distinctly aware of this in university and assumed it was just academic institutions which tend to be fairly open but then I went to work at a large multinational well known tech company and things were no better.
Passwords on postits, weak and predictable passwords, hardcoding admin passwords into scripts, unprotected resources, security holes in apps you could drive a car through etc etc etc There was vastly more lip service given to security in the multinational but if anything the uni systems were more secure.
Hell even game theory comes into it a little. I knew security was shocking in my entire department but if you made a big deal about it the main outcome would be to create a load of work for your teammates and piss them all off with no reward and it would be like patching holes in a sieve anyway.
wow, I just read the AC that he was responding to(It was bellow my threshold). wow, that is insane.
Ya, the whole term "free will" is thrown about but it doesn't really mean anything. If I really am in a simulation in a finite state machine and would alway make the same decision if it played out again or if I'm in a non-deterministic universe where I probably wouldn't it doesn't matter. I have exactly as much "free will" from my point of view and there's no way to decide which is the case so it's pretty much like arguing about the enumeration of spiritual beings performing ballet on the head of a device used for fastening objects or material together.
Lots of people will believe something is true just because it's in a book, it's the same kind of people who might believe something because it's in a game. If anything games pretend less authority, there's more of a culture of trusting books.
It could be said to come down to the question of if the universe is deterministic. If you somehow saved a copy of the universe and played it a second time if it would turn out the same like a finite state machine or if it would turn out differently.
from the inside there's little difference, you have as much or as little "free will" (as fuzzy a term as that is) either way.
One of the reasons I liked watchmen (particularly the comic which I only read shortly before the film came out ) was that it really didn't shy away from the fact that vigilantism boils down to beating the shit out of or murdering people and sometimes you get it wrong or murder innocent people. I'd respect the show more if every now and then something turned up "oh... it turns out I got completely the wrong guy. he really was an innocent baker" and it left the audience in some kind of doubt of his abilities. Instead we have an almost infallible main character who almost never gets it wrong.
it's like the cop shows that always end with the guy they catch confessing everything, never someone protesting their innocence till the end with any doubt left.
it offers the viewer a world of certainty but in reality most of the legal system is there to cope with the uncertainty and many of the rules about what's inadmissable are there for good reason.
It promotes the view that the only thing stopping us getting rid of all the people everyone knows are bad guys is those pesky lawyers stopping us from locking them up with technicalities.
but it makes good theatre. People don't like stories where they're left uncertain if the person punished was really a bad guy or not.
CPL @159 (99.6%) on 07-oct-2010 [ "_ held mixer" "_ held vacuum" "_ held massager" "_ held tools" "_ held machine" "_ held blender" "_ held grinder" "_ held drill" ]
in a way it makes sense, sites talk about and electric hand held *whatever* so much that it's decided that "electric hand" is a bodypart.
it's logical if you don't already know what a hand is.
As a student I can tell you that there is almost nothing serious to be found in the library. At best, you get pop science books, and at worst the pureed bedlam of a school textbook(amasci.com/miscon/miscon4.html). Real learning simply cannot take place in a library. Sometimes you will come across the odd book, usually written by a geeky expert, but in general the library is a vast intellectual wasteland devoid of substantial content. Just look at the philosopy section.
which is of course bullshit, just like your statement.
If you want to learn programming the internet is fantastic for learning. Far better than most textbooks. there's countless books, journals and various other resources available online in every field and as long as you avoid youtube and the more shitty of forums there's no shortage of good information. But go on with your snobbery and go on dismissing everything beginning with www as worthless.
"Dexter only kills people who kill lots of other people."
He only kills people who he thinks kill lots of other people. The times I've watched that show the times where it shows the person actually commiting the crime I've taken to be a window on his own imagination. He's only good as long as he's infallible. Otherwise he becomes distinctly evil. think of it this way: he's willing to risk the lives of innocent people on the chance that he's wrong.
he can't get enough evidence to convict the person in a court of law but he can get enough to be utterly certain they deserve to be tortured and killed? I've seen too many situations where "everyone knows" something with absolute certainty which is provably wrong to trust any one persons judgement enough that they be judge jury and executioner.
Slashdot Mirror
I watched the full version first and that was shortly after the story broke, if they released it later it was by a matter of hours or at most days.
stop bullshitting and outright lying.
"Woah woah... so you're saying Wikileaks is under no obligation to rise above the likes of FOX News and MSNBC? Really??"
you're obviously too dense to understand this but he was pointing out that editing is normal. normal because people don't watch an hour long video where 90% of it is nothing but the droning of an engine and shaky footage of nothing in particular.
they released both the full video and a shorter version with the most important bits.
deal with it.
Again and again and again I hear this claim.
The only concrete example I've ever seen was one local warlord who was named and later killed.
of course lots of people were being executed before that because of rumors of being informants, and people were killed after that over rumors of being informants.
The taliban don't really care about being accurate.
They're happy to kill anyone as long as it send the message "don't collaborate with the americans"
If they also put the new york times and the guardian newspapers on that same watchlist, sure.
And any other half decent newspapers too.
3 years left?
I was under the impression you had 20 years from date of filing or 17 years from date of issuing.
both of which are expired.
As you said one of the requirements of patentability is that the patent application describe the invention in such a manner so that others skilled in the art *can* practice the invention.
The patent is so vague, so meaningless, so full of bullshit that I was wondering if anyone here skilled in the art could actually use that patent as a guide to build whatever the hell it's patenting.
If not then it's not describing whatever it is in a meaningful enough way and shouldn't be valid.
Forget obviousness, that patent is useless as a patent since you learn nothing by reading it.
it is nonsense.
For the love of god mod parent up.
Nah, someone will just root some of the US militarise own shitty, poorly patched windows NT boxes and use them as a platform for attack.
The US military will then MAD it's own network into the ground to show them who's boss.
Or even better.
If I want to take down some website, I don't have to do the hard work any more.
Just find any insecure app or server in the same server farm and use it to launch some trivial attack against the US government.
The US government then does my attack for me, DDoSing or blackholeing the entire datacentre and my target.
I've heard enough silly ideas over the years for systems of actively attacking machines which attack a network, sometimes in an automated fashion.
Most automated ones are trivially subverted to use against third parties and the non-automated ones depend on the people in charge being able to find their arse with both hands... unfortunately it's the military.
Hands up any programmer with ordinary skill in the art who thinks they can build whatever "invention" that patent is describing.
also
Filed: February 7, 1990 (more than 20 years ago)
Issued: October 5, 1993 (more than 17 years ago)
If I set up a website tomorrow with rollovers and they included me in their speculative invoicing scam how could they apply this patent?
didn't they give in to china already?
There's no shortage of security holes found in linux.
Given a linux distro that's even moderaly out of date it's almost trivial to find an exploit.
The main reasons we see less malware for linux is that the average linux user tends to know what they're doing and know what they shouldn't do.
There's also the small matter of windows being the dominant OS.
I don't know about you but if I was writing a virus I'd put my effort into attacking the most common system, not something that has a couple of percent of the market.
you must run through a lot of cell phones if it can kill anything within 10 feet.
I don't know about anyone else here but now i really want to know how these things work.
what protocols do they use?
are they just glorified cellphones or something more?
do they have unique ID's or crypto keys(ya right)?
if they clearly labeled it, sure.
but if it's not labled, well you're just a nerd curious about the part that fell out of your car. :-)
you're only taking it apart to try to figure out what it is and where in the car it bellongs.
and if you post a load of youtube videos of it being taken apart with "hey guys, this part of my car just fell off , can anyone tell me what it is? I really want to fix my car" it only lends support to the story.
are you so sure there's no "except police" clause.
Wasn't there a story a while back about a no-knock-wrong-address raid where the owner thought people were trying to kill his family, shot a cop and then got life in prison?
Why do you think the slang changes every generation?
I sometimes wonder if society is stuck in some kind of sine wave.
just as fashions come around again and again so might rebellion and conservatism generation to generation.
I'd disagree partly.
A calculator or any technology that does the work for you at an early stage just acts as a crutch so you don't have to learn.
But that doesn't mean technology has no place.
Technology that challenges you rather than doing the work for you can help.
Something I'd like to see-
A program which poses large numbers of math problems to students, scaled the difficulty based on how many mistakes they make, throw in some kind of AI to guess what kinds of mistakes they're making and trys to tell them where they're going wrong. tallies their correct answers etc.
it could even introduce new concepts once a student has reached a certain level of competence in the foundations.
It wouldn't be better than 1:1 with a really good and patient math teacher but I've had enough really awful math teachers who couldn't even do basic arithmetic without a calculator.
There's something depressing about watching a math teacher pause to use a calculator when adding two two digit numbers or multiply 3 single digit numbers.
In most places security is on the honor system.
I became distinctly aware of this in university and assumed it was just academic institutions which tend to be fairly open but then I went to work at a large multinational well known tech company and things were no better.
Passwords on postits, weak and predictable passwords, hardcoding admin passwords into scripts, unprotected resources, security holes in apps you could drive a car through etc etc etc
There was vastly more lip service given to security in the multinational but if anything the uni systems were more secure.
Hell even game theory comes into it a little.
I knew security was shocking in my entire department but if you made a big deal about it the main outcome would be to create a load of work for your teammates and piss them all off with no reward and it would be like patching holes in a sieve anyway.
wow, I just read the AC that he was responding to(It was bellow my threshold). wow, that is insane.
Ya, the whole term "free will" is thrown about but it doesn't really mean anything.
If I really am in a simulation in a finite state machine and would alway make the same decision if it played out again or if I'm in a non-deterministic universe where I probably wouldn't it doesn't matter.
I have exactly as much "free will" from my point of view and there's no way to decide which is the case so it's pretty much like arguing about the enumeration of spiritual beings performing ballet on the head of a device used for fastening objects or material together.
It's still silly.
Lots of people will believe something is true just because it's in a book, it's the same kind of people who might believe something because it's in a game.
If anything games pretend less authority, there's more of a culture of trusting books.
It could be said to come down to the question of if the universe is deterministic.
If you somehow saved a copy of the universe and played it a second time if it would turn out the same like a finite state machine or if it would turn out differently.
from the inside there's little difference, you have as much or as little "free will" (as fuzzy a term as that is) either way.
One of the reasons I liked watchmen (particularly the comic which I only read shortly before the film came out ) was that it really didn't shy away from the fact that vigilantism boils down to beating the shit out of or murdering people and sometimes you get it wrong or murder innocent people.
I'd respect the show more if every now and then something turned up "oh... it turns out I got completely the wrong guy. he really was an innocent baker" and it left the audience in some kind of doubt of his abilities.
Instead we have an almost infallible main character who almost never gets it wrong.
it's like the cop shows that always end with the guy they catch confessing everything, never someone protesting their innocence till the end with any doubt left.
it offers the viewer a world of certainty but in reality most of the legal system is there to cope with the uncertainty and many of the rules about what's inadmissable are there for good reason.
It promotes the view that the only thing stopping us getting rid of all the people everyone knows are bad guys is those pesky lawyers stopping us from locking them up with technicalities.
but it makes good theatre.
People don't like stories where they're left uncertain if the person punished was really a bad guy or not.
I think "electric hand" is a #bone
And looking a little bit more into it:
CPL @159 (99.6%) on 07-oct-2010 [ "_ held mixer" "_ held vacuum" "_ held massager" "_ held tools" "_ held machine" "_ held blender" "_ held grinder" "_ held drill" ]
in a way it makes sense, sites talk about and electric hand held *whatever* so much that it's decided that "electric hand" is a bodypart.
it's logical if you don't already know what a hand is.
As a student I can tell you that there is almost nothing serious to be found in the library. At best, you get pop science books, and at worst the pureed bedlam of a school textbook(amasci.com/miscon/miscon4.html). Real learning simply cannot take place in a library. Sometimes you will come across the odd book, usually written by a geeky expert, but in general the library is a vast intellectual wasteland devoid of substantial content. Just look at the philosopy section.
which is of course bullshit, just like your statement.
If you want to learn programming the internet is fantastic for learning.
Far better than most textbooks.
there's countless books, journals and various other resources available online in every field and as long as you avoid youtube and the more shitty of forums there's no shortage of good information.
But go on with your snobbery and go on dismissing everything beginning with www as worthless.
"Dexter only kills people who kill lots of other people."
He only kills people who he thinks kill lots of other people.
The times I've watched that show the times where it shows the person actually commiting the crime I've taken to be a window on his own imagination.
He's only good as long as he's infallible.
Otherwise he becomes distinctly evil.
think of it this way: he's willing to risk the lives of innocent people on the chance that he's wrong.
he can't get enough evidence to convict the person in a court of law but he can get enough to be utterly certain they deserve to be tortured and killed?
I've seen too many situations where "everyone knows" something with absolute certainty which is provably wrong to trust any one persons judgement enough that they be judge jury and executioner.