The problem is, if you put adequate distance between you and the car in front of you for your rate of speed, another driver sees this as an opportunity to squeeze in, which is arguably *more* dangerous.
So what? One more guy ahead of you. Big deal. So F'ing What if someone sneaks in between you and the next car. Did your manhood just get dissed?
Its this "I can't let anyone ahead of me" mentality that is so totally insane, especially when you are in a 40 mile stream of traffic, that is at the heart of some of the stupidest driving you see on the road today.
And, No, it is not arguable more dangerous than flying down the road at 50mph with 8 feet off someone's bumper. Don't even go there.
Go ahead and think for about 3 more seconds... There you go, you get it! If you were to say "anyone can go in front of me who is willing to leave half as much of a safe distance as I" you will quickly find yourself at a dead standstill as 90% of other cars on the road shoot in front of you. Its not about someone getting ahead of you, it's about *everyone* getting ahead of you.
One obvious lesson for this is that using email systems that have autocompletes for addresses you've already used or have had replies from is obviously important. A lot of modern software does this although some does not (my university's default webmail application doesn't for example although gmail does).
Don't forget the very real problem of someone's self-configured email client putting the wrong return address on everything. Although they "should" catch it quite quickly as they see a distinct lack of responses to any emails they sent out, it might not be enough for some people. More strict send rules for all values in the email header could probably eliminate 99% of this traffic from ever happening. Just set the server up to read the recipient, check for similar domains, and weight the domains by "legitimacy" (should be easy in most cases) and if there is a domain with a higher legitimacy than the one used rating the email is queued and the sender gets a note saying that they need to check the recipient and if they really meant to use that address they can click a link to send it on, and if not click a different link and it will be sent to the right domain.
Its not perfect, but the right algorithm could catch a whole lot of this with minimal effort. Come to think of it, I smell a patent...
Any sufficiently advanced operating system would have known who you meant to email and automatically routed the message regardless of your inability to type "landolakes.com" without making a mistake. Duh.
It's not "delivered incorrectly" if the address is right (your house) but the contents are wrong (meant for your neighbor)... That's basically what is going on here. While it could easily be argued that they acted with intent (since they certainly don't have a business called Kelllogggs that they need to send/receive email for) it is still within the bounds of "we read it because we were the intended recipient"... Those boilerplates are about as useful as walking around with a t-shirt saying "you just read this now you owe me twenty quid".
Chief Wiggum: Okay, you just bought yourself a 317, pointing out police stupidity... Or is that a 314? Nah nah, 314 is a dog uh, in, no or is that a 315?... You're in trouble pal.
I had the same thought: you watched Back to the Future (any of them) and your take-away was "gee, shoes that tie themselves sure would be nice"? You better be working on a Mr Fusion, flux capacitor, hoverboard, hovercar, hovertrain, and last but not least a 1.21GW lightning inductor (one good storm could power most of the USA).
I think this jab was intended to point out the "unbelievable value" of what we regard as a simple object, as if to demonstrate the absurdity in a pile of sand being imbued with $5M worth of value... Sure, it's a normal object and sure, it was easy to (illegally, in the case of the hard drive) obtain. Does that stop it from having significant worth?
To counter I would say, where is the "art" exhibit containing a group of programmers who work 40 hours/week for a company for nothing in return due to the premise that all they are doing is temporarily moving electrons from one place to another? The notion that just because something can be easily copied it should be copied or even should be "free" to copy is complete nonsense, that computer you are sitting at and that operating system you are using is there because someone at some point got paid very handsomely to create it.*
*(To any linux/foss users, dont bother replying, the coders "working" for you are actually getting paid by someone else; if it were up to the open source community to pay them a living wage they would have moved on long ago and Linux would be dead as a doornail. Volunteerism, while noble, is not a business model.)
So you don't know anyone that carries two phones? Must not have many friends... It's simple, with this your company can finally give you a single phone that is simultaneously usable for work emails that you can't compromise with Angry Birds 8 or some other fart app, and that you can use for Angry Birds 8 and that fart app you just had to have. Not to mention the ability to charge in/punish out of the "correct" mode, such as taking personal phone call costs out of your paycheck.
Expect to see handset sales fall in half if this takes off; all of a sudden there will be no point in carrying two phones around.
My first thought was more along the lines of "what kind of idiot thought a laser would make a good flood lamp?"
You don't need a point of light in your car headlights, you need a flood lamp that illuminates a large area. Either they're putting the mother of all lasers on their car, or they're running it through a light diffuser which would rather defeat the purpose of it being a laser. Or maybe it's not actually a laser, and this is just marketing drivel.
Diffusion would be the answer; lasers already require a lens to become a tiny beam so all it takes is a slightly different lens to allow it to become a flood. The important bit is that the laser technology is apparently more energy efficient and compact, or did you miss the part of the article where they got to the purpose?
Golf clap for the epic story. However, in the time you spent on that couldn't you have thought up at least one *nice* analog for software development that kids will get, like how it is similar to putting building blocks together? It can't be impossible to reach kids with what being a programmer is like, remember you are probably going to be compared to a fire fighter who stands up in front of the class and has to admit he never saved anyone from a burning building, has only gotten to use the Jaws of Life once, and mostly fills his days with washing the truck and practicing carrying hoses up and down stairs.
Wow, not sure how it happened that my question got pretty close to the top 10 in this thread... Was his book really that good that no one is curious about Kevin anymore? Anyway, if this question does get picked, let me add that I asked it out of sincere curiosity and while it sounds like I am trolling I am genuinely interested in knowing what Kevin's perspective is like as someone who has been on both sides of "intellectual property".
TFA Asserts that "Mitnick has agreed that any profits he makes on films or books that are based on his criminal activity will be assigned to the victims of his crimes for a period of seven years following his release from prison." The summary asserts that this is the reason you chose to wait before arranging for the publishing of a personal autobiography.
Given you had the opportunity to publish a copyrighted work and sell it for a profit prior to the release of your "official autobiography" under the pretense that the profits would be sent to the victims of your crimes (a number of which included theft of trade secrets and violation of copyright), why have you chosen to wait until the end of the agreement so that you could personally profit from this? And in a related question (unless you have answered it in the first), do you believe all of your crimes were vitcimless, some were, or perhaps none were?
We currently have 2,598 UNCO bugs in Firefox that haven’t been touched in 150 days. That is almost 2600 bugs that have not been touched since Firefox 4 was released.... In Spring 2010, we hit roughly 13,000 UNCO bugs in the Firefox product on BMO. 13,000!!! We currently have 5,934.
In a related story, from this point forward "Debbie Downer" is no longer the correct pseudonym for an overtly depressing person. Hereafter, that person shall be cited as "Tyler Downer".
Long answer: Yes (because NAT tables, stateful filters and other "customer experience enhancement" routines cost resources, and in cutting down on what those need to do they increase the work the phone must do to carry out ordinary tasks.)
I will second what another poster said: Some people (nearly everyone who works in the medium/large datacenter space) uses VMware for many mission critical apps. That being said, anyone who cares already knew all about this weeks ago. But, it is still fun to see the/. community's perspective on licensing and new features.
When I had religion in primary school they had basically told us that the Genesis was to be taken metaphorically and not literally
That's because you were from a group that was not completely, shit-in-your-pants insane, like a certain group of presidential candidates that have been in the news lately.
That's a bit of a reach; certainly there is a difference between ones self being "shit-in-your-pants insane" and simply wanting to court the approval of voters who are indeed "shit-in-your-pants insane" themselves. The thing about extremists that these candidates know is that they are ripe for one grand gesture of support (like a national announcement of a certain caliber of insanity) and every day after they will be committed to that candidate. Meanwhile, everyone else is busy noodling on what they said most recently and those insane moments fade into the past. Just watch. They will temper and still have their base of loons behind them to the very end.
I lose track of how strapping dynamite sticks around your torso to kill people and blow up stuff is the same as anonymously (i.e. NO intention of being caught I'm sure) and giddily hacking into a web site and releasing information -- which might or might not be of public interest.
Do you think suicide bombers have an intention of getting caught? While certainly the outcome is wildly different, that doesn't stop the mentality from being similar. Anon doesnt do anything for their own gain nor do they do anything that they intend to be "under the radar" so their entire mission (at least from the public's perspective) is to carry out visually stunning acts upon those that they have a disagreement with... In the end, they do face incredibly serious consequences (certainly not comparable to death but life-shattering nonetheless.)
No, the parent gave you an option - move your business to another carrier. You have at least 2 other choices (Sprint, Verizon Wireless) and in some cases many more (Metro PCS, TracFone, U.S. Cellular, Cricket). What's so hard about switching carriers again?
What's hard is that they ALL abuse text messaging fees, every last one. AT&T was on the fence with a 1000 messages for 10 dollars plan, but they fell to the dark side with this move. No carrier is any better at this, except the MVNOs, but they offer the absolute worst customer service and overall feature set, so basically the options for texting are indeed "shut up and take it, or just don't text".
Verizon is just as bad, make no mistake about it. Despite the claim that "verizon's tiered pricing is better" on verizon you have the option of buying 250 messages for $5 (a good deal, sure) or buying 5000 messages for $20 (overkill in the extreme) and then theres the "unlimited texting" option, which on a family play you can only purchase for *all* the phones even if someone in your family (cough, oldpeople) never ever send a single text...
So yes, ATT just got a little less attractive in my book, but they are still a far stretch beyond Verizon when it comes to plan pricing options.
Actually, no... I would bet Samsung (by virtue of owning basically everything significant on the peninsula) was easily able to round up and encourage these "plaintiffs" for the lawsuit, as a sort of counter-strike for what Apple is doing in Germany. I would be shocked if they weren't somehow directly involved in this.
It's much like the marijuana debate; being high isn't necessarily illegal, nor is the act itself of smoking... As you work backward the problems start when you are found to actually be in possession (or have an intent to possess) the drug. So, like this trojan, the activity it's carrying out isnt illegal, rather how it got there is what is illegal (by our current laws and definitions.) There is a pretty big difference, but that may be only obvious to me due to the awareness of semantics required to be a nerd. To laypeople, I can see how it might be confusing.
So you leveraged to the hilt, so that you could go take a chance at getting more money that you wont be able to spend anyway? Epic. (unless of course you found some other way to dispose of money in Vegas that didnt involve traditional gaming...)
Granted, it's possible to misunderstand the situation and make of it what you have, but I guess I was being insufficiently meta in trying to correct your assertion that the bitcoin activity inside the trojan was illegal in some way (which it's not)... If you are referring only to perception and not to reality, then that's a whole different can of worms. Carry on.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, if you put adequate distance between you and the car in front of you for your rate of speed, another driver sees this as an opportunity to squeeze in, which is arguably *more* dangerous.
So what? One more guy ahead of you. Big deal. So F'ing What if someone sneaks in between you and the next car. Did your manhood just get dissed?
Its this "I can't let anyone ahead of me" mentality that is so totally insane, especially when you are in a 40 mile stream of traffic, that is at the heart of some of the stupidest driving you see on the road today.
And, No, it is not arguable more dangerous than flying down the road at 50mph with 8 feet off someone's bumper. Don't even go there.
Go ahead and think for about 3 more seconds... There you go, you get it! If you were to say "anyone can go in front of me who is willing to leave half as much of a safe distance as I" you will quickly find yourself at a dead standstill as 90% of other cars on the road shoot in front of you. Its not about someone getting ahead of you, it's about *everyone* getting ahead of you.
One obvious lesson for this is that using email systems that have autocompletes for addresses you've already used or have had replies from is obviously important. A lot of modern software does this although some does not (my university's default webmail application doesn't for example although gmail does).
Don't forget the very real problem of someone's self-configured email client putting the wrong return address on everything. Although they "should" catch it quite quickly as they see a distinct lack of responses to any emails they sent out, it might not be enough for some people. More strict send rules for all values in the email header could probably eliminate 99% of this traffic from ever happening. Just set the server up to read the recipient, check for similar domains, and weight the domains by "legitimacy" (should be easy in most cases) and if there is a domain with a higher legitimacy than the one used rating the email is queued and the sender gets a note saying that they need to check the recipient and if they really meant to use that address they can click a link to send it on, and if not click a different link and it will be sent to the right domain.
Its not perfect, but the right algorithm could catch a whole lot of this with minimal effort. Come to think of it, I smell a patent...
Any sufficiently advanced operating system would have known who you meant to email and automatically routed the message regardless of your inability to type "landolakes.com" without making a mistake. Duh.
It's not "delivered incorrectly" if the address is right (your house) but the contents are wrong (meant for your neighbor)... That's basically what is going on here. While it could easily be argued that they acted with intent (since they certainly don't have a business called Kelllogggs that they need to send/receive email for) it is still within the bounds of "we read it because we were the intended recipient"... Those boilerplates are about as useful as walking around with a t-shirt saying "you just read this now you owe me twenty quid".
Oblig Simpsons:
Chief Wiggum: Okay, you just bought yourself a 317, pointing out police stupidity... Or is that a 314? Nah nah, 314 is a dog uh, in, no or is that a 315?... You're in trouble pal.
I had the same thought: you watched Back to the Future (any of them) and your take-away was "gee, shoes that tie themselves sure would be nice"? You better be working on a Mr Fusion, flux capacitor, hoverboard, hovercar, hovertrain, and last but not least a 1.21GW lightning inductor (one good storm could power most of the USA).
I think this jab was intended to point out the "unbelievable value" of what we regard as a simple object, as if to demonstrate the absurdity in a pile of sand being imbued with $5M worth of value... Sure, it's a normal object and sure, it was easy to (illegally, in the case of the hard drive) obtain. Does that stop it from having significant worth?
To counter I would say, where is the "art" exhibit containing a group of programmers who work 40 hours/week for a company for nothing in return due to the premise that all they are doing is temporarily moving electrons from one place to another? The notion that just because something can be easily copied it should be copied or even should be "free" to copy is complete nonsense, that computer you are sitting at and that operating system you are using is there because someone at some point got paid very handsomely to create it.*
*(To any linux/foss users, dont bother replying, the coders "working" for you are actually getting paid by someone else; if it were up to the open source community to pay them a living wage they would have moved on long ago and Linux would be dead as a doornail. Volunteerism, while noble, is not a business model.)
So you don't know anyone that carries two phones? Must not have many friends... It's simple, with this your company can finally give you a single phone that is simultaneously usable for work emails that you can't compromise with Angry Birds 8 or some other fart app, and that you can use for Angry Birds 8 and that fart app you just had to have. Not to mention the ability to charge in/punish out of the "correct" mode, such as taking personal phone call costs out of your paycheck.
Expect to see handset sales fall in half if this takes off; all of a sudden there will be no point in carrying two phones around.
My first thought was more along the lines of "what kind of idiot thought a laser would make a good flood lamp?"
You don't need a point of light in your car headlights, you need a flood lamp that illuminates a large area. Either they're putting the mother of all lasers on their car, or they're running it through a light diffuser which would rather defeat the purpose of it being a laser. Or maybe it's not actually a laser, and this is just marketing drivel.
Diffusion would be the answer; lasers already require a lens to become a tiny beam so all it takes is a slightly different lens to allow it to become a flood. The important bit is that the laser technology is apparently more energy efficient and compact, or did you miss the part of the article where they got to the purpose?
Golf clap for the epic story. However, in the time you spent on that couldn't you have thought up at least one *nice* analog for software development that kids will get, like how it is similar to putting building blocks together? It can't be impossible to reach kids with what being a programmer is like, remember you are probably going to be compared to a fire fighter who stands up in front of the class and has to admit he never saved anyone from a burning building, has only gotten to use the Jaws of Life once, and mostly fills his days with washing the truck and practicing carrying hoses up and down stairs.
Wow, not sure how it happened that my question got pretty close to the top 10 in this thread... Was his book really that good that no one is curious about Kevin anymore? Anyway, if this question does get picked, let me add that I asked it out of sincere curiosity and while it sounds like I am trolling I am genuinely interested in knowing what Kevin's perspective is like as someone who has been on both sides of "intellectual property".
TFA Asserts that "Mitnick has agreed that any profits he makes on films or books that are based on his criminal activity will be assigned to the victims of his crimes for a period of seven years following his release from prison." The summary asserts that this is the reason you chose to wait before arranging for the publishing of a personal autobiography.
Given you had the opportunity to publish a copyrighted work and sell it for a profit prior to the release of your "official autobiography" under the pretense that the profits would be sent to the victims of your crimes (a number of which included theft of trade secrets and violation of copyright), why have you chosen to wait until the end of the agreement so that you could personally profit from this? And in a related question (unless you have answered it in the first), do you believe all of your crimes were vitcimless, some were, or perhaps none were?
We currently have 2,598 UNCO bugs in Firefox that haven’t been touched in 150 days. That is almost 2600 bugs that have not been touched since Firefox 4 was released. ... In Spring 2010, we hit roughly 13,000 UNCO bugs in the Firefox product on BMO. 13,000!!! We currently have 5,934.
In a related story, from this point forward "Debbie Downer" is no longer the correct pseudonym for an overtly depressing person. Hereafter, that person shall be cited as "Tyler Downer".
All hail our new horribly sad overlord.
Long answer: Yes (because NAT tables, stateful filters and other "customer experience enhancement" routines cost resources, and in cutting down on what those need to do they increase the work the phone must do to carry out ordinary tasks.)
I will second what another poster said: Some people (nearly everyone who works in the medium/large datacenter space) uses VMware for many mission critical apps. That being said, anyone who cares already knew all about this weeks ago. But, it is still fun to see the /. community's perspective on licensing and new features.
Let me guess, you also waited until today in order to call all your hardware vendors to ask "how do I set up email alerts?"
That's because you were from a group that was not completely, shit-in-your-pants insane, like a certain group of presidential candidates that have been in the news lately.
That's a bit of a reach; certainly there is a difference between ones self being "shit-in-your-pants insane" and simply wanting to court the approval of voters who are indeed "shit-in-your-pants insane" themselves. The thing about extremists that these candidates know is that they are ripe for one grand gesture of support (like a national announcement of a certain caliber of insanity) and every day after they will be committed to that candidate. Meanwhile, everyone else is busy noodling on what they said most recently and those insane moments fade into the past. Just watch. They will temper and still have their base of loons behind them to the very end.
I lose track of how strapping dynamite sticks around your torso to kill people and blow up stuff is the same as anonymously (i.e. NO intention of being caught I'm sure) and giddily hacking into a web site and releasing information -- which might or might not be of public interest.
Do you think suicide bombers have an intention of getting caught? While certainly the outcome is wildly different, that doesn't stop the mentality from being similar. Anon doesnt do anything for their own gain nor do they do anything that they intend to be "under the radar" so their entire mission (at least from the public's perspective) is to carry out visually stunning acts upon those that they have a disagreement with... In the end, they do face incredibly serious consequences (certainly not comparable to death but life-shattering nonetheless.)
shut up and take it.
No, the parent gave you an option - move your business to another carrier. You have at least 2 other choices (Sprint, Verizon Wireless) and in some cases many more (Metro PCS, TracFone, U.S. Cellular, Cricket). What's so hard about switching carriers again?
What's hard is that they ALL abuse text messaging fees, every last one. AT&T was on the fence with a 1000 messages for 10 dollars plan, but they fell to the dark side with this move. No carrier is any better at this, except the MVNOs, but they offer the absolute worst customer service and overall feature set, so basically the options for texting are indeed "shut up and take it, or just don't text".
Verizon is just as bad, make no mistake about it. Despite the claim that "verizon's tiered pricing is better" on verizon you have the option of buying 250 messages for $5 (a good deal, sure) or buying 5000 messages for $20 (overkill in the extreme) and then theres the "unlimited texting" option, which on a family play you can only purchase for *all* the phones even if someone in your family (cough, oldpeople) never ever send a single text...
So yes, ATT just got a little less attractive in my book, but they are still a far stretch beyond Verizon when it comes to plan pricing options.
Actually, no... I would bet Samsung (by virtue of owning basically everything significant on the peninsula) was easily able to round up and encourage these "plaintiffs" for the lawsuit, as a sort of counter-strike for what Apple is doing in Germany. I would be shocked if they weren't somehow directly involved in this.
It's much like the marijuana debate; being high isn't necessarily illegal, nor is the act itself of smoking... As you work backward the problems start when you are found to actually be in possession (or have an intent to possess) the drug. So, like this trojan, the activity it's carrying out isnt illegal, rather how it got there is what is illegal (by our current laws and definitions.) There is a pretty big difference, but that may be only obvious to me due to the awareness of semantics required to be a nerd. To laypeople, I can see how it might be confusing.
So you leveraged to the hilt, so that you could go take a chance at getting more money that you wont be able to spend anyway? Epic. (unless of course you found some other way to dispose of money in Vegas that didnt involve traditional gaming...)
Good, so you didnt have to be exposed to this blatant racism:
And there is no such thing as a black dwarf
I mean come on.
Granted, it's possible to misunderstand the situation and make of it what you have, but I guess I was being insufficiently meta in trying to correct your assertion that the bitcoin activity inside the trojan was illegal in some way (which it's not)... If you are referring only to perception and not to reality, then that's a whole different can of worms. Carry on.