Panning shots mean it's far easier to see your crappy make-up, faked punches and dodgy CGI. There's a reason why quick-fire editing is popular: want to make a sequence look action-y? Don't bother making a tense fight or anything, just make the camera shake like it's being flung around by an ape.
I might be inclined to concede this for DDOS where 1 visitor = 1 person. Unfortunately, you simply can't ignore that a great proportion of the traffic in a DDOS comes from botnets, which are and should always be illegal. The dangers of a single person with control of a large botnet can be incredible for small sites - I've personally seen entire communities crumble because one single idiot was angered at the others and decided to take revenge.
I'm sorry, but I can't equate DDOS with a sit-in. We need to make progress in stopping those.
You're going to the other extreme. Who said there should be no security whatsoever? There's a large difference between useless and invasive scanners and pre-2001 security measures and yet we were just fine back then, weren't we?
And without your dock close at hand, you're stuck on a tiny screen with no physical keyboard. I'm sorry but the convenience of a hardware, full-sized keyboard and proper applications (not apps) should far outweigh the hip factor in corporate environments.
That's what I don't get. Carriers should not want to constantly make customers buy new hardware because they subsidize this new hardware. On the contrary, they should keep the customer on their first phone for as long as possible so that once the phone's cost has been absorbed by the monthly fees, they can pocket those fees directly. It only makes sense. Rolling out software updates which have already been coded and designed by hardware manufacturers at no extra cost should be a lot cheaper than subsidizing hundreds/thousands/tens of thousands of new phones every once in a while.
Google doesn't have that much of an interest in pushing their own browser. What they want is a standards-compliant, efficient browser that can easily run ads on people without breaking down on half the sites or requiring hundreds of man-hours to code for specifically. They make money of their websites, not off Chrome itself, so it could be Firefox, Opera, Safari, Opera or even IE9 for all they care.
I said this in the perspective of a world where the TSA wouldn't even exist (a sane place, perhaps). It's true that at this point terrorists don't even need to make victims as much as they need to scare officials, but that should not be the case. Plus, you said "if". Those two cases were thwarted by all of two things: passengers and their own stupidity*. In any case, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the amounts that those two people had wasn't enough to blow a hole through the fuselage or even cause serious injury to anyone but the bomber?
* Never underestimate stupidity. It works both ways, thankfully.
Chances are you wouldn't come down in a fiery ball, either. The TSA is scanning for people with weapons or bombs, both of which are of little use outside of a direct confrontation with the passengers and crew. Unlike 9/11, people now know that if they don't react they're just about certain to die AND to cause the death of hundreds. Crews are better trained to face such situations. Plane cockpits have been reinforced. All in all, the chances of you falling on some terrorist or terrorist group that manages to get on board without triggering the metal detectors and explosive detectors (ie what was already in place way before those intrusive scans) AND manages to control the entire crew and all passengers or blow up the entire plane is absurdly small. Blowing up the plane would require a lot of explosives or very well-placed charges, both of which are highly unlikely to happen, so most terrorists would confront the people there and nowadays the chances of them succeeding are slight.
The TSA's latest "security measures" are just a nice way of making money for some companies and it makes them look like they're doing something.
The problem with the Internet is its extremely pervasive nature. It isn't any sort of definitive entity; it is constantly evolving and changing.
In order to control the Internet, you would have to lock down all worldwide access points, all international backbones and uplinks. You would then also need to have sufficiently tight control over the entire network to avoid rogue agents from slipping through. Finally, you'd need to prohibit all alternative means of constituting a network (by means of wireless networks, satellites, etc.) and enforce such a ban. If any of those conditions is not fulfilled, you can rest assured you will see rogue "darknets" spread around and allow for unauthorized sharing of information.
At that point, we'd already be living in a police state and none of this would really matter. The reason China manages such control is that the Internet grew outside of them, letting them the time to form a plan of attack before it was there. Western countries have to deal with it as it is, and would have a much harder time actually restraining the network in the manners necessary to properly control the Internet.
They also tried using 1760 DSs, but most ended up being entirely used for Brain Age. The managers of the project also didn't like to know they had a brain age of over 60.
PSPs were also thought of, but Marcus said that was so un-cool that they abandoned the idea and they were always requesting firmware updates.
Stumbling on PCs, the hope was short-lived as the engineers couldn't decide on blue or red LEDs on the fans.
Hopes are high now for the Atari 2600 if the PS3 does not succeed.
You wouldn't be able to host a site like Wikileaks on a home connection or even on a commercial connection. Instead of the host terminating the account, it'd be your ISP doing so. Hosting Wikileaks would require you to own an ISP that directly connects to one of the backbones so that shutting you down would be an extremely unlikely possibility.
Obviously, such a thing costs in the millions of dollars.
Sorry, but the Ptolemaic system was, back in ancient times, a very accurate representation of planetary movements. From your first line, then, Galileo would be wrong.
There always needs to be a sufficient amount of skepticism to everything we devise. Dark matter really is aether. We don't know what it is, we can't observe it so far, the only thing we know is the effects it does. However, interesting theories (such as Hoava–Lifshitz gravity) have sprung up that try to explain the effects we see without requiring the intervention of an exotic matter/energy mix. In many ways, the situation is similar to the birth of relativity.
It's worse. Corporations are giving money to China for them to steal their inventions and innovation, in exchange for poorly manufactured, poorly supervised products.
Slashdot Mirror
The Onion.
They sent an interrupt signal to Iran's nuclear program?
Panning shots mean it's far easier to see your crappy make-up, faked punches and dodgy CGI. There's a reason why quick-fire editing is popular: want to make a sequence look action-y? Don't bother making a tense fight or anything, just make the camera shake like it's being flung around by an ape.
I might be inclined to concede this for DDOS where 1 visitor = 1 person. Unfortunately, you simply can't ignore that a great proportion of the traffic in a DDOS comes from botnets, which are and should always be illegal. The dangers of a single person with control of a large botnet can be incredible for small sites - I've personally seen entire communities crumble because one single idiot was angered at the others and decided to take revenge.
I'm sorry, but I can't equate DDOS with a sit-in. We need to make progress in stopping those.
You're going to the other extreme. Who said there should be no security whatsoever? There's a large difference between useless and invasive scanners and pre-2001 security measures and yet we were just fine back then, weren't we?
Aren't you basically confessing dozens/hundreds of murders just by saying that?
Many laptops have HDMI out now. Mine has DisplayPort on top of that.
In other words, keep your big SUV and let the future generations deal with any issues that might arise?
Could always debunk the myth of Sarah Palin having a brain.
And without your dock close at hand, you're stuck on a tiny screen with no physical keyboard. I'm sorry but the convenience of a hardware, full-sized keyboard and proper applications (not apps) should far outweigh the hip factor in corporate environments.
That's what I don't get. Carriers should not want to constantly make customers buy new hardware because they subsidize this new hardware. On the contrary, they should keep the customer on their first phone for as long as possible so that once the phone's cost has been absorbed by the monthly fees, they can pocket those fees directly. It only makes sense. Rolling out software updates which have already been coded and designed by hardware manufacturers at no extra cost should be a lot cheaper than subsidizing hundreds/thousands/tens of thousands of new phones every once in a while.
NEVER put try/catches. If you do, it means you expect an error to happen. That's bad.
One word: Extensions. Firefox was specifically built to have minimal features out of the box.
Google doesn't have that much of an interest in pushing their own browser. What they want is a standards-compliant, efficient browser that can easily run ads on people without breaking down on half the sites or requiring hundreds of man-hours to code for specifically. They make money of their websites, not off Chrome itself, so it could be Firefox, Opera, Safari, Opera or even IE9 for all they care.
I said this in the perspective of a world where the TSA wouldn't even exist (a sane place, perhaps). It's true that at this point terrorists don't even need to make victims as much as they need to scare officials, but that should not be the case. Plus, you said "if". Those two cases were thwarted by all of two things: passengers and their own stupidity*. In any case, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the amounts that those two people had wasn't enough to blow a hole through the fuselage or even cause serious injury to anyone but the bomber?
* Never underestimate stupidity. It works both ways, thankfully.
Chances are you wouldn't come down in a fiery ball, either. The TSA is scanning for people with weapons or bombs, both of which are of little use outside of a direct confrontation with the passengers and crew. Unlike 9/11, people now know that if they don't react they're just about certain to die AND to cause the death of hundreds. Crews are better trained to face such situations. Plane cockpits have been reinforced. All in all, the chances of you falling on some terrorist or terrorist group that manages to get on board without triggering the metal detectors and explosive detectors (ie what was already in place way before those intrusive scans) AND manages to control the entire crew and all passengers or blow up the entire plane is absurdly small. Blowing up the plane would require a lot of explosives or very well-placed charges, both of which are highly unlikely to happen, so most terrorists would confront the people there and nowadays the chances of them succeeding are slight.
The TSA's latest "security measures" are just a nice way of making money for some companies and it makes them look like they're doing something.
The problem with the Internet is its extremely pervasive nature. It isn't any sort of definitive entity; it is constantly evolving and changing.
In order to control the Internet, you would have to lock down all worldwide access points, all international backbones and uplinks. You would then also need to have sufficiently tight control over the entire network to avoid rogue agents from slipping through. Finally, you'd need to prohibit all alternative means of constituting a network (by means of wireless networks, satellites, etc.) and enforce such a ban. If any of those conditions is not fulfilled, you can rest assured you will see rogue "darknets" spread around and allow for unauthorized sharing of information.
At that point, we'd already be living in a police state and none of this would really matter. The reason China manages such control is that the Internet grew outside of them, letting them the time to form a plan of attack before it was there. Western countries have to deal with it as it is, and would have a much harder time actually restraining the network in the manners necessary to properly control the Internet.
They also tried using 1760 DSs, but most ended up being entirely used for Brain Age. The managers of the project also didn't like to know they had a brain age of over 60.
PSPs were also thought of, but Marcus said that was so un-cool that they abandoned the idea and they were always requesting firmware updates.
Stumbling on PCs, the hope was short-lived as the engineers couldn't decide on blue or red LEDs on the fans.
Hopes are high now for the Atari 2600 if the PS3 does not succeed.
You wouldn't be able to host a site like Wikileaks on a home connection or even on a commercial connection. Instead of the host terminating the account, it'd be your ISP doing so. Hosting Wikileaks would require you to own an ISP that directly connects to one of the backbones so that shutting you down would be an extremely unlikely possibility.
Obviously, such a thing costs in the millions of dollars.
Sorry, but the Ptolemaic system was, back in ancient times, a very accurate representation of planetary movements. From your first line, then, Galileo would be wrong.
There always needs to be a sufficient amount of skepticism to everything we devise. Dark matter really is aether. We don't know what it is, we can't observe it so far, the only thing we know is the effects it does. However, interesting theories (such as Hoava–Lifshitz gravity) have sprung up that try to explain the effects we see without requiring the intervention of an exotic matter/energy mix. In many ways, the situation is similar to the birth of relativity.
I knew the Asgard existed.
It's worse. Corporations are giving money to China for them to steal their inventions and innovation, in exchange for poorly manufactured, poorly supervised products.
Depends on the game. Sins of a Solar Empire allows for I think 3 players on the same key.
Not all publishers and developers were created equal.
Chances are Bill C-32 will do a lot of what ACTA is planning to do and more.
And The GIMP? Oh, right.