It's probably indicative of the growing polarization in our country.
Whaddaya mean, "polarization", you liberal twit! This country is full of unity and love and if you don't like it you can just get the heck outta Dodge and go to some terrorist haven like New Zealand or Omaha!
I thought I was focusing on Microsoft's misunderstanding of the best way to secure systems. What if it's my home system? Now I can't use my older USB stuff so that someone else can rest easy? That's the wrong solution to the wrong problem. I probably just didn't articulate it all that well.
Another purpose is punishment -- to correct a single individual's behavior by imposing said consequences.
Correction and punishment aren't the same. Punishment does impose consequences, but this ties in with your first point - that punishment may discourage the behavior in others as well as the one being punished. I know my two younger kids learned an awful lot by observing the consequences of their older brother's behavior.
Notice the new standard proposes that untrusted devices become read-only, which won't prevent the spreading of viruses carried by your USB device. And if you plug a USB dongle into an untrusted computer, or vice versa, you deserve what you get.
Which was my point. Some employee pops in his USB drive that he has files on from his infected computer at home. I determine which employees I trust with corporate data, but any schmoe can dump a virus into our domain?
Ah, without the backstory it just looked like another humor impaired/. comment to me. By the way, the joke belonged to another (unless you're referring to my bladder control issues...).
The idea is to prevent people from stealing corporate data via USB devices
Ignoring the rest of your insightful post, what if that's not my particular security concern? What if I'm more concerned with an infection that takes down my network? And what if we're talking about my home PC and not some corporate repository (or would the be suppository) of data.
Yes, it was here yesterday. I guess the FTC is really wanting to emphasize the point and drive it home. They plan to say the same thing every day, just like spammers, in hopes that something will click....
And how does this make things "more secure"? Allowing me to download from a USB device vs. upload seems less secure. Do I already have a virus on my computer and don't want it to get to my older USB device? I guess it's not possible to download a virus from existing USB devices....
Dude, it was a joke. It parodies the way ads imply guilt or imply that the arch-enemy of freedom (the other candidate) had the complete ability to control x when that is rarely the case.
Hey, I'm younger than either of these guys and I have trouble controlling my bladder, much less the economy (or hurricanes).
These bla bla bla will never win an election, so in my opinion most of the campaign money is throw away with this kind of trash campaign.
Let's see, how many Nader ads do I remember from past elections?..... Mmm. None. But Nader was elected anyway, right?..... Mmm. No. Maybe name recognition, like any other product, works in elections too.
Perhaps things work differently in Brazil. You've probably got some candidates that don't have TV money. Let us know if they get elected.....
I'd actually recommend turning off tabs, just because the newbies will probably be less likely to use Firefox if they have to deal with tabs since it's something different than they're used to.
So far, everyone I've shown tabs to was at least intrigued if not downright ecstatic.
I think the difference is that many big budget sci-fi "epics" aspire to something more cerebral than their material will allow. Take all of that stuff and reprise the old Buck Rogers serial experience in a CGI package and you have something called fun. It's a foreign concept among "serious" directors and actors (and perhaps pretentious movie goers).
Wasn't that the POINT? Isn't jail supposed to be unfun/annoying/humiliating?
Yep. Once you're convicted I agree. These cameras were in booking areas. Granted most of the on camera "talent" would be guilty, but not all and there's the rub.
I see nothing wrong with what they were doing if they just had cameras so people could see what it was like/what was going on. It's not like they were making the prisoners wear dresses and act out scenes from "The Sound of Music" on camera against their will or anything.
Hah! If Sherrif Joe reads that it'll be next on his agenda. He reinstituted prison "stripes" and makes the men wear pink boxers and revived chain gangs. He also erected "Tent City" where convicted criminals get to live in tents "Just like our boys in Iraq!" year round, and he made them listen to Newt Gingrich tapes over and over again. When someone complained about the green bologna, Sherrif Joe marched the TV crews to Tent City and ate a green bologna sandwich with the prisoners.
I don't have a problem with those things, but some of the other stuff he does bothers me. I think he believes his own press releases (and any positive press or media attention) and will one day go too far. Recently his "civilian posse" and some deputies got their prostitution sting thrown out by the prosecuters when the tapes showed the sherrif's boys droppin' their drawers for the ladies of the evening and engaging in "sexual contact". Arpaio's office said they thought they had the prosecuters blessing on such conduct.
Re:The problem is with *who* the cams are on...
on
Judges Junk Jailcam
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Hey, I've tried to get on juries in the past. I'd like to participate in the process. My work schedule has either always been a problem or they culled me before I ever got to the interview. Maybe it's because I bring reading material rather than watch TV - "No, not him. Attention span may be too long. Hey, what about the guy trying to channel surf using a candybar for a remote control...?"
I don't know that I'd agree that there's mostly gas giants. I mean, at my last family reunion I only counted 5 or 6 at the most and the rest of us had fairly normal reactions to the food....
I'll take a stab at it and say that the reviews were removed because they were not reviews. The negative comments were about this particular situation which has no bearing on the content of the book itself.
So,/. must be the Berekely if the internet. I don't mean in terms of actual politics, I mean in terms of the mindset that assumes everyone thinks like us, or would if they were intelligent....
-- I think that you and I must be reading two completely different slashdots.
I read your comment and then your sig read my mind....
No. It's worse than that. Lack of due diligence means they didn't bother to check or they didn't make "due diligence" (didn't diligently check). The indication is that they likely did check and decided to use someone's domain name anyway.
The book was originally to be titled "girl.com" but that turned out to be a porn site, so they changed it to "katie.com" instead.
Right. So the publisher knows that girl.com won't work for them before they publish the book. Whether they were checking that out ahead of time or just stumbled on the information they likely would have said, "Hey, let's check out katie.com so we don't run into the same problem." That means the publisher used katie.com fully aware that it was in use by someone prior to publication. Now that "someone" is being pressured to relinquish their long-held domain name. I'm not a litigious individual (never been involved in a suit on either side and I'm nearing 50) but I'd be filing a countersuit in a heartbeat.
Slashdot Mirror
It's time for the computer lab at the local middle school....
It's probably indicative of the growing polarization in our country.
Whaddaya mean, "polarization", you liberal twit! This country is full of unity and love and if you don't like it you can just get the heck outta Dodge and go to some terrorist haven like New Zealand or Omaha!
Oh, wait....
It's the liberal suppression of the conservative view. Pass the word....
You're focusing on the wrong problem.
I thought I was focusing on Microsoft's misunderstanding of the best way to secure systems. What if it's my home system? Now I can't use my older USB stuff so that someone else can rest easy? That's the wrong solution to the wrong problem. I probably just didn't articulate it all that well.
Another purpose is punishment -- to correct a single individual's behavior by imposing said consequences.
Correction and punishment aren't the same. Punishment does impose consequences, but this ties in with your first point - that punishment may discourage the behavior in others as well as the one being punished. I know my two younger kids learned an awful lot by observing the consequences of their older brother's behavior.
Notice the new standard proposes that untrusted devices become read-only, which won't prevent the spreading of viruses carried by your USB device. And if you plug a USB dongle into an untrusted computer, or vice versa, you deserve what you get.
Which was my point. Some employee pops in his USB drive that he has files on from his infected computer at home. I determine which employees I trust with corporate data, but any schmoe can dump a virus into our domain?
Ah, without the backstory it just looked like another humor impaired /. comment to me. By the way, the joke belonged to another (unless you're referring to my bladder control issues...).
The idea is to prevent people from stealing corporate data via USB devices
Ignoring the rest of your insightful post, what if that's not my particular security concern? What if I'm more concerned with an infection that takes down my network? And what if we're talking about my home PC and not some corporate repository (or would the be suppository) of data.
Yes, it was here yesterday. I guess the FTC is really wanting to emphasize the point and drive it home. They plan to say the same thing every day, just like spammers, in hopes that something will click....
Oops. Didn't realize that the quote was "fake" when I replied...
And how does this make things "more secure"? Allowing me to download from a USB device vs. upload seems less secure. Do I already have a virus on my computer and don't want it to get to my older USB device? I guess it's not possible to download a virus from existing USB devices....
Dude, it was a joke. It parodies the way ads imply guilt or imply that the arch-enemy of freedom (the other candidate) had the complete ability to control x when that is rarely the case.
Hey, I'm younger than either of these guys and I have trouble controlling my bladder, much less the economy (or hurricanes).
These bla bla bla will never win an election, so in my opinion most of the campaign money is throw away with this kind of trash campaign.
Let's see, how many Nader ads do I remember from past elections?..... Mmm. None. But Nader was elected anyway, right?..... Mmm. No. Maybe name recognition, like any other product, works in elections too.
Perhaps things work differently in Brazil. You've probably got some candidates that don't have TV money. Let us know if they get elected.....
Perhaps you meant, "...if they're educated..."
I'd actually recommend turning off tabs, just because the newbies will probably be less likely to use Firefox if they have to deal with tabs since it's something different than they're used to.
So far, everyone I've shown tabs to was at least intrigued if not downright ecstatic.
I think the difference is that many big budget sci-fi "epics" aspire to something more cerebral than their material will allow. Take all of that stuff and reprise the old Buck Rogers serial experience in a CGI package and you have something called fun. It's a foreign concept among "serious" directors and actors (and perhaps pretentious movie goers).
Now that'd be funny.....
Wasn't that the POINT? Isn't jail supposed to be unfun/annoying/humiliating?
Yep. Once you're convicted I agree. These cameras were in booking areas. Granted most of the on camera "talent" would be guilty, but not all and there's the rub.
I see nothing wrong with what they were doing if they just had cameras so people could see what it was like/what was going on. It's not like they were making the prisoners wear dresses and act out scenes from "The Sound of Music" on camera against their will or anything.
Hah! If Sherrif Joe reads that it'll be next on his agenda. He reinstituted prison "stripes" and makes the men wear pink boxers and revived chain gangs. He also erected "Tent City" where convicted criminals get to live in tents "Just like our boys in Iraq!" year round, and he made them listen to Newt Gingrich tapes over and over again. When someone complained about the green bologna, Sherrif Joe marched the TV crews to Tent City and ate a green bologna sandwich with the prisoners.
I don't have a problem with those things, but some of the other stuff he does bothers me. I think he believes his own press releases (and any positive press or media attention) and will one day go too far. Recently his "civilian posse" and some deputies got their prostitution sting thrown out by the prosecuters when the tapes showed the sherrif's boys droppin' their drawers for the ladies of the evening and engaging in "sexual contact". Arpaio's office said they thought they had the prosecuters blessing on such conduct.
Hey, I've tried to get on juries in the past. I'd like to participate in the process. My work schedule has either always been a problem or they culled me before I ever got to the interview. Maybe it's because I bring reading material rather than watch TV - "No, not him. Attention span may be too long. Hey, what about the guy trying to channel surf using a candybar for a remote control...?"
I don't know that I'd agree that there's mostly gas giants. I mean, at my last family reunion I only counted 5 or 6 at the most and the rest of us had fairly normal reactions to the food....
But then they might also think "hey, penguin got the message, they're not so bad after all"
Except they haven't called their attack lawyers off the guy who used to run Penguin Software....
Maybe they'll sue Batman next.
I'll take a stab at it and say that the reviews were removed because they were not reviews. The negative comments were about this particular situation which has no bearing on the content of the book itself.
So, /. must be the Berekely if the internet. I don't mean in terms of actual politics, I mean in terms of the mindset that assumes everyone thinks like us, or would if they were intelligent....
--
I think that you and I must be reading two completely different slashdots.
I read your comment and then your sig read my mind....
Lack of due diligence.
No. It's worse than that. Lack of due diligence means they didn't bother to check or they didn't make "due diligence" (didn't diligently check). The indication is that they likely did check and decided to use someone's domain name anyway.
The book was originally to be titled "girl.com" but that turned out to be a porn site, so they changed it to "katie.com" instead.
Right. So the publisher knows that girl.com won't work for them before they publish the book. Whether they were checking that out ahead of time or just stumbled on the information they likely would have said, "Hey, let's check out katie.com so we don't run into the same problem." That means the publisher used katie.com fully aware that it was in use by someone prior to publication. Now that "someone" is being pressured to relinquish their long-held domain name. I'm not a litigious individual (never been involved in a suit on either side and I'm nearing 50) but I'd be filing a countersuit in a heartbeat.