How long has a webpage that makes a browser crash been called a "Denial Of Service Exploit".
A browser that can be crashed is a very bad thing, but suggesting this is some sort of "Denial Of Service" attack, is just semantics. It doesn't crash the box, and it doesn't flood/break the network. Every other service on your machine runs as normal. That's not a Denial Of Service by the usual definition of the term.
How absurd that a philosophy that intends to promote personal liberty allows slavery!
Bingo. That's because libertarianism only promotes the liberty of the financially independent. It's never happened in America, but we've had the libertarian system in Britain, only we called it feudalism, and we called such economic slavery serfdom.
If you had a job, and asked your coworkers to doublecheck your grammar on a simple document, you would probably get laughed at.
Only if your co-workers are douches. At my job, when writing scientific papers, we're forever asking input on the best way to rephrase clumsy sentence construction...
Well, I think there are two distinct things here: i) unlimited spending ii) undisclosed spending
Like you, I'm torn on the former. There's a personal liberty issue, but the consequences of unlimited spending are worse, IMHO. Unlimited spending by the two bug parties acts as an effective barrier to entry to third parties. They can't draw much corporate funding until they have influence, and grass roots funding simply can't compete to obtain that influence. Personally, I'd bar all corporate contributions and allow unlimited personal contributions, from anyone eligible to vote. Control of Government should be left to citizens who have that right... it's what the Founding Fathers wanted.
ii) Undisclosed political contributions (above a very low level) are absolutely inexcusable. Accountability, accountability, accountability. The electorate has the right to know who is financing a candidate. It's a vital piece of information in the democratic process.
... if America keeps going along these lines, it won't be long before they elect a completely incompetent President, whose only qualifications are high level connections and the ability to outspend his opponent due to massive corporate contributions.
I don't look forward toward that day, let me tell you.
Pfizer's CEO says, 'I don't look out the window. I use my BlackBerry and answer my email.'"
Most of the time his replies read: "Funnily enough, I can get actual Viagra for the price you're selling fake C1AL1S. I'm the CEO of f**king Pfizer, you morons."
He works on a helpdesk. Informed, intelligent, technologically savvy people don't use helpdesks. Helpdesks help the uninformed, and the technologically baffled. That's what they're for. They are the crossing guards of the Information Superhighway.
Sorry. Monday morning and already three helpdesk tickets on goddamn PDAs. Apparently, they need, like, batteries, or power, or something and won't work without it?
Dude, if you don't want to help people with their technical problems, it seems pretty likely that you're in the wrong line of work...
Do you suppose there's a www.crossingguard.org where people post complaints like "Goddamn ignorant little kids, not being able to cross the road on their own"?
No ones getting shafted in the UK. It's almost impossible to buy a DVD player here that isn't region free. Whatever the DVD Consortium say, the market has told the manufacturers to ignore them, and the manufacturers have complied.
Would the EU and others try to take over the root servers by force (hacking their way in)?
No. They'll just set up their own with all the information on the present DNS servers mirrored, and persuade/force their local top-level DNS servers to point to them instead. Eventually they might diverge, but it'll be in no-one's interest to let them diverge too much. No citizen of the EU is going to want their US-based.com addresses to stop resolving correctly, and the US is already reliant on other sources to resolve other country's TLD addresses.
Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just set up an alternate root system without all the political grandstanding?
Given the natural inclinations of politicians, I think a better question would be
"Couldn't you do all this political grandstanding without f*cking up our internet structure?"
But, as many people have said, and will say, DNS is a voluntary system. Any country/power block is fully welcome to start running their own. Hell, decentralisation was the whole damn point.
Re:If I couldn't DL music from usenet...
on
RIAA Sues a Child
·
· Score: 1
Listen to all the previous Fiona Apple CDs and make an educated guess...
Yeah, but goldfish have 5 second memory spans, which makes them even reliable as witnesses than Ronald Reagan at the Iran-Contra hearings...
Lawyer : Did you download songs from the internet? Goldfish : I don't remember Lawyer : Did you discuss downloading songs with the defendant? Goldfish : I have no recollection of that. Lawyer : Did you install the Kazaa "filesharing" software Goldfish : I don't remember. Lawyer : Do you authorise illegal shipments of arms to Iran, in exchange for money to covertly fund the Contra rebels in Nicaragua? Goldfish : Jesus, even I know that that was Ronald Reagan.
Slashdot Mirror
Most sources I can find seem to disagree with you.
How long has a webpage that makes a browser crash been called a "Denial Of Service Exploit".
A browser that can be crashed is a very bad thing, but suggesting this is some sort of "Denial Of Service" attack, is just semantics. It doesn't crash the box, and it doesn't flood/break the network. Every other service on your machine runs as normal. That's not a Denial Of Service by the usual definition of the term.
Fortunately, we grew out of it.
I mean, have you seen the complexity of some of those home-made bongs?
There's some serious brain power gone into engineering those bastards.
Plan 9 has a web browser? Who knew?
Don't worry, there's no way McCreevy is going to be re-elected...
(Which, technically, is true)
Well, I think there are two distinct things here:
i) unlimited spending
ii) undisclosed spending
Like you, I'm torn on the former. There's a personal liberty issue, but the consequences of unlimited spending are worse, IMHO. Unlimited spending by the two bug parties acts as an effective barrier to entry to third parties. They can't draw much corporate funding until they have influence, and grass roots funding simply can't compete to obtain that influence. Personally, I'd bar all corporate contributions and allow unlimited personal contributions, from anyone eligible to vote. Control of Government should be left to citizens who have that right... it's what the Founding Fathers wanted.
ii) Undisclosed political contributions (above a very low level) are absolutely inexcusable. Accountability, accountability, accountability. The electorate has the right to know who is financing a candidate. It's a vital piece of information in the democratic process.
... if America keeps going along these lines, it won't be long before they elect a completely incompetent President, whose only qualifications are high level connections and the ability to outspend his opponent due to massive corporate contributions.
I don't look forward toward that day, let me tell you.
But what do the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) say about it?
Do you suppose there's a www.crossingguard.org where people post complaints like "Goddamn ignorant little kids, not being able to cross the road on their own"?
If you want to benefit from globalisation, then you've get out there and bribe your own congressmen.
By God, we've paid for this influence, and we're certainly not going to let insignificant cretins like you profit from it at our expense.
Love,
The Military-Industrial-Multimedia Complex
No ones getting shafted in the UK. It's almost impossible to buy a DVD player here that isn't region free. Whatever the DVD Consortium say, the market has told the manufacturers to ignore them, and the manufacturers have complied.
There is no spoon.
Storm, meet teacup.
Listen to all the previous Fiona Apple CDs and make an educated guess...
There's no need to call it theft. Just describe it as what it is : Piracy /ducks
Yeah, but goldfish have 5 second memory spans, which makes them even reliable as witnesses than Ronald Reagan at the Iran-Contra hearings...
Lawyer : Did you download songs from the internet?
Goldfish : I don't remember
Lawyer : Did you discuss downloading songs with the defendant?
Goldfish : I have no recollection of that.
Lawyer : Did you install the Kazaa "filesharing" software
Goldfish : I don't remember.
Lawyer : Do you authorise illegal shipments of arms to Iran, in exchange for money to covertly fund the Contra rebels in Nicaragua?
Goldfish : Jesus, even I know that that was Ronald Reagan.
He'll still mention it when chatting up women, though. That's the French for you.
I asked NASA if I could buy some space, but they told me they'd sublet it all to Google.