"'I'm going to the bathroom', 'the poop is coming out', 'meeting Bill and Larry for drinks'. That's not 'people with a life', that's inane and pointless drivel."
I dunno, it sounds like those folks are enjoying healthy bowel movements and meeting their friends for drinks while you are bitching about a social network on Slashdot. You might be a bit quick to cast the "not people with a life" stone.
The word was used properly. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal published an apologetic for climate-change denial—a defense of their previous statements. Today, Climate Progress debunked that apologetic.
You're being purposely obtuse. Google.org has a set of five charitable aims. The organization pursues those aims through a combination of grants and investments. Most observers would classify this as philanthropy, as does Google.org itself.
The term "non-profit" is essentially a legal term, a function of the tax code. Philanthropy existed before the notion of NPOs did.
Mod parent up. For all those crowing about global warming in this thread, RTFA. There is no mention of global warming in the article. It's just an interesting story about a weird geological occurrence. The only reference to global warming was a harmless offhand crack from CowboyNeal. Lighten TFU, people.
You're hardly an ass, as you're one of few skeptics to admit that your original (hardly outlandish) accusations turned out to be wrong, which makes you more intellectually honest than many self-appointed DRM wonks. That group includes, most notably, Cory Doctorow, who blasted Jobs in a Salon article after "Thoughts on Music" was first posted on Apple's web site. When Jobs came through on his pledge, Doctorow was pleased but never saw fit to mention, "Hey, I probably went a bit overboard with that screed in Salon."
As I said above, that is, in fact, the issue. Nobody is disputing that a remote AirPort exploit was possible; that matter has been settled by Apple. You can be as sarcastic and triumphant as you want, but I already agree that there were documented remote-exploit bugs in Apple's code. Everybody does.
The issue here is Maynor's reputation. A responsible security researcher has to be able to back up his claims. Maynor said he could hijack a MacBook. He never provided evidence that he could. Now he says, "Look, they fixed this AirPort bug, so I was telling the truth!" But he still doesn't demo the hijack, even on an unpatched machine.
The debate over whether there were serious AirPort bugs has been settled. But Maynor has never demonstrated that he had the goods. He has left it to insinuation and sleight-of-hand. You have bought into his misdirection, and you still haven't answered the central question: If, as you claim, a remote takeover required only a bit of shell code, why not just do it?
(Boldface added to that last bit purely out of love.)
If the bug allows remote code execution, which Apple plainly states is possible, the difference in a crash and a hijack is only a matter of a few bytes of shell code.
You are buying into Maynor's fundamental misdirection here. He wants you to assume that the bug he is exploiting is the same as the bug that Apple says could allow remote code execution. But there is no evidence to support this assumption. Apple has fixed multiple AirPort bugs since 10.4.6. There is no way of knowing that Maynor is exploiting an AirPort bug that allowed a hijack rather than a crash.
If it would only take "a few bytes of shell code" and the "easiest 1%" to make this exploit into a hijack, why not do it? His original claim was that he could hijack a MacBook, period. Now, supposedly given the chance to prove it, he just couldn't be bothered to slap together some shell code? Really? It's hard to believe that you don't find Maynor's "I can do that, I just don't feel like it" argument fishy at all.
This is the same bullshit please-connect-the-dots-for-me reasoning that Maynor has come up with all along. The question at issue is not whether there was a bug that allowed remote code execution. Yes, Apple has said as much. The question is whether Maynor had actually discovered such a bug. So far he has done nothing to dissuade objective observers that he's anything but an attention-grabbing fraud.
Doesn't it strike you as the least bit shifty that Maynor, eager to clear his name and prove that he was right, suddenly doesn't "feel the need" to demo the hijack he originally claimed? Oh, but don't worry, he could hijack the MacBook if he really wanted to! According to Maynor, Apple has been lying and covering up through this whole ordeal, but now we are supposed to essentially take Apple's word for it that his crash demo = hijack. Please.
Let's apply Occam's Razor here. Did Maynor fail to demo a hijack -- despite the fact that it would restore at least some his credibility -- because he thought it was just as convincing to piece together circumstantial evidence from Apple press releases? Or did he fail to demo a hijack because he can't? Are we supposed to believe that after all this time and humiliation, Maynor really doesn't "feel the need" to back up his inflammatory words? I don't buy it, and I don't see how any rational observer can.
As the GP said, the proof is in the pudding -- all we've got here is a box that says "pudding mix, really!" and a promise from Maynor. Same as before. The guy is a charlatan.
I can think of no better way to kick off the marketing campaign for WarGames 2 than by filing an outrageous lawsuit that will piss off the very geek fanbase who'd potentially be interested in the film. Well done, MGM. Because wargames-movie.com just wouldn't be good enough, would it?
The chances that I would see this movie just went from slim to none.
The summary talks about visually beautiful and stunning games
No, the summary talks about "beautiful and visually stunning game[s]." Games like Okami and Ico are beautiful beyond the graphical aspects—there's a beauty to their story, feel, and gameplay. Those are the type of games that we're talking about when we discuss possible "prestige" games, not games with all visual splendor and no depth.
And when we're discussing a creative endeavor, "the sales will show I'm right" is not a particularly compelling argument. In fact, it misses the entire point of the "prestige game" idea.
Nintendo is a great gaming company, and I'm excited about their resurgence with the DS and the Wii, but it will be a long time before I'm willing to hear someone from Nintendo lecture the industry about a "proprietary model." The Wii's support for DVD is one of very few times that the big N has strayed from its defining "not made here" syndrome. Have we already forgotten Nintendo's numerous examples of proprietary lock-in—one example that comes to mind being the GBA-SP's notorious "headphone jack"?
I'm sure that's what the curators of the Library of Alexandria thought, too. Problem is, the library didn't last forever -- nor is the link in my first sentence probably likely to work 150 years from now.
1.) Subscribers don't get to see exactly when an article will be posted, just that one is coming in "the mysterious future." Getting FP is no harder as a non-subscriber than it is as a subscriber.
The RSS feed available to a subscriber includes the time that a "mysterious future" article will be posted. Replying is possible one minute after that. It is much easier to get FP as a subscriber.
Good point, and I agree. In the meantime, you can check the URL of the story -- the two-digit year can be found right after the "sid=" portion of the URL.
This year, as with most, they also tied up the resources of the host city and state police forces (in this case, Worcester city and Massachusetts state police), shutting down the "counterfeit" sellers and seizing goods.
Slashdot Mirror
YouTube certainly trademarked the hell out of that email.
"'I'm going to the bathroom', 'the poop is coming out', 'meeting Bill and Larry for drinks'. That's not 'people with a life', that's inane and pointless drivel."
I dunno, it sounds like those folks are enjoying healthy bowel movements and meeting their friends for drinks while you are bitching about a social network on Slashdot. You might be a bit quick to cast the "not people with a life" stone.
The word was used properly. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal published an apologetic for climate-change denial—a defense of their previous statements. Today, Climate Progress debunked that apologetic.
There has been no apology.
Words are important.
You're being purposely obtuse. Google.org has a set of five charitable aims. The organization pursues those aims through a combination of grants and investments. Most observers would classify this as philanthropy, as does Google.org itself.
The term "non-profit" is essentially a legal term, a function of the tax code. Philanthropy existed before the notion of NPOs did.
No, the summary is accurate. "Philanthropic" doesn't necessarily mean "non-profit." From the About Us page on Google.org, emphasis added:
A fair point. I suppose folks do have a reason for being overly touchy, as global-warming strawmen typically abound in these parts.
Mod parent up. For all those crowing about global warming in this thread, RTFA. There is no mention of global warming in the article. It's just an interesting story about a weird geological occurrence. The only reference to global warming was a harmless offhand crack from CowboyNeal. Lighten TFU, people.
You're hardly an ass, as you're one of few skeptics to admit that your original (hardly outlandish) accusations turned out to be wrong, which makes you more intellectually honest than many self-appointed DRM wonks. That group includes, most notably, Cory Doctorow, who blasted Jobs in a Salon article after "Thoughts on Music" was first posted on Apple's web site. When Jobs came through on his pledge, Doctorow was pleased but never saw fit to mention, "Hey, I probably went a bit overboard with that screed in Salon."
Unless...Cory, is that you?
Whether or not he can do it is not the issue!
As I said above, that is, in fact, the issue. Nobody is disputing that a remote AirPort exploit was possible; that matter has been settled by Apple. You can be as sarcastic and triumphant as you want, but I already agree that there were documented remote-exploit bugs in Apple's code. Everybody does.
The issue here is Maynor's reputation. A responsible security researcher has to be able to back up his claims. Maynor said he could hijack a MacBook. He never provided evidence that he could. Now he says, "Look, they fixed this AirPort bug, so I was telling the truth!" But he still doesn't demo the hijack, even on an unpatched machine.
The debate over whether there were serious AirPort bugs has been settled. But Maynor has never demonstrated that he had the goods. He has left it to insinuation and sleight-of-hand. You have bought into his misdirection, and you still haven't answered the central question: If, as you claim, a remote takeover required only a bit of shell code, why not just do it?
(Boldface added to that last bit purely out of love.)
If the bug allows remote code execution, which Apple plainly states is possible, the difference in a crash and a hijack is only a matter of a few bytes of shell code.
You are buying into Maynor's fundamental misdirection here. He wants you to assume that the bug he is exploiting is the same as the bug that Apple says could allow remote code execution. But there is no evidence to support this assumption. Apple has fixed multiple AirPort bugs since 10.4.6. There is no way of knowing that Maynor is exploiting an AirPort bug that allowed a hijack rather than a crash.
If it would only take "a few bytes of shell code" and the "easiest 1%" to make this exploit into a hijack, why not do it? His original claim was that he could hijack a MacBook, period. Now, supposedly given the chance to prove it, he just couldn't be bothered to slap together some shell code? Really? It's hard to believe that you don't find Maynor's "I can do that, I just don't feel like it" argument fishy at all.
This is the same bullshit please-connect-the-dots-for-me reasoning that Maynor has come up with all along. The question at issue is not whether there was a bug that allowed remote code execution. Yes, Apple has said as much. The question is whether Maynor had actually discovered such a bug. So far he has done nothing to dissuade objective observers that he's anything but an attention-grabbing fraud.
Doesn't it strike you as the least bit shifty that Maynor, eager to clear his name and prove that he was right, suddenly doesn't "feel the need" to demo the hijack he originally claimed? Oh, but don't worry, he could hijack the MacBook if he really wanted to! According to Maynor, Apple has been lying and covering up through this whole ordeal, but now we are supposed to essentially take Apple's word for it that his crash demo = hijack. Please.
Let's apply Occam's Razor here. Did Maynor fail to demo a hijack -- despite the fact that it would restore at least some his credibility -- because he thought it was just as convincing to piece together circumstantial evidence from Apple press releases? Or did he fail to demo a hijack because he can't? Are we supposed to believe that after all this time and humiliation, Maynor really doesn't "feel the need" to back up his inflammatory words? I don't buy it, and I don't see how any rational observer can.
As the GP said, the proof is in the pudding -- all we've got here is a box that says "pudding mix, really!" and a promise from Maynor. Same as before. The guy is a charlatan.
Show the parent post to a Verizon customer service rep and watch his head explode.
I can think of no better way to kick off the marketing campaign for WarGames 2 than by filing an outrageous lawsuit that will piss off the very geek fanbase who'd potentially be interested in the film. Well done, MGM. Because wargames-movie.com just wouldn't be good enough, would it?
The chances that I would see this movie just went from slim to none.
The summary talks about visually beautiful and stunning games
No, the summary talks about "beautiful and visually stunning game[s]." Games like Okami and Ico are beautiful beyond the graphical aspects—there's a beauty to their story, feel, and gameplay. Those are the type of games that we're talking about when we discuss possible "prestige" games, not games with all visual splendor and no depth.
And when we're discussing a creative endeavor, "the sales will show I'm right" is not a particularly compelling argument. In fact, it misses the entire point of the "prestige game" idea.
Nintendo is a great gaming company, and I'm excited about their resurgence with the DS and the Wii, but it will be a long time before I'm willing to hear someone from Nintendo lecture the industry about a "proprietary model." The Wii's support for DVD is one of very few times that the big N has strayed from its defining "not made here" syndrome. Have we already forgotten Nintendo's numerous examples of proprietary lock-in—one example that comes to mind being the GBA-SP's notorious "headphone jack"?
I'm sure that's what the curators of the Library of Alexandria thought, too. Problem is, the library didn't last forever -- nor is the link in my first sentence probably likely to work 150 years from now.
I really recommend smcFanControl 1.1 for any that feel their MB, MBP, or Mini are too hot to handle.
Finally! I can use my Mac mini on my lap again.
1.) Subscribers don't get to see exactly when an article will be posted, just that one is coming in "the mysterious future." Getting FP is no harder as a non-subscriber than it is as a subscriber.
The RSS feed available to a subscriber includes the time that a "mysterious future" article will be posted. Replying is possible one minute after that. It is much easier to get FP as a subscriber.
At $129 for each version, that's about $750 on Mac OS X upgrades since 2001.
... creative. 5 x $129 = $750?
Paul's math is
By that standard, it's also "about" $500 on Mac OS upgrades since 2001. I just saved him $250 (or "about" $400).
When your article can't even be quoted for a a paragraph without a page break slipping in there, you have
Continued...
officially crossed the line.
Nice -- thanks for the tip!
Good point, and I agree. In the meantime, you can check the URL of the story -- the two-digit year can be found right after the "sid=" portion of the URL.
This year, as with most, they also tied up the resources of the host city and state police forces (in this case, Worcester city and Massachusetts state police), shutting down the "counterfeit" sellers and seizing goods.
The host city Super Bowl XXXIX was Jacksonville, Florida. Thus it was the Jacksonville cops who helped U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement seize a bunch of fake Super Bowl schwag this year.
Perhaps you were thinking of the hometown of the Super Bowl champions, the New England Patriots. Unfortunately, they play in Foxborough, Massachusetts.
As for Worcester, it is pretty far down the list of potential Super Bowl sites.
Looks like the next generation of consoles is going to burn holes in gamers' wallets even moreso than the current generation.
Launch price of Xbox 360: $300
Launch price of PS2: $300
Launch price of Xbox: $300
If you account for inflation, the Xbox 360 is cheaper at launch than its predecessor.
In Korea, only old people are Robocop.