What the hell does Netgear have to do with Apple? Why is Netgear voicing an opinion on the CEO of a company they aren't even competing with? It's like the President of Uruguay coming out of left field with a scathing criticism of the Prime Minister of Thailand. What's going on here? What do you possibly gain by this apart from making Steve's list of people he doesn't like very much?
I can't watch my blood being drawn... It's not the needle. You could stick me with that thing for eight hours and I'd just go home and drink a beer. But the sight of blood pumping with my own heartbeat into a little vial? I pass right the fuck out.
What is a "jock?" Out here in the land of After-High-School we have your garden variety dickheads but I can't remember the last time I ran into a "jock." Much less gave a crap about whatever that means, exactly.
Maybe it's news because people are doing it (in Javascript no less) not just talking about it?
In fifty years if somebody creates a FTL drive are you just going to sit around yawning, saying "Big deal, Alcubierre thought that up a long time ago?"
It sounds less like a deterministic error problem and more like a certain physical components are actually degrading much faster than expected problem...
Well, obviously. Could be a wire that was made too thin, or some component that overheats and slowly damages itself. I'm not sure why you think it's "ominous" though. It's a physical object that apparently has a design defect that causes it to wear out. I've seen ominous things before, but that usually involves a shadowy figure standing in a doorway with something that looks oddly like a machete, but dammit I can't really see clearly in this low light...
The businesses did not perform censorship. They have the right to do business with who they want
All well and good, but if you really are an absolutist about this, it can create huge problems. Select some absolutely critical service that's provided by the government, and turn it over to private enterprise. Does that service become less critical because it is in private hands who can arbitrarily provide or not provide that service to whoever they want?
There are only two major companies who process global credit card transactions. "Use a different provider" isn't a useful suggestion when both providers are doing the exact same thing. How else are we to communicate a message to these companies? Serious question.
How is it NOT obvious? In order to invoke the menu from the keyboard, you begin by pressing Alt. The first thing that happens when you do this is that the shortcut characters get underlines beneath them. Am I misunderstanding your complaint? Because you seem to be complaining that it works the same way it always has since Windows 3.0. The recent difference is that the underlines aren't shown if you aren't navigating by keyboard, which to me is a good thing.
Entrapment isn't about who makes the choice to commit criminal activity. If you are made to do something that you would not choose to do yourself, then the crime committed is not entrapment, it is coercion.
Entrapment is anything which induces a person to commit a crime that they would NOT have otherwise committed. Baiting a car thief is not entrapment because the car thief is a car thief, and stealing cars is what he does. But if you're a cop sitting in a bar listening to a woman complain about her abusive husband, and you offer to "take care of the problem" and flash a gun, you're committing entrapment because the woman would not have considered murdering her husband otherwise.
It's not about who makes the choice, it's about influence.
But do you know whether one thing caused the other? If he was going to get a nice bonus anyway, maybe he chose to cut his own baseline salary to compensate.
I rely on autocorrect because I want to type faster than 1 WPM and I have trouble always pressing the proper "key" on a screen that's A) virtual and B) way too small to really type on. It's not because I'm an idiot who can't spell. See the difference?
What is a "random character?" Is the letter 'c' random? There's no such thing. PROCESSES are random -- values are not. If you took a perfect, uniform random number generator, used it to generate a password, and it spat out "password123456", there would be nothing wrong with that. In fact, if you start imposing rules like "randomly generate a password but then exclude it if it contains an English word" then you are actually HARMING the randomness of your process.
I'm claiming my quote is evidence that WinMTR is a derivative work of MTR, so that the GPL applies to force WinMTR to be open source. It doesn't just "look like"; those lines are verbatim in both sources, and it's clear that one was derived from the other from the rest of the source quoted in my citation.
If you don't accept that as evidence, what would you accept?
I do not think it is clear at all. If the codebase was heavily copied from MTR then there will be mounds and mounds of examples beyond that one. Where are they?
What would I accept as evidence? Clear statements from developers saying that they were copying the code. Comments that indicate the pedigree of the code. LARGE blocks of IDENTICAL code.
Let's just use some brain cells here for a minute. Let's assume worst case, he's got three triplets who were born yesterday. So they're 0 years old. Let's now assume that we manage to start sending people to Mars in, say, 10 years. I think that's unrealistically optimistic, but just for argument. So, he might be blasting off by the time they are 10. Certainly, little kids have been left forever by their soldier and policeman fathers at far younger ages than that.
And now let's just come back to reality and notice that no, nobody's going to be blasting off for Mars in the next ten year time frame. So yes, you're being a bit weird about it.
So, you're making the same type of argument that SCO made when they claimed they actually owned Linux. "See, look at this scrap of code, it looks a lot like this other scrap of code." Of course, we all know how well that worked out for SCO.
In your view then, a human infant is not a person until they have developed the ability to say so? What about patients in vegetative states, are they no longer persons?
Huck Finn wasn't just a story set in a period of strong racism, it was WRITTEN in a period of strong racism. I really doubt that Mark Twain intended to convey any deep meaning by using the word "nigger" -- it was just one of the words one could choose from when describing certain people. The fact that the word is charged with intense meaning in modern times is not something Twain would have anticipated. So you can make an argument that the word actually distracts from what Twain intended to communicate.
In a way the same thing is happening with the Bible -- there have been numerous attempts to reword the Bible in modern language to remove anachronisms and make the meaning easier to grasp without wading through obsolete language. Is that censorship or is it more like porting software to a different architecture?
The primary objective is NEVER profit. There is no point in investing energy and time to acquire money and then never spend it on anything. It's what the money is used for that's interesting.
That's a very capitalistic way of viewing it... My first thought is that it makes it a lot easier for the Chinese government to be able to tap calls. It's easier to tap when you don't allow private infrastructure to exist.
Ok, totally baffled here. We don't know what, if any, sort of information Poulsen has about a possible link between Manning and Wikileaks. If he does possess such information, then what he has is information about a confidential source relationship. Greenwald is suggesting that the failure to release this information somehow is a failure of journalistic integrity on the part of Poulsen? I don't know where the fuck Greenwald went to school, but the protection of source confidentiality is one of the tenets of journalism. Perhaps he's upset that Poulsen doesn't work for Wikipedia and should therefore divulge any information he has. I find it hard to believe that professional journalists would make it a habit of outing each other's sources in such a manner. What is this guy smoking?
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell does Netgear have to do with Apple? Why is Netgear voicing an opinion on the CEO of a company they aren't even competing with? It's like the President of Uruguay coming out of left field with a scathing criticism of the Prime Minister of Thailand. What's going on here? What do you possibly gain by this apart from making Steve's list of people he doesn't like very much?
I can't watch my blood being drawn... It's not the needle. You could stick me with that thing for eight hours and I'd just go home and drink a beer. But the sight of blood pumping with my own heartbeat into a little vial? I pass right the fuck out.
And his last name is Freedom.
"Good morning gentlemen. I'm here to brief you. I'm... Anti Freedom."
Secretary of Defense: "Sounds like you'll fit right in around here."
What is a "jock?" Out here in the land of After-High-School we have your garden variety dickheads but I can't remember the last time I ran into a "jock." Much less gave a crap about whatever that means, exactly.
It's the only technology that makes sense when you need to get 500 pallets of NVidia graphics cards to the top of an uninhabited mountain summit. Duh.
Maybe it's news because people are doing it (in Javascript no less) not just talking about it?
In fifty years if somebody creates a FTL drive are you just going to sit around yawning, saying "Big deal, Alcubierre thought that up a long time ago?"
It sounds less like a deterministic error problem and more like a certain physical components are actually degrading much faster than expected problem...
Well, obviously. Could be a wire that was made too thin, or some component that overheats and slowly damages itself. I'm not sure why you think it's "ominous" though. It's a physical object that apparently has a design defect that causes it to wear out. I've seen ominous things before, but that usually involves a shadowy figure standing in a doorway with something that looks oddly like a machete, but dammit I can't really see clearly in this low light...
we simply don't understand the underlying physics well enough.
Jeez man, make up your mind, are you going to stand under it or lie under it? Maybe you should compromise and... crouch?
Shouldn't you always be worried about your software?
The businesses did not perform censorship. They have the right to do business with who they want
All well and good, but if you really are an absolutist about this, it can create huge problems. Select some absolutely critical service that's provided by the government, and turn it over to private enterprise. Does that service become less critical because it is in private hands who can arbitrarily provide or not provide that service to whoever they want?
There are only two major companies who process global credit card transactions. "Use a different provider" isn't a useful suggestion when both providers are doing the exact same thing. How else are we to communicate a message to these companies? Serious question.
How is it NOT obvious? In order to invoke the menu from the keyboard, you begin by pressing Alt. The first thing that happens when you do this is that the shortcut characters get underlines beneath them. Am I misunderstanding your complaint? Because you seem to be complaining that it works the same way it always has since Windows 3.0. The recent difference is that the underlines aren't shown if you aren't navigating by keyboard, which to me is a good thing.
Entrapment isn't about who makes the choice to commit criminal activity. If you are made to do something that you would not choose to do yourself, then the crime committed is not entrapment, it is coercion.
Entrapment is anything which induces a person to commit a crime that they would NOT have otherwise committed. Baiting a car thief is not entrapment because the car thief is a car thief, and stealing cars is what he does. But if you're a cop sitting in a bar listening to a woman complain about her abusive husband, and you offer to "take care of the problem" and flash a gun, you're committing entrapment because the woman would not have considered murdering her husband otherwise.
It's not about who makes the choice, it's about influence.
But do you know whether one thing caused the other? If he was going to get a nice bonus anyway, maybe he chose to cut his own baseline salary to compensate.
I rely on autocorrect because I want to type faster than 1 WPM and I have trouble always pressing the proper "key" on a screen that's A) virtual and B) way too small to really type on. It's not because I'm an idiot who can't spell. See the difference?
They may not have the right to scan it without your permission, but they can certainly say "Either let us scan it or you're fired."
For the purposes of cryptography, though, random (obviously) means 'unpredictable.'
I'm not sure how that's different from what I said, "kiddo."
Again, there are no random numbers. There are numbers which are generated by random processes.
What is a "random character?" Is the letter 'c' random? There's no such thing. PROCESSES are random -- values are not. If you took a perfect, uniform random number generator, used it to generate a password, and it spat out "password123456", there would be nothing wrong with that. In fact, if you start imposing rules like "randomly generate a password but then exclude it if it contains an English word" then you are actually HARMING the randomness of your process.
I'm claiming my quote is evidence that WinMTR is a derivative work of MTR, so that the GPL applies to force WinMTR to be open source. It doesn't just "look like"; those lines are verbatim in both sources, and it's clear that one was derived from the other from the rest of the source quoted in my citation. If you don't accept that as evidence, what would you accept?
I do not think it is clear at all. If the codebase was heavily copied from MTR then there will be mounds and mounds of examples beyond that one. Where are they?
What would I accept as evidence? Clear statements from developers saying that they were copying the code. Comments that indicate the pedigree of the code. LARGE blocks of IDENTICAL code.
Let's just use some brain cells here for a minute. Let's assume worst case, he's got three triplets who were born yesterday. So they're 0 years old. Let's now assume that we manage to start sending people to Mars in, say, 10 years. I think that's unrealistically optimistic, but just for argument. So, he might be blasting off by the time they are 10. Certainly, little kids have been left forever by their soldier and policeman fathers at far younger ages than that.
And now let's just come back to reality and notice that no, nobody's going to be blasting off for Mars in the next ten year time frame. So yes, you're being a bit weird about it.
So, you're making the same type of argument that SCO made when they claimed they actually owned Linux. "See, look at this scrap of code, it looks a lot like this other scrap of code." Of course, we all know how well that worked out for SCO.
In your view then, a human infant is not a person until they have developed the ability to say so? What about patients in vegetative states, are they no longer persons?
Huck Finn wasn't just a story set in a period of strong racism, it was WRITTEN in a period of strong racism. I really doubt that Mark Twain intended to convey any deep meaning by using the word "nigger" -- it was just one of the words one could choose from when describing certain people. The fact that the word is charged with intense meaning in modern times is not something Twain would have anticipated. So you can make an argument that the word actually distracts from what Twain intended to communicate.
In a way the same thing is happening with the Bible -- there have been numerous attempts to reword the Bible in modern language to remove anachronisms and make the meaning easier to grasp without wading through obsolete language. Is that censorship or is it more like porting software to a different architecture?
The primary objective is NEVER profit. There is no point in investing energy and time to acquire money and then never spend it on anything. It's what the money is used for that's interesting.
That's a very capitalistic way of viewing it... My first thought is that it makes it a lot easier for the Chinese government to be able to tap calls. It's easier to tap when you don't allow private infrastructure to exist.
Ok, totally baffled here. We don't know what, if any, sort of information Poulsen has about a possible link between Manning and Wikileaks. If he does possess such information, then what he has is information about a confidential source relationship. Greenwald is suggesting that the failure to release this information somehow is a failure of journalistic integrity on the part of Poulsen? I don't know where the fuck Greenwald went to school, but the protection of source confidentiality is one of the tenets of journalism. Perhaps he's upset that Poulsen doesn't work for Wikipedia and should therefore divulge any information he has. I find it hard to believe that professional journalists would make it a habit of outing each other's sources in such a manner. What is this guy smoking?