"I have travelled the length and breadth of this country, and have talked with the best people in business administration. I can assure you on the highest authority that data processing is a fad and won't last out the year." — Editor in charge of business books at Prentice-Hall publishers, responding to Karl V. Karlstrom (a junior editor who had recommended a manuscript on the new science of data processing), c. 1957
It's been hardly more than fifty years. Where will we be in another fifty years, say by 2057? A virtual stack of books to circumscribe the whole galaxy? I, for one, am impressed that despite our propensity to beat each other into a bloody pulp over differences in opinions, we hairless apes have come this far!
It doesn't even matter how Anonymous is composed or organized, you simply can't prove a negative: You cannot prove that God does not exist. You cannot prove that there is no life on Mars. You cannot prove that Anonymous was not somehow involved in the attack on Sony.
But three words in a text file do not constitute proof that Anonymous raped Sony. And neither does a claim "we didn't do that" vindicate Anonymous.
blow the CD rootkit thing out of proportion in relation to the PS3 considering it was a different branch of Sony
I'm sorry, but "different branch of Sony" is still Sony, especially if it has "Sony" in the name. Now, if Sony the Parent Company had publicly apologized, and fixed the problem but no, Sony released a supposed fix for the rootkit that made things even worse.
In fact, Sony has proven again and again that they want people to buy their products, but ${DEITY} help the customers if they truly start getting creative with the stuff that they paid money for.
If Sony do keep shitting all over us, I might actually just decide not to get a PS4 though
After all the crap that Sony has done, where do you draw the line? Only when your computer is compromised? Only when you lose functionality in a Sony product that you paid for? Only when you get dragged into court? Or will you just stay quiet, suck it up, and hope that if you only purchase enough from Sony, the company will eventually treat you better?
I don't know about you, but I vote with my money, by never giving another cent to Sony.
Are you sure that signing up for Google Voice doesn't include a clause giving them permission to store the audio? IANAL, but I would also presume that they could successfully claim that it is obvious that a voice mail service must record the audio in order to store and reproduce it later.
No, if you join a class action, you need to understand a few facts:
1. You don't have to lift a finger, others will do all the work for you, 2. The lawyers will be paid from the settlement, 3. Not enough remains (or is planned to remain) to compensate you fairly
Don't join if you have illusions about point #3. IANAL, but if you want a chance at fair compensation, do not join the class, rather pursue your own claim. But of course, that takes work.
I think Sony's reputation, at least among the knowledgeable, has been slipping for a while now in the west, too: In fact, I've spent several thousand dollars recently on products, specifically avoiding the ones made by Sony because of how Sony treats their customers (examples: the PS3's OtherOS feature, the Sony Root Kit, or the AIBO hack).
It's because fighting child pornography and such things are easily delivered by sound bite. Everyone feels good that someone is doing something about such heinous crimes, but nobody cares to check up on just how such crimes are investigated, handled, pursued, and who gets caught under the wheels all in the name of keeping the children safe.
I can certainly understand that the majority of people want something to be done and then forget about it. After all, there are so many things to be dealt with, we can't all watch the watchers, and inspect the inspectors. It therefore falls to those in power (police, judges, investigators, etc.) to actually do their job fully, meaning not just pursue criminals, but ensure that such mistakes are not made. If they don't, who will? Is there some improvement possible to a system of checks and balances? Should such warrants only be issued (legally) by judges who are somehow certified to be competent with the issues involved?
That's one of the biggest issues I have with closed-source: Trust. There is plenty of software that does "more" than is advertised, but when it comes to security software there are few things that undermine trust quicker than the lack of access to the source code.
Agreed, BFD for those of us who understand the cloud, the risks, and how to install our own crypto layer. But most people will probably think "oh, they encrypt the data, that means it stays private" without realizing just what is encrypted, where, and by whom. Most people don't even know what they don't know about cryptography, and in the field of cryptography muddled knowledge is probably worse than none.
I don't know whether they actually lied (I don't use DropBox), but here is what I suspect is actually the case: Yes, they encrypt the data but not with your key on the client but with their key at the server. Sure, they use a cryptographically secure transport between client and server (SSL/TLS) but they have access to the crypto keys. It would require explicit effort for their people to decrypt your data, so accidental exposure isn't an issue, but if a court orders them they can comply.
Here's a potentially useful tip: There is a little piece of software called EncFS, which does file-level rather than volume-level encryption. Those who use TrueCrypt on DropBox and find that the entire container gets sync'ed for the smallest changes, might want to have a look at EncFS. I've no idea how easy it is to make that work with DropBox, but it's probably worth a shot if DropBox's TrueCrypt support is not all it's cracked up to be.
If these science teachers also taught the scientific method, it would become obvious almost immediately that ID is not a science because it is no more supportable by scientific process than FSM. And no, strange books gathered together from various manuscripts, and distributed as the Word of God, are no basis for scientific evidence!
Napster and P2P "piracy" is no more piracy than two people watching a movie on DVD for which only one person paid the rental fee. No goods were actually stolen, and nobody was deprived of property. Unlicensed sharing of copyrighted content is copyright violation, not piracy.
Ramen!
We now return you to our regularly scheduled discourse.
The rotating ring conveys the state of the request: It rotates one way when the request is being made, and the other way when the response is incoming. It can help you diagnose a problem when a page isn't loading quickly: Has the server even been reached yet? Is the server responding to the request already?
It would be nice, of course, if the icon could be changed from an animated one to a static pair of arrows pointing one way and then the other, to give the same information as rings rotating in opposite directions, but in defense of the animation, it helps distinguish it from a site's static icon.
Does the value of the used physical copy go to zero for you, or does the value of the book's content go to zero?
Whether in digital form, translated to audio, or shaped with ink to form letters on a physical medium (paper), the content is the real value of a book. The physical aspect of a paper copy is separate. I love the feel of books and have trouble thinking that I would ever read anything but reference materials on a digital screen, but I can equally conceive of the physical copy being seen as useless because you can't grep(1) a paper copy.
So, I don't think the value of a used (paper) copy of a book is erased, as you say. At best, the market for it is reduced in size as fewer people may actually value a dead tree version of it, and would just as easily (or maybe preferentially) pick the digital copy, instead. And as the market shrinks, paper copies of books may actually rise in value, as collectors are more keen on preserving them.
Indeed, I'm in awe. To think that we can send a probe that far away, have it perform gravitational swings by all these moons, take measurements and images, assemble them into a thing of such beauty, and convey the scale of the Saturn system to be viewed here at home in comfort... well, it makes me glad to be alive to have seen such a thing!
I, for one, would like to offer my congratulations and my thanks to everyone who has had a hand in making any aspect of this whole thing possible.
Those who feel that HBGary et al. deserved what they got may feel that there was a moral lesson to be learned. The rest will simply feel that HBGary was attacked by a vigilante group, that HBGary's defenses were lacking, and that better security and larger guns (laws) will be needed to counter similar threats in the future.
As is so often the case, the truth lies somewhere in between, getting banged by the ones who make the rules.
Are you crazy? Offer high quality digital movies to the masses at ridiculously low prices? Heresy, heresy, I say! It would put the pirates out of business and leave the lawyers unemployed!!
Some speech has the potential to cause direct harm. Inciting panic for no good reason is malicious, and not protected.
As shabby and mean-spirited as it is for these ass warts to spoil funerals and spread their ill will, it would be equally shabby for others to show up at their church services and cause serious mayhem with a display of exactly the kind of stuff that they fear so much. It wouldn't solve anything, it would only provide fuel for them to do worse.
"I may not like what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it." -- Yes, it does allow certain groups to vomit hate, but if we can just rise above these rats, and ignore them, they will have no ship on which to sail.
If its true that OpenOffice and LibreOffice have poor support for Office 2007 and 2010 formats, that is going to be a MAJOR stumbling block against many people migrating. No company in their right mind is going to migrate if they are going to loose document-compatability with their clients.
For relatively simple documents conversion support is quite decent, for complex ones, it's can be a real crap shoot from what I've seen and heard. But this is much more a data conversion than a capabilities issue. In fact, I'd be surprised if there is any document created in MS Word that cannot be created in LO or OO.o, and vice versa.
With something as complex as a document, there will always be conversion issues, but until more people start using software that does not force them into a continual upgrade cycle, the pain for the rest of us will not lessen by much.
As for me, I have created all my documents in OO.o (and now in LO) for many years. I export them to.doc when necessary; the.doc/.docx files I receive, I import into OO.o / LO, and export them again as.doc if I modify them and double check them with MS Office: They've always been fine, and I have yet to hear any screaming around the office. I've seen worse conversion jobs (even crashes) between different versions of MS Office.
Slashdot Mirror
Have one of these, instead: xkcd.com
"I have travelled the length and breadth of this country, and have talked with the best people in business administration. I can assure you on the highest authority that data processing is a fad and won't last out the year." — Editor in charge of business books at Prentice-Hall publishers, responding to Karl V. Karlstrom (a junior editor who had recommended a manuscript on the new science of data processing), c. 1957
It's been hardly more than fifty years. Where will we be in another fifty years, say by 2057? A virtual stack of books to circumscribe the whole galaxy? I, for one, am impressed that despite our propensity to beat each other into a bloody pulp over differences in opinions, we hairless apes have come this far!
It doesn't even matter how Anonymous is composed or organized, you simply can't prove a negative: You cannot prove that God does not exist. You cannot prove that there is no life on Mars. You cannot prove that Anonymous was not somehow involved in the attack on Sony.
But three words in a text file do not constitute proof that Anonymous raped Sony. And neither does a claim "we didn't do that" vindicate Anonymous.
The burden of proof does lie with Sony, however.
Only reluctant? I admire your optimism!
I'm sorry, but "different branch of Sony" is still Sony, especially if it has "Sony" in the name. Now, if Sony the Parent Company had publicly apologized, and fixed the problem but no, Sony released a supposed fix for the rootkit that made things even worse.
In fact, Sony has proven again and again that they want people to buy their products, but ${DEITY} help the customers if they truly start getting creative with the stuff that they paid money for.
After all the crap that Sony has done, where do you draw the line? Only when your computer is compromised? Only when you lose functionality in a Sony product that you paid for? Only when you get dragged into court? Or will you just stay quiet, suck it up, and hope that if you only purchase enough from Sony, the company will eventually treat you better?
I don't know about you, but I vote with my money, by never giving another cent to Sony.
Are you sure that signing up for Google Voice doesn't include a clause giving them permission to store the audio? IANAL, but I would also presume that they could successfully claim that it is obvious that a voice mail service must record the audio in order to store and reproduce it later.
No, if you join a class action, you need to understand a few facts:
1. You don't have to lift a finger, others will do all the work for you,
2. The lawyers will be paid from the settlement,
3. Not enough remains (or is planned to remain) to compensate you fairly
Don't join if you have illusions about point #3. IANAL, but if you want a chance at fair compensation, do not join the class, rather pursue your own claim. But of course, that takes work.
I think Nokia is Finnished.
I think Sony's reputation, at least among the knowledgeable, has been slipping for a while now in the west, too: In fact, I've spent several thousand dollars recently on products, specifically avoiding the ones made by Sony because of how Sony treats their customers (examples: the PS3's OtherOS feature, the Sony Root Kit, or the AIBO hack).
In the market, your money is your vote.
It's because fighting child pornography and such things are easily delivered by sound bite. Everyone feels good that someone is doing something about such heinous crimes, but nobody cares to check up on just how such crimes are investigated, handled, pursued, and who gets caught under the wheels all in the name of keeping the children safe.
I can certainly understand that the majority of people want something to be done and then forget about it. After all, there are so many things to be dealt with, we can't all watch the watchers, and inspect the inspectors. It therefore falls to those in power (police, judges, investigators, etc.) to actually do their job fully, meaning not just pursue criminals, but ensure that such mistakes are not made. If they don't, who will? Is there some improvement possible to a system of checks and balances? Should such warrants only be issued (legally) by judges who are somehow certified to be competent with the issues involved?
That's one of the biggest issues I have with closed-source: Trust. There is plenty of software that does "more" than is advertised, but when it comes to security software there are few things that undermine trust quicker than the lack of access to the source code.
Agreed, BFD for those of us who understand the cloud, the risks, and how to install our own crypto layer. But most people will probably think "oh, they encrypt the data, that means it stays private" without realizing just what is encrypted, where, and by whom. Most people don't even know what they don't know about cryptography, and in the field of cryptography muddled knowledge is probably worse than none.
I don't know whether they actually lied (I don't use DropBox), but here is what I suspect is actually the case: Yes, they encrypt the data but not with your key on the client but with their key at the server. Sure, they use a cryptographically secure transport between client and server (SSL/TLS) but they have access to the crypto keys. It would require explicit effort for their people to decrypt your data, so accidental exposure isn't an issue, but if a court orders them they can comply.
Here's a potentially useful tip: There is a little piece of software called EncFS, which does file-level rather than volume-level encryption. Those who use TrueCrypt on DropBox and find that the entire container gets sync'ed for the smallest changes, might want to have a look at EncFS. I've no idea how easy it is to make that work with DropBox, but it's probably worth a shot if DropBox's TrueCrypt support is not all it's cracked up to be.
If these science teachers also taught the scientific method, it would become obvious almost immediately that ID is not a science because it is no more supportable by scientific process than FSM. And no, strange books gathered together from various manuscripts, and distributed as the Word of God, are no basis for scientific evidence!
Napster and P2P "piracy" is no more piracy than two people watching a movie on DVD for which only one person paid the rental fee. No goods were actually stolen, and nobody was deprived of property. Unlicensed sharing of copyrighted content is copyright violation, not piracy.
Ramen!
We now return you to our regularly scheduled discourse.
The rotating ring conveys the state of the request: It rotates one way when the request is being made, and the other way when the response is incoming. It can help you diagnose a problem when a page isn't loading quickly: Has the server even been reached yet? Is the server responding to the request already?
It would be nice, of course, if the icon could be changed from an animated one to a static pair of arrows pointing one way and then the other, to give the same information as rings rotating in opposite directions, but in defense of the animation, it helps distinguish it from a site's static icon.
Does the value of the used physical copy go to zero for you, or does the value of the book's content go to zero?
Whether in digital form, translated to audio, or shaped with ink to form letters on a physical medium (paper), the content is the real value of a book. The physical aspect of a paper copy is separate. I love the feel of books and have trouble thinking that I would ever read anything but reference materials on a digital screen, but I can equally conceive of the physical copy being seen as useless because you can't grep(1) a paper copy.
So, I don't think the value of a used (paper) copy of a book is erased, as you say. At best, the market for it is reduced in size as fewer people may actually value a dead tree version of it, and would just as easily (or maybe preferentially) pick the digital copy, instead. And as the market shrinks, paper copies of books may actually rise in value, as collectors are more keen on preserving them.
Indeed, I'm in awe. To think that we can send a probe that far away, have it perform gravitational swings by all these moons, take measurements and images, assemble them into a thing of such beauty, and convey the scale of the Saturn system to be viewed here at home in comfort ... well, it makes me glad to be alive to have seen such a thing!
I, for one, would like to offer my congratulations and my thanks to everyone who has had a hand in making any aspect of this whole thing possible.
Unless Anonymous grabs him by the ankles and drags him straight to hell.
Those who feel that HBGary et al. deserved what they got may feel that there was a moral lesson to be learned. The rest will simply feel that HBGary was attacked by a vigilante group, that HBGary's defenses were lacking, and that better security and larger guns (laws) will be needed to counter similar threats in the future.
As is so often the case, the truth lies somewhere in between, getting banged by the ones who make the rules.
Are you crazy? Offer high quality digital movies to the masses at ridiculously low prices? Heresy, heresy, I say! It would put the pirates out of business and leave the lawyers unemployed!!
Thank you, hairyfeet! (seriously) The honest (aka stupid) get fucked, the rest skip the rape and get their stuff another way. It's no surprise at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
Some speech has the potential to cause direct harm. Inciting panic for no good reason is malicious, and not protected.
As shabby and mean-spirited as it is for these ass warts to spoil funerals and spread their ill will, it would be equally shabby for others to show up at their church services and cause serious mayhem with a display of exactly the kind of stuff that they fear so much. It wouldn't solve anything, it would only provide fuel for them to do worse.
"I may not like what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it." -- Yes, it does allow certain groups to vomit hate, but if we can just rise above these rats, and ignore them, they will have no ship on which to sail.
SQUIRREL!
<CRASH>
For relatively simple documents conversion support is quite decent, for complex ones, it's can be a real crap shoot from what I've seen and heard. But this is much more a data conversion than a capabilities issue. In fact, I'd be surprised if there is any document created in MS Word that cannot be created in LO or OO.o, and vice versa.
With something as complex as a document, there will always be conversion issues, but until more people start using software that does not force them into a continual upgrade cycle, the pain for the rest of us will not lessen by much.
As for me, I have created all my documents in OO.o (and now in LO) for many years. I export them to .doc when necessary; the .doc/.docx files I receive, I import into OO.o / LO, and export them again as .doc if I modify them and double check them with MS Office: They've always been fine, and I have yet to hear any screaming around the office. I've seen worse conversion jobs (even crashes) between different versions of MS Office.