I have a prime membership with them. main app on my phone is the Amazon store and code scanner, go into Wal Mart see an item touch and play with it. if i like it then i check how much on Amazon and then buy it, it is then at my home with in 2days (1day on most things). My wife is disabled and can not drive, so Amazon has been a wonderful thing for us and our kid.
I know lots of people do that, but I think it crosses the ethics boundary. It costs a lot of money to have a physical store and physical product.
There are some things I don't like to buy without seeing them in person (running shoes and TV's to name a couple), if I go to the store to try on running shoes and find ones that I like, I always make a purchase from that store. When it comes time to buy a new pair, I have no qualms about buying them online, but when the store is paying someone to help me find the right shoe, I want to support them for that purchase.
Likewise, if I go to the store to check out a TV, I buy from that store to compensate them for having enough TV's in stock to do a comparison.
But for most other goods, Amazon (with their excellent review structure) is all I need.
I'm usually ok with buying clothes online (though rarely from Amazon), but my wife ends up sending so much stuff back because she doesn't like the fit or the look after she tries it on, she rarely buys online.
and the point is that the broadcast separation by region is going to be dead sooner or later. I could rent a box in n.y.c and do this for myself legally - so why couldn't I rent it from aereo? I could also view the signal as far as it broadcasts.
The broadcasters are going after Aereo because Aereo takes away much of the friction. If you want to rent a box in NYC yourself, you have to find a friend who is willing to set up and host the box and let you use his internet connection... and when his cat knocks the box off the table during your favorite show, you have to wait until he comes home to plug it back in. Some people may do this, but few do.
Aereo takes care of setting up and supporting the "box" for you -- and for thousands of others.
As the grandparent said, it depends. In dense cities, using the subway is likely to get you to your destination faster than driving in the congested streets. Take the subway from Wall Street or 5th Avenue in NYC sometime and you'll see a lot of people who could definitely afford to take a car, if it made sense for them to do so. The same is true on pretty much any of the London Underground lines.
Even in less dense areas (SF Bay Area) taking transit often takes less time than driving (especially when you include the time to find parking and walk to the office), but even when transit takes more time, when you take the train you can read a book or get some work done (as long as you're not riding in a crush-load commute hour train).
You do realize that improving infrastructure improves the areas surrounding those improvements as well right? Gotta spend money to make money. I suggest you take a look at a country like Japan, which could easily compare to California in a lot of ways and tell me their rail system doesn't work. Go ahead, explain to me.
Japan compares to the USA in total land area, but that's about it. It's has about 3 times greater population and 4 times greater density (873/square mile versus 242/square mile)
Japan's rail system works not just because of their density, but because they have an efficient rail system that can take you to just about anywhere you want to go - it's not like the current situation in the USA where rail drops you off in the middle of town and then you spend another 90 minutes taking 3 connecting buses to get you to your house in the suburbs.
The USA has the density for effective rail transit in many places, but building out a nationwide HSR system is probably not the best way to start - to get the most trips moved from cars to rail, building out local rail (and other modes of transit like dedicated busways) is probably a better place to start since there's already a long-distance mass transit system (airlines) that people can use to go long distances, but they still need a way to get home from the airport.
Even in San Francisco there're a lot of low-density single family homes near BART stations, serious transit oriented development will take decades.
Why do you feel that you have to watch a movie created by someone that apparently doesn't want you to watch it?
The people who created the movies don't want the consumer to pay to watch their movies? I'm not a CEO of a major movie studio, but perhaps this may be one of their fundamental mistakes.
Apparently the high paid CPA's and marketing experts have told the movie houses that their current model is the way to maximize revenue. Sure, it sounds reasonable that if they just made all of their content available everywhere that they'd earn more revenue, but I haven't done the market analysis and no one outside the movie industry itself has all of the data to do that analysis.
People don't _have_ to watch movies, or are entitled to. However, when consumers are artificially barred from paying for and watching stuff, and can do so without paying with a few clicks, what do you think they're going to do?
Oh there's no doubt that people can't be trusted not to steal something. Every industry faces this.
Well, there's always the other answer: "Where's my movie?" "You have to wait". "Fuck that shit, I'm not going to watch it." Why do you feel that you have to watch a movie created by someone that apparently doesn't want you to watch it? Is there really nothing better to do do with your time?
Simple: BECAUSE I FUCKING WANT TO WATCH IT. Why do I have to give any more explanations? I want to watch a movie, I can pay por it. I have the money, just give me the fucking movie! What I do or not do in my free time is not your problem, or hollywood's, or anyone else's.
There's lots of things I'd like to do, but can't either because I can't afford it, or it's not available in this area. Like, maybe I'd love to bungie jump off the golden gate bridge, but the bridge doesn't offer that service.I could drive a few hours away and find a bridge where it offered, but dammit, I'm tired of that bridge, I want the GGB and I want it now! I'm even willing to pay! (but only as much as I want to, I want to set the price)
I own a store, and through the years I've learned that "the customer is always right" means that you shouldn't give a fuck about the customer's tastes. Just get him what he wants, or else he'll go somewhere else and get it anyway. Don't try to convince them that their taste is bad, because that just makes things worse.
I've managed a store in the past and found that the customer is often not right - if every customer got to decide how I do business, the store wouldn't stay in business. "I wanna return this shirt, it doesn't fit." "But your wore it" "Only to try it on" "It has a ketchup stain" "Well I only wore it to one dinner party". There are clear rules on what is returnable, and a stained shirt does not qualify. Sure, maybe if I'd let him return the shirt he'd turn into a lifelong customer and tell all of his friends, but more likely, the next time he wanted to go to a dinner party he'd "borrow" another shirt from me and return it afterwards.
I'm not playing Hollywood's game, you are - for me, if the movie isn't in Netflix's streaming catalog, I don't watch it.
Dude, you couldn't have chosen a worse example. The netflix streaming catalog is like 20 movies that have been on basic cable for ages, and TV series from the season before, only after the new season has started.
They claim to have 20,000 movies in their catalog, and I still have a queue of over 100 movies to watch. Having a TV series one season behind doesn't seem like a huge problem - there aren't many TV series' that are topical enough that they don't make sense a year later. If season 9 of The Office is worth watching in Sept, 2012, it's going to be worth watching in Sept 2013. I don't have cable TV so if it's not on Netflix, I'm not going to watch it.
You are just limiting your options to a catalog Hollywood has picked for you, purely because they CAN. What technical limitation is there that won't let Netflix stream a movie that they can actually rent to you on DVD? How about european, asian, or south american cinema? I haven't seen much of that on NF's catalog when I had the 30 day trial. I liked the service, but I didn't renew it as the options weren't interesting enough for me. The DVD rental store near my house has a much more varied catalog, and they have the movies on DVD as soon as they're out in that format.
There's no technical reason why McDonalds can't sell me a coke for their actual cost of 25 cents instead of making me pay $1.29, but they still do, because that's their business model. Just like Hollywood's business model is to restrict what movies are available in different media and markets.
I know the argument -- but if I steal a coke from McDonalds, they are out 25 cents of product so it's not like downloading a movie since that costs the movie industry nothing. But if you satisfy your desire for movies
Here's the thing: I want to watch that movie now. I know it's out in the US. I have the money. Where's my movie? "You have to wait". Fuck that shit, I'll get it elsewhere.
Really, you are just playing Hollywood's game, and in that game, you'll always be their bitch.
Well, there's always the other answer: "Where's my movie?" "You have to wait". "Fuck that shit, I'm not going to watch it." Why do you feel that you have to watch a movie created by someone that apparently doesn't want you to watch it? Is there really nothing better to do do with your time?
I'm not playing Hollywood's game, you are - for me, if the movie isn't in Netflix's streaming catalog, I don't watch it.
I am a film buff. I easily watch 3 movies a week (if I have good company it can be more). I have a Neflix account and a hulu+ account, apart from premium cable. Guess what? I still have to resort to not so legal means to get content. Netflix and hulu online collection suck. I am not even taking about new releases (which I would gladly watch at a movie theater), but movies that were released 20-30 years ago. I sometimes look it up at the local library, sometimes queue it up on Netflix-dvd, and about 60% of the time download the damn thing, get some beer from the fridge and start watching the movie. And my film buff friends abroad, easily get 90% of their content from not so legal means.
Just open it up, already, I would gladly pay for content. But I guess MAFIAA, does not want my money.
I'm a beer buff. I easily drink three 6 packs a week. (if I have good company it can be more)
I belong to several beer-of-the-month clubs and sometimes buy it at the supermarket. Guess what? Not all of the beer I want to drink is sold at all, you have to buy it at the local brew pub where they make it.
I can buy lots of beer at my local supermarket, but not the beer I want. So I found that I can siphon it out of the huge vats at the brewpub while they aren't looking. It's really no loss of income to them - they have thousand gallon vats, so 16 ounces here or there won't hurt them - they waste more than that from the taps during a typical evening.
If I couldn't siphon it for free, I might buy some of the beers that the brewpub *does* sell at the supermarket, but I want the ones they refuse to sell, so I feel entitled to take it for free.
Open Source software gave us an extra level of security and speed that just wasn’t available through proprietary software. Our website has unique demands and we designed customized security for it that we are constantly changing and updating. Unlike static proprietary software that can be studied and then hacked in mass, attacking unique open source sites just isn’t profitable and it is much more difficult.
Proprietary software is static and easily studied and hacked. Open source sites are unique and can't be hacked in mass.
The flash drives would have been wet, yet fully functional after they dried?
I've washed more than one flash drive and they still worked - I'm using one now that was washed over a year ago. I ran one through the driver once, and after I broke off the melted and mishapen plastic, I plugged it in and it worked.
Not if the drive has firmware that detects if it's plugged into a Windows host. For non-windows, it acts as a normal flash drive, but if you plug it into Windows, then it exposes the virus. So you take it home, load it up with MP3's from your linux computer and everything is fine, but then when you give it to your wife and she see a filenamed "naked_secretary.exe", she runs it and gets infected.
If you want something to be secure, you have to store it in house.
There is no guarantee that once you put it out on "the cloud" that someone else won't reach for it.
But don't you already encrypt your sensitive data at rest? If that's the case, is the cloud really any less secure than having it in-house? Your secret data is more likely to leave your facility through your internet connection than from someone taking a hard drive from your server.
Yeah, no kidding, I almost placed a bid until I saw that the shipping was around $1200 -- I hate when eBay sellers price a product cheap and then jack up the shipping charges.
google, like apple, wants to appear progressive. this is one current way corps do this; is to champion some ideals that their customers (or even employees) can identify with.
but make no mistake, google has no feelings or heart or soul. none of the megacorps do. this is done to better themselves, in the long run.
in short, its just an ad. like most of what google is. its an ad. it tries to buy your loyalty and emotion.
No matter what the motivation, shouldn't all corporations champion the ideals that their customers and employees can identify with? If it benefits the corporate and it's what the customers (and employees) want, then isn't that a win for everyone?
So it is the government's job to ensure all corporations have a fair competitive disposition? So if company A is located 2000 miles further away from the target market then company B but produce similar goods and services, should the government cover the costs of company A's transportation or raise the taxes on company B's products to remove unfair advantages locating your building near the target market might provide?
Isn't this the argument that Brick and Mortal retailers are making against Amazon? That since Amazon doesn't pay sales tax in most states, they are at a disadvantage and either the federal or state governments should force them to pay sales taxes?
I mean seriously, you just argued that a company should be allowed to encourage the creation of a law that forces people- some against religious beliefs- to do something they have not done because their choice to do something puts them at a disadvantage to companies competing with them who have not decided to do it.
I said no such thing, I didn't say anything at all about religion because I don't think religion should have any place in lawmaking. Would you be happy with a law mandating that all businesses (including all non-religious oriented websites) should be closed on Sundays to respect the Christian religions that believe that no employee should have to work on the Sabbath and no one should be doing secular work on the Sabbath? And of course, businesses should also be closed on Saturdays to reflect the beliefs of Jewish and other religions that recognize Saturday as the Sabbath.
It is other people's business as soon as there are tax breaks or any other government "perks" or benefits to a legally recognized union. That's because the breaks and benefits are funded by the people as a nation.
Tax breaks? There's often a marriage penalty for filing jointly. In some cases there's a tax benefit, but not all. But if the tax benefit of getting married is all that's stopping federal recognition of same-sex marriages, let's get rid of it for everyone (and I say that as a married person, but we file separately because there's no tax benefit for us to file jointly)
No tax breaks? No free daycare? No benefits to any union between consenting adults? No costs to tax payers? Then I don't care what you do.
Free daycare? How do I sign up for that marriage benefit? My wife and I seem to have missed that one. But even if free daycare was a benefit of marriage, presumably it's there to help children, so why shouldn't a same-sex couple with children qualify for the benefit? Or do you only support children who have opposite-sex parents?
None of the married couples I know (whether same sex or different sex) married for the tax-cuts or other monetary rewards from the government - aside from wanting to demonstrate commitment to each other via mamrriage, they are more interested in the legal protections offered by a state and federally recognized marriage (things like parental rights, easier adoption as a married couple, hospital visitation rights, ability to make decisions about spouse's medical care and disposition of body after death, easier access to partners funds after death of a spouse, ability to continue a lease after death of a partner, bereavement or FMLA protected leave to care for a sick spouse, protections via divorce)
But their is a difference between says all couples of any gender pairing in our emply gets benefits and campaigning to make it so everywhere.
There's a good business case to do so. If company A tries to do the right thing by granting benefits to domestic partners of all employees regardless of gender, but they compete against companies that do not do so because there's no legal requirement, then company A is at a competitive disadvantage. They could reduce benefits for their employees, or they could lobby to level the playing field for what they think is "right".
Companies lobby for lots of things that benefit themselves (tax exemptions, lax environmental laws, etc), so what's the problem with companies lobbying for something that they think is the right thing for their employees?
Google promoting same sex marriage is great and all, but what about ladyboys and the so called third gender? No, you cannot lump it under homosexuality as it's a different issue. Same sex marriage is old thing, everyone should fight for people's right to be whatever gender - or a third gender - if they so want to. Even on Slashdot I always get modded down when I mention ladyboys, and I hope not this time because this issue needs to see some daylight.
The distinction between straight, homosexual, bisexual, and transgender marriage should matter only to the couple that's marrying. There's no reason the government needs to make a distinction.
If a male->female part time cross dresser is in love with and wants to marry a female->male post-op transexual, why is it anyone's business but the couple? There's no need to make up another "gender", just take gender out of the marriage equation entirely.
Why does Facebook even care about this? For a fraction of the cost of what they invested in this cable, they could open up a datacenter in Asia and replicate their content closer to their Asian customers.
I could see why someone like Google might want to boost capacity since they are a conduit to other sites, so making everyone faster helps them out, but I don't see what Facebook is gaining.
If a wife killed her husband to get his money, wouldn't she be more careful than to empty his accounts moments after his death?
You'd think so, wouldn't you? In reality people are either stupid or desperate and do stupid things. Also, how does your wife access money now? Can't she continue to do so the same way? Of are you one of those people that gives their wife $100 a month to spend.
Since my wife earns nearly as much money as I do there's no need to give her an allowance, but if she's paying a bill, she just writes a check out of our joint checking account... or if she needs cash, she says "Hey sweetie, I'm taking that $20 from your wallet". But I have several retirement accounts and a life insurance policy that she is aware of but doesn't access regularly (well, at all). I'd like her to have my account information at her fingertips in the event that I'm not around -- and she does, through a document in our home fire safe and a backup copy in a safe deposit box at the bank.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider stone tablets. I head they are cheap, easy to come by, and last a long time.
They are only cheap if you need a few of them. Each sapphire disk holds 40,000 pages, and the prototype with 2 disks costs "only" €25,000.
Can you make and engrave a stone tablet for less than €0.30?
What language? All of them.
They should write it in C -- it'll never go away since it'll always be needed for embedded systems.
I have a prime membership with them. main app on my phone is the Amazon store and code scanner, go into Wal Mart see an item touch and play with it. if i like it then i check how much on Amazon and then buy it, it is then at my home with in 2days (1day on most things). My wife is disabled and can not drive, so Amazon has been a wonderful thing for us and our kid.
I know lots of people do that, but I think it crosses the ethics boundary. It costs a lot of money to have a physical store and physical product.
There are some things I don't like to buy without seeing them in person (running shoes and TV's to name a couple), if I go to the store to try on running shoes and find ones that I like, I always make a purchase from that store. When it comes time to buy a new pair, I have no qualms about buying them online, but when the store is paying someone to help me find the right shoe, I want to support them for that purchase.
Likewise, if I go to the store to check out a TV, I buy from that store to compensate them for having enough TV's in stock to do a comparison.
But for most other goods, Amazon (with their excellent review structure) is all I need.
I'm usually ok with buying clothes online (though rarely from Amazon), but my wife ends up sending so much stuff back because she doesn't like the fit or the look after she tries it on, she rarely buys online.
and the point is that the broadcast separation by region is going to be dead sooner or later.
I could rent a box in n.y.c and do this for myself legally - so why couldn't I rent it from aereo? I could also view the signal as far as it broadcasts.
The broadcasters are going after Aereo because Aereo takes away much of the friction. If you want to rent a box in NYC yourself, you have to find a friend who is willing to set up and host the box and let you use his internet connection... and when his cat knocks the box off the table during your favorite show, you have to wait until he comes home to plug it back in. Some people may do this, but few do.
Aereo takes care of setting up and supporting the "box" for you -- and for thousands of others.
Huh? It's not even as big as Texas.
No, it has somewhat less than half.
Sorry, meant California, not USA.
... ones that go at 4k mph...
Oh, you use Metric and Imperial all in the same sentence? You must be so smart to be able to convert that on the fly.
4k != 4km
As the grandparent said, it depends. In dense cities, using the subway is likely to get you to your destination faster than driving in the congested streets. Take the subway from Wall Street or 5th Avenue in NYC sometime and you'll see a lot of people who could definitely afford to take a car, if it made sense for them to do so. The same is true on pretty much any of the London Underground lines.
Even in less dense areas (SF Bay Area) taking transit often takes less time than driving (especially when you include the time to find parking and walk to the office), but even when transit takes more time, when you take the train you can read a book or get some work done (as long as you're not riding in a crush-load commute hour train).
You do realize that improving infrastructure improves the areas surrounding those improvements as well right? Gotta spend money to make money. I suggest you take a look at a country like Japan, which could easily compare to California in a lot of ways and tell me their rail system doesn't work. Go ahead, explain to me.
Japan compares to the USA in total land area, but that's about it. It's has about 3 times greater population and 4 times greater density (873/square mile versus 242/square mile)
Japan's rail system works not just because of their density, but because they have an efficient rail system that can take you to just about anywhere you want to go - it's not like the current situation in the USA where rail drops you off in the middle of town and then you spend another 90 minutes taking 3 connecting buses to get you to your house in the suburbs.
The USA has the density for effective rail transit in many places, but building out a nationwide HSR system is probably not the best way to start - to get the most trips moved from cars to rail, building out local rail (and other modes of transit like dedicated busways) is probably a better place to start since there's already a long-distance mass transit system (airlines) that people can use to go long distances, but they still need a way to get home from the airport.
Even in San Francisco there're a lot of low-density single family homes near BART stations, serious transit oriented development will take decades.
Why do you feel that you have to watch a movie created by someone that apparently doesn't want you to watch it?
The people who created the movies don't want the consumer to pay to watch their movies? I'm not a CEO of a major movie studio, but perhaps this may be one of their fundamental mistakes.
Apparently the high paid CPA's and marketing experts have told the movie houses that their current model is the way to maximize revenue. Sure, it sounds reasonable that if they just made all of their content available everywhere that they'd earn more revenue, but I haven't done the market analysis and no one outside the movie industry itself has all of the data to do that analysis.
People don't _have_ to watch movies, or are entitled to. However, when consumers are artificially barred from paying for and watching stuff, and can do so without paying with a few clicks, what do you think they're going to do?
Oh there's no doubt that people can't be trusted not to steal something. Every industry faces this.
Simple: BECAUSE I FUCKING WANT TO WATCH IT. Why do I have to give any more explanations? I want to watch a movie, I can pay por it. I have the money, just give me the fucking movie! What I do or not do in my free time is not your problem, or hollywood's, or anyone else's.
There's lots of things I'd like to do, but can't either because I can't afford it, or it's not available in this area. Like, maybe I'd love to bungie jump off the golden gate bridge, but the bridge doesn't offer that service.I could drive a few hours away and find a bridge where it offered, but dammit, I'm tired of that bridge, I want the GGB and I want it now! I'm even willing to pay! (but only as much as I want to, I want to set the price)
I own a store, and through the years I've learned that "the customer is always right" means that you shouldn't give a fuck about the customer's tastes. Just get him what he wants, or else he'll go somewhere else and get it anyway. Don't try to convince them that their taste is bad, because that just makes things worse.
I've managed a store in the past and found that the customer is often not right - if every customer got to decide how I do business, the store wouldn't stay in business. "I wanna return this shirt, it doesn't fit." "But your wore it" "Only to try it on" "It has a ketchup stain" "Well I only wore it to one dinner party". There are clear rules on what is returnable, and a stained shirt does not qualify. Sure, maybe if I'd let him return the shirt he'd turn into a lifelong customer and tell all of his friends, but more likely, the next time he wanted to go to a dinner party he'd "borrow" another shirt from me and return it afterwards.
Dude, you couldn't have chosen a worse example. The netflix streaming catalog is like 20 movies that have been on basic cable for ages, and TV series from the season before, only after the new season has started.
They claim to have 20,000 movies in their catalog, and I still have a queue of over 100 movies to watch. Having a TV series one season behind doesn't seem like a huge problem - there aren't many TV series' that are topical enough that they don't make sense a year later. If season 9 of The Office is worth watching in Sept, 2012, it's going to be worth watching in Sept 2013. I don't have cable TV so if it's not on Netflix, I'm not going to watch it.
You are just limiting your options to a catalog Hollywood has picked for you, purely because they CAN. What technical limitation is there that won't let Netflix stream a movie that they can actually rent to you on DVD? How about european, asian, or south american cinema? I haven't seen much of that on NF's catalog when I had the 30 day trial. I liked the service, but I didn't renew it as the options weren't interesting enough for me. The DVD rental store near my house has a much more varied catalog, and they have the movies on DVD as soon as they're out in that format.
There's no technical reason why McDonalds can't sell me a coke for their actual cost of 25 cents instead of making me pay $1.29, but they still do, because that's their business model. Just like Hollywood's business model is to restrict what movies are available in different media and markets.
I know the argument -- but if I steal a coke from McDonalds, they are out 25 cents of product so it's not like downloading a movie since that costs the movie industry nothing. But if you satisfy your desire for movies
Here's the thing: I want to watch that movie now. I know it's out in the US. I have the money. Where's my movie? "You have to wait". Fuck that shit, I'll get it elsewhere.
Really, you are just playing Hollywood's game, and in that game, you'll always be their bitch.
Well, there's always the other answer: "Where's my movie?" "You have to wait". "Fuck that shit, I'm not going to watch it." Why do you feel that you have to watch a movie created by someone that apparently doesn't want you to watch it? Is there really nothing better to do do with your time?
I'm not playing Hollywood's game, you are - for me, if the movie isn't in Netflix's streaming catalog, I don't watch it.
I am a film buff. I easily watch 3 movies a week (if I have good company it can be more). I have a Neflix account and a hulu+ account, apart from premium cable. Guess what? I still have to resort to not so legal means to get content. Netflix and hulu online collection suck. I am not even taking about new releases (which I would gladly watch at a movie theater), but movies that were released 20-30 years ago. I sometimes look it up at the local library, sometimes queue it up on Netflix-dvd, and about 60% of the time download the damn thing, get some beer from the fridge and start watching the movie. And my film buff friends abroad, easily get 90% of their content from not so legal means.
Just open it up, already, I would gladly pay for content. But I guess MAFIAA, does not want my money.
I'm a beer buff. I easily drink three 6 packs a week. (if I have good company it can be more)
I belong to several beer-of-the-month clubs and sometimes buy it at the supermarket. Guess what? Not all of the beer I want to drink is sold at all, you have to buy it at the local brew pub where they make it.
I can buy lots of beer at my local supermarket, but not the beer I want. So I found that I can siphon it out of the huge vats at the brewpub while they aren't looking. It's really no loss of income to them - they have thousand gallon vats, so 16 ounces here or there won't hurt them - they waste more than that from the taps during a typical evening.
If I couldn't siphon it for free, I might buy some of the beers that the brewpub *does* sell at the supermarket, but I want the ones they refuse to sell, so I feel entitled to take it for free.
I love the "testimonial" in the Latest News box from Pivatejetscharter.com that sounds like it was written by a Linux marketing specialist:
http://www.linux.org/article/view/privatejetscharter-net-why-we-love-linux
Open Source software gave us an extra level of security and speed that just wasn’t available through proprietary software. Our website has unique demands and we designed customized security for it that we are constantly changing and updating. Unlike static proprietary software that can be studied and then hacked in mass, attacking unique open source sites just isn’t profitable and it is much more difficult.
Proprietary software is static and easily studied and hacked. Open source sites are unique and can't be hacked in mass.
what if it had been raining?
The flash drives would have been wet, yet fully functional after they dried?
I've washed more than one flash drive and they still worked - I'm using one now that was washed over a year ago. I ran one through the driver once, and after I broke off the melted and mishapen plastic, I plugged it in and it worked.
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/[usbdrive]
voila, free thumb drive, malware free.
Not if the drive has firmware that detects if it's plugged into a Windows host. For non-windows, it acts as a normal flash drive, but if you plug it into Windows, then it exposes the virus. So you take it home, load it up with MP3's from your linux computer and everything is fine, but then when you give it to your wife and she see a filenamed "naked_secretary.exe", she runs it and gets infected.
Did you actually read that whitepaper? Amazon says you should encrypt the data BEFORE uploading it to S3
You should always encrypt your data before it's stored on any disk media, not just "cloud storage".
If you want something to be secure, you have to store it in house.
There is no guarantee that once you put it out on "the cloud" that someone else won't reach for it.
But don't you already encrypt your sensitive data at rest? If that's the case, is the cloud really any less secure than having it in-house? Your secret data is more likely to leave your facility through your internet connection than from someone taking a hard drive from your server.
Shipping kills the deal. Red, T/D.
Yeah, no kidding, I almost placed a bid until I saw that the shipping was around $1200 -- I hate when eBay sellers price a product cheap and then jack up the shipping charges.
google, like apple, wants to appear progressive. this is one current way corps do this; is to champion some ideals that their customers (or even employees) can identify with.
but make no mistake, google has no feelings or heart or soul. none of the megacorps do. this is done to better themselves, in the long run.
in short, its just an ad. like most of what google is. its an ad. it tries to buy your loyalty and emotion.
No matter what the motivation, shouldn't all corporations champion the ideals that their customers and employees can identify with? If it benefits the corporate and it's what the customers (and employees) want, then isn't that a win for everyone?
So it is the government's job to ensure all corporations have a fair competitive disposition? So if company A is located 2000 miles further away from the target market then company B but produce similar goods and services, should the government cover the costs of company A's transportation or raise the taxes on company B's products to remove unfair advantages locating your building near the target market might provide?
Isn't this the argument that Brick and Mortal retailers are making against Amazon? That since Amazon doesn't pay sales tax in most states, they are at a disadvantage and either the federal or state governments should force them to pay sales taxes?
I mean seriously, you just argued that a company should be allowed to encourage the creation of a law that forces people- some against religious beliefs- to do something they have not done because their choice to do something puts them at a disadvantage to companies competing with them who have not decided to do it.
I said no such thing, I didn't say anything at all about religion because I don't think religion should have any place in lawmaking. Would you be happy with a law mandating that all businesses (including all non-religious oriented websites) should be closed on Sundays to respect the Christian religions that believe that no employee should have to work on the Sabbath and no one should be doing secular work on the Sabbath? And of course, businesses should also be closed on Saturdays to reflect the beliefs of Jewish and other religions that recognize Saturday as the Sabbath.
It is other people's business as soon as there are tax breaks or any other government "perks" or benefits to a legally recognized union. That's because the breaks and benefits are funded by the people as a nation.
Tax breaks? There's often a marriage penalty for filing jointly. In some cases there's a tax benefit, but not all. But if the tax benefit of getting married is all that's stopping federal recognition of same-sex marriages, let's get rid of it for everyone (and I say that as a married person, but we file separately because there's no tax benefit for us to file jointly)
No tax breaks? No free daycare? No benefits to any union between consenting adults? No costs to tax payers? Then I don't care what you do.
Free daycare? How do I sign up for that marriage benefit? My wife and I seem to have missed that one. But even if free daycare was a benefit of marriage, presumably it's there to help children, so why shouldn't a same-sex couple with children qualify for the benefit? Or do you only support children who have opposite-sex parents?
None of the married couples I know (whether same sex or different sex) married for the tax-cuts or other monetary rewards from the government - aside from wanting to demonstrate commitment to each other via mamrriage, they are more interested in the legal protections offered by a state and federally recognized marriage (things like parental rights, easier adoption as a married couple, hospital visitation rights, ability to make decisions about spouse's medical care and disposition of body after death, easier access to partners funds after death of a spouse, ability to continue a lease after death of a partner, bereavement or FMLA protected leave to care for a sick spouse, protections via divorce)
But their is a difference between says all couples of any gender pairing in our emply gets benefits and campaigning to make it so everywhere.
There's a good business case to do so. If company A tries to do the right thing by granting benefits to domestic partners of all employees regardless of gender, but they compete against companies that do not do so because there's no legal requirement, then company A is at a competitive disadvantage. They could reduce benefits for their employees, or they could lobby to level the playing field for what they think is "right".
Companies lobby for lots of things that benefit themselves (tax exemptions, lax environmental laws, etc), so what's the problem with companies lobbying for something that they think is the right thing for their employees?
Google promoting same sex marriage is great and all, but what about ladyboys and the so called third gender? No, you cannot lump it under homosexuality as it's a different issue. Same sex marriage is old thing, everyone should fight for people's right to be whatever gender - or a third gender - if they so want to. Even on Slashdot I always get modded down when I mention ladyboys, and I hope not this time because this issue needs to see some daylight.
The distinction between straight, homosexual, bisexual, and transgender marriage should matter only to the couple that's marrying. There's no reason the government needs to make a distinction.
If a male->female part time cross dresser is in love with and wants to marry a female->male post-op transexual, why is it anyone's business but the couple? There's no need to make up another "gender", just take gender out of the marriage equation entirely.
Why does Facebook even care about this? For a fraction of the cost of what they invested in this cable, they could open up a datacenter in Asia and replicate their content closer to their Asian customers.
I could see why someone like Google might want to boost capacity since they are a conduit to other sites, so making everyone faster helps them out, but I don't see what Facebook is gaining.
If a wife killed her husband to get his money, wouldn't she be more careful than to empty his accounts moments after his death?
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
In reality people are either stupid or desperate and do stupid things.
Also, how does your wife access money now? Can't she continue to do so the same way?
Of are you one of those people that gives their wife $100 a month to spend.
Since my wife earns nearly as much money as I do there's no need to give her an allowance, but if she's paying a bill, she just writes a check out of our joint checking account... or if she needs cash, she says "Hey sweetie, I'm taking that $20 from your wallet". But I have several retirement accounts and a life insurance policy that she is aware of but doesn't access regularly (well, at all). I'd like her to have my account information at her fingertips in the event that I'm not around -- and she does, through a document in our home fire safe and a backup copy in a safe deposit box at the bank.