I wonder how many people just donated, compared to the % of people who bought. I'll be taking a look at this book, it looks interesting and rather useful.
Well this is the same thing, except it's indirect revenue via ads. It is still, however, making money with warez.
Which is why the consumers love it so much. If there's really so much money to be made reselling 'warez' with ad-raised revenue, why don't the big companies do that instead?
Which could be grounds for a Man In The Middle Attack. It does not say anything about forcing people to use HTTPS, just that it will be done automatically instead of using a redirect. So it'll make sites which force HTTPS safer, but it won't force twitter to push https if you haven't asked for it.
You can steal the session cookie from someone using twitter using an unsecured network (such as a public wifi) - and then spam the crap out of his feed, or change some settings or something.
I'm pretty sure the ability to spoof someone else's twitter to say whatever you want is considered - "Important Personal Data".
Login Credentials aren't needed if you're nicking the cookie - see also : "Firesheep" which is script-kiddie friendly.
I have a 7-inch android tablet. Lots of stuff works simply by resizing. And it looks good. If you follow proper design policy, then it';ll work. Those which don't just get a large box around the edge and the screen is 'smaller'. So this comparison is incorrect.
That's how the market works. If there are people who want to buy something, everyone is going to produce more of that thing.
I have a tablet myself, I can tell that they're very useful for certain things, and useless for others. It'll fill a niche. It doesn't deserve all the hype its getting though.
The argument isn't giving internet control to Libya (for which you could more argue about it disconnecting the internet there), its about giving internet control to the UN.
And 'mistakes' happen due to political tampering. Obama has a Nobel Peace prize, the US got to host the UNESCO thingy for freedom of speech. The issue here isn't whether the UN/US have made the worst decisons, the issue here is which of them deserve to control the internet, which of them are most likely to remove sites fairly? Which of them deserves to 'own' such an important international technology?
Because of course the US hasn't performed any bad decisions whatsoever in the history of everything ever.
This is largely unrelated don't you think? How the UN would control domain names is unrelated to whom it puts on the Human Rights Council isn't it? I would trust a mixture of large countries more than leaving it in the hands of the US - who has siezed domain names without trial or legal process based on "National Security" reasons.
Re:Happy Pi Day Everyone...
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 1
I should have known better than to put a (what I would think is a) limited bandwidth imagine on/.
Its a visual depiction of uh... meta-pi
Re:Almost there...
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
We could easily extend that to
3/14/15 9:26:53 am
And have a real big bash.
Happy Pi Day Everyone...
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 3, Funny
And here's a festive image I created for the occasion
Slashdot Mirror
The free market will save us!
Any minute now...
I noticed a donate button on that website.
I wonder how many people just donated, compared to the % of people who bought. I'll be taking a look at this book, it looks interesting and rather useful.
Hello users of Slashdot.org
America is really cool isn't it? Freedom, and Eagles and Stuff Like that.
Hail America!
S. Puppet.
They finally agreed.
Now lets wait a few more weeks until more discussions take place, more slaps on the wrist are suggested and we can get the actual no fly zone by 2012.
Webster, 1913
There's your problem. I've helpfully put it in bold for you
What we need is a ... president who is not a puppet of the corporations.
Ahahahaha
hahahahaha
ahahahahaha
*wheeze*
ahahahaha
1b) Will a large company/group of companies benefit if 1 is illegal?
Well this is the same thing, except it's indirect revenue via ads. It is still, however, making money with warez.
Which is why the consumers love it so much. If there's really so much money to be made reselling 'warez' with ad-raised revenue, why don't the big companies do that instead?
More like so you can be sure that someone using the same connection at your coffee shop won't post something in your name by sniffing your cookies.
From what I am understanding of the article its there to stop:
http://www.example..../
[redirect to]
https://..../
Which could be grounds for a Man In The Middle Attack. It does not say anything about forcing people to use HTTPS, just that it will be done automatically instead of using a redirect. So it'll make sites which force HTTPS safer, but it won't force twitter to push https if you haven't asked for it.
You can steal the session cookie from someone using twitter using an unsecured network (such as a public wifi) - and then spam the crap out of his feed, or change some settings or something.
I'm pretty sure the ability to spoof someone else's twitter to say whatever you want is considered - "Important Personal Data".
Login Credentials aren't needed if you're nicking the cookie - see also : "Firesheep" which is script-kiddie friendly.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/01/25/1955236/Your-Face-Will-Soon-Be-In-Facebook-Ads
The nerve of it all!
So, according to the Article, sold for 70$ and there were 300 of them.
I don't know about profit margins, but if we just multiply the values -
21,000$
I'm sure Mark could use that money to tip his paperboy or something.
You'd cause a worldwide Silicone shortage if you attempted that.
Should start making voodoo dolls instead.
I'd have bought one of these.
While you may be correct - you haven't really given us the answer to who exactly should be given control.
The UN takes ages to reach a decision - which means that any 'bad things' which could happen would takes ages - which is great for everyone.
If you're against the US AND the UN, who are you going to give internet control to such that everyone is happy?
"Tablet-Specific Apps" is just dumb.
I have a 7-inch android tablet. Lots of stuff works simply by resizing. And it looks good. If you follow proper design policy, then it';ll work. Those which don't just get a large box around the edge and the screen is 'smaller'. So this comparison is incorrect.
That's how the market works. If there are people who want to buy something, everyone is going to produce more of that thing.
I have a tablet myself, I can tell that they're very useful for certain things, and useless for others. It'll fill a niche. It doesn't deserve all the hype its getting though.
The UN hasn't bombed their own people either.
The argument isn't giving internet control to Libya (for which you could more argue about it disconnecting the internet there), its about giving internet control to the UN.
And 'mistakes' happen due to political tampering. Obama has a Nobel Peace prize, the US got to host the UNESCO thingy for freedom of speech. The issue here isn't whether the UN/US have made the worst decisons, the issue here is which of them deserve to control the internet, which of them are most likely to remove sites fairly? Which of them deserves to 'own' such an important international technology?
The Xoom would win in that regard. The iPad is thinner.
Because of course the US hasn't performed any bad decisions whatsoever in the history of everything ever.
This is largely unrelated don't you think? How the UN would control domain names is unrelated to whom it puts on the Human Rights Council isn't it? I would trust a mixture of large countries more than leaving it in the hands of the US - who has siezed domain names without trial or legal process based on "National Security" reasons.
I should have known better than to put a (what I would think is a) limited bandwidth imagine on /.
Its a visual depiction of uh... meta-pi
We could easily extend that to
3/14/15 9:26:53 am
And have a real big bash.
And here's a festive image I created for the occasion
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/5665/28362805.jpg
However...
"Of those queried, 87 responded to the invitation"
So if those 6 are from the 87 which responded...
Gives a value of 7% which is higher than the 1-2% your calculations suggest.