Eh, what a concept... a group of pissed-off people is able to “simulate” the effect of a botnet.
Wait a second... no, it’s more like the other way around:
A botnet controlled by one individual (or a few individuals) is able to simulate a large group of people. The botnet is fake. This is real.
“Voluntary botnet” is a term that was obviously created to attempt to de-legitimize a protest made by real people (not bots!). It’s the polar opposite of a botnet, in reality. A botnet is a horde of computers owned by clueless morons who don’t even care enough to secure their computer, much less care about whatever message or agenda the botmaster is trying to push through. But this is a horde of actual, concerned people.
It’s no different from the political tactic of attempting to de-legitimize an opponent’s (successful) grassroots campaign by calling it “astroturfing”.
It’s just code for “what you’re doing is so successful, I don’t see how you’re doing it without cheating”.
It is now much harder for musicians to land recording contracts. Because music industry will only record big sellers as the other types would spread via file sharing.
First of all, I doubt very much that is the primary reason the music industry only records big sellers... the most obvious reason being MONEY. The very phrase “BIG SELLERS” tells you exactly why the music industry records them!
Secondly, “big sellers” don’t spread via file sharing? Popularity is the primary factor in both sales and file sharing, and file sharing and sales are generally correlated. Implying that an inverse relationship exists between sales and file-sharing is beyond ignorant; it is downright contrary to reality.
Not respecting the license is a bad thing pirating software is just as bad as taking GNU software bundling it and not giving access to the source.
Apples to oranges. Copyright is designed to give the artists certain rights, the free software licenses are designed to give the consumer those rights.
Distorts supply and demand and free market economy as it creates a high supply lowering the cost of the software. Meaning us professionals don't get paid alot.
You’ve taken Econ 101, I see. Good for you. You should also know that if the price is low, the demand is higher. In other words, fewer people would buy it at the prices you want. Meaning you professionals don’t get paid a lot. And a lot is two words, not one.
the program will still allow churches to accept federal dollars and allow religious organizations to display religious art, icons, scriptures and other symbols while taking in government support.
The order also did not address the issue of faith-based hiring at religious institutions that accept federal funds.
They can’t actively proselytize. Which I agree with. And which is totally beside the point. They still get federal funds on the same basis as anyone else. You can’t discriminate against an organization because it’s religious.
Funny - I flew a couple of times last week. I didn't get groped, or scanned where they could look at my pictures. Went through 2 airports that had the full-body scanners going.
That’s well and good unless they decide they want to give you the additional screening, at which point your options are: scanner, grope, or handcuffs.
My version is always on top and there’s no little clicky [x] thing to close it. And it doesn’t go away until you enter a license code, either for the free edition or a bought-and-paid pro license key.
Yeah, it’s almost like they only disabled the account after they heard about it on the news. Like they don’t personally vet every person who opens an account...
An online army of WikiLeaks supports downed the PayPal blog for more than eight hours, according to a report by security researcher Sean-Paul Correll at Panda Labs.
PayPal claimed it shut down Wikileaks' account because the "payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity".
It didn't explain how the leaking of information can be regarded as illegal.
And regarding that last bit: Was anybody actually trying to argue that whoever leaked the information to Wikileaks wasn’t breaking the law? I mean, it might or might not be illegal for Wikileaks to publish it, but leaking it was certainly illegal. Somebody with access to classified documents leaked them. (And whether or not it was really the guy they claim they caught is another question entirely.)
I don’t think it’s in the least bit hard to justify the statement that Wikileaks was encouraging people to break the law, since that was how it got most of its juicy information.
Yes, because if they're one of the vast majority of people who are used to Office and they're using Office, at most you're tech support for new things they're trying to or bugs in Office.
If LibreOffice doesn’t have that normal.dot thing, I’d say it’s a no-brainer.
Norton, McAfee, ESET, Windows Security Essentials, Clam, AVG, Kaspersky, off the top of my head.
Actually, forget I mentioned those first two... I’m pretty sure mentioning them when somebody asks about anti-virus programs is automatic forfeiture of geek card.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it will. It just won’t warn you it’s about to. Your anonymous post is still linked to your username.
It’s cookie-based though, so you can post anonymously from a different browser without canceling out your modpoints.
a horde of clueless actual concerned morons
Yes, similar to the people who vote.
n/t.
Getting them from an anonymous donor is not illegal. Being the anonymous donor is illegal.
Eh, what a concept... a group of pissed-off people is able to “simulate” the effect of a botnet.
Wait a second... no, it’s more like the other way around:
A botnet controlled by one individual (or a few individuals) is able to simulate a large group of people. The botnet is fake. This is real.
“Voluntary botnet” is a term that was obviously created to attempt to de-legitimize a protest made by real people (not bots!). It’s the polar opposite of a botnet, in reality. A botnet is a horde of computers owned by clueless morons who don’t even care enough to secure their computer, much less care about whatever message or agenda the botmaster is trying to push through. But this is a horde of actual, concerned people.
It’s no different from the political tactic of attempting to de-legitimize an opponent’s (successful) grassroots campaign by calling it “astroturfing”.
It’s just code for “what you’re doing is so successful, I don’t see how you’re doing it without cheating”.
[Win]+[R], osk, [Enter]
And what software turns Cap Lock on?
It is now much harder for musicians to land recording contracts. Because music industry will only record big sellers as the other types would spread via file sharing.
First of all, I doubt very much that is the primary reason the music industry only records big sellers... the most obvious reason being MONEY. The very phrase “BIG SELLERS” tells you exactly why the music industry records them!
Secondly, “big sellers” don’t spread via file sharing? Popularity is the primary factor in both sales and file sharing, and file sharing and sales are generally correlated. Implying that an inverse relationship exists between sales and file-sharing is beyond ignorant; it is downright contrary to reality.
Not respecting the license is a bad thing pirating software is just as bad as taking GNU software bundling it and not giving access to the source.
Apples to oranges. Copyright is designed to give the artists certain rights, the free software licenses are designed to give the consumer those rights.
Distorts supply and demand and free market economy as it creates a high supply lowering the cost of the software. Meaning us professionals don't get paid alot.
You’ve taken Econ 101, I see. Good for you. You should also know that if the price is low, the demand is higher. In other words, fewer people would buy it at the prices you want. Meaning you professionals don’t get paid a lot. And a lot is two words, not one.
I did say if they catch you.
Did you even read that?
the program will still allow churches to accept federal dollars and allow religious organizations to display religious art, icons, scriptures and other symbols while taking in government support.
The order also did not address the issue of faith-based hiring at religious institutions that accept federal funds.
They can’t actively proselytize. Which I agree with. And which is totally beside the point. They still get federal funds on the same basis as anyone else. You can’t discriminate against an organization because it’s religious.
Webster’s says either one is an acceptable spelling.
They can offer the free version with some of the functionality removed, like the 0s, or maybe the 1s.
No, the free version has all of the 1s and 0s... you just have to arrange some of them yourself. ;)
They earned a bit of a right to nag you when they didn’t immediately sue you, IMHO.
Funny - I flew a couple of times last week. I didn't get groped, or scanned where they could look at my pictures. Went through 2 airports that had the full-body scanners going.
That’s well and good unless they decide they want to give you the additional screening, at which point your options are: scanner, grope, or handcuffs.
My version is always on top and there’s no little clicky [x] thing to close it. And it doesn’t go away until you enter a license code, either for the free edition or a bought-and-paid pro license key.
Still meh?
Of course last week they were all for net privacy and never, never have they ever been for dumping THEIR secrets on the Internet.
No, last week they were dumping their own secrets on MySpace and were shocked, just shocked, when their employer discovered them.
I’m already on my own no-fly list, and I’ll stay there until the TSA stops groping people to create a facade of security.
Yeah, it’s almost like they only disabled the account after they heard about it on the news. Like they don’t personally vet every person who opens an account...
Instead of these stories being posted when they actually happened and were submitted, we get them into one aggregated post weeks later. Sigh.
Actually I’d prefer that. The minute-by-minute on Wikileaks is getting tiresome.
You could always read the linked article. Geez.
Some excerpts:
And regarding that last bit: Was anybody actually trying to argue that whoever leaked the information to Wikileaks wasn’t breaking the law? I mean, it might or might not be illegal for Wikileaks to publish it, but leaking it was certainly illegal. Somebody with access to classified documents leaked them. (And whether or not it was really the guy they claim they caught is another question entirely.)
I don’t think it’s in the least bit hard to justify the statement that Wikileaks was encouraging people to break the law, since that was how it got most of its juicy information.
I thought a proper Swiss bank account didn’t even have record of who its owner was. Maybe he did it wrong.
I’m pretty sure that qualifies as an EPIC fail.
Is that the New King James Version? Heathen!
Yes, because if they're one of the vast majority of people who are used to Office and they're using Office, at most you're tech support for new things they're trying to or bugs in Office.
If LibreOffice doesn’t have that normal.dot thing, I’d say it’s a no-brainer.
That’s why I said it’s a good start.
A) Have to explain to everyone you tell this to why they can't find Word
Put a “Word processor” shortcut on the desktop. That should pretty well handle it.
B) Become unpaid tech support for LibreOffice
As opposed to becoming unpaid tech support for Microsoft Office? Which you might not even use very often?
Hmm.
Norton, McAfee, ESET, Windows Security Essentials, Clam, AVG, Kaspersky, off the top of my head.
Actually, forget I mentioned those first two... I’m pretty sure mentioning them when somebody asks about anti-virus programs is automatic forfeiture of geek card.