Erm, they sell an antivirus... it would hardly be a shining endorsement of their product if malware was actively infecting their users and successfully stealing license keys.
I was mildly disappointed at how scary they made it look, but meh. It’s not like they were telling the users anything they probably didn’t already know, and I’d say that the music industry has successfully waged a shock&awe campaign to inform people of what, exactly, they can do to you if they catch you making unauthorized copies. I’d have been much more impressed if they had tried to present a more friendly and informative message. Something along the lines of:
We have detected that this copy of avast! Pro is using an unauthorized license code (in other words, you didn’t pay for it).
Perhaps you didn’t realize it, but avast! also offers a free edition for personal and non-commercial use. Please select from one of the options below:
[ Downgrade this copy to avast! Free Edition ] [ Learn more about pricing plans for avast! Pro Edition ]
I think not... it isn’t really referring to the Nazi party. Sort of like “Kleenex” is a proper noun and should be capitalized, but if you aren’t specifically referring to that brand of facial tissue it would be more appropriate to just use “kleenex”.
Then again, maybe that’s just my opinion. I’m not necessarily saying you’re wrong if you disagree.
people cheat when they think they can get away with it.
Your post was completely unrelated to mine, yet you replied to me. Did you think you’d get away with that?
Anyway, to respond more to your point, yes – people cheat when they think they can get away with it. However, pirating software that (by definition) phones home is... sort of... especially dumb. By which I mean, you’re unlikely to get away with it.
To learn whether you’re vulnerable (and how exactly this works), http://startpanic.com/.
There are a few ways to immunize Firefox against this sort of attack:
Clearing your history is obviously effective, whether that means clearing it entirely or just deleting particular sites from the history. If a site isn’t in the history, it can’t be detected. You could also use an addon to clean up your history, e.g. History Deleter – Deletes browsing history by keywords and/or date (on browser close) HistoryBlock – Blocks specified sites from history, recently closed tabs, and the download manager
Also, disabling the visited link styling will also prevent history sniffing, but you won’t be able to tell if links have been visited by their visual style any more. To disable it, go to about:config, paste layout.css.visited_links_enabled into the search bar, and change its value to false.
You would expect the trends to generally reflect the highest-profile topics, true enough. If they don’t, though, that isn’t censorship. They’re like a news network. You expect them to tell you what’s hot. They don’t always. It’s certainly a bias, but it isn’t censorship.
Censorship would be telling you that you can’t post that Twitter update because you tagged it #wikileaks.
Censorship would be mysteriously long page loads and 404 errors on feeds of users who posted wikileaks-related tweets.
Censorship would be banning users who posted about wikileaks.
They wound their solenoids by hand? Isn’t that a little like writing an application in assembly language? on a CPU you built from relays and piano wire?
Not sure what the difference between them is, other than a metallophone has metal keys by definition and a marimba’s keys are usually wood (but unlike the xylophone, don’t necessarily have to be).
Government-provided resources available to non-profit groups cannot be withheld from religious groups solely on the basis of the fact that they’re religious.
Just that it's pretty clearly at odds with the constitution to provide government money for such indoctrination.
Then you misunderstand the constitution. In fact, not giving them money would violate the constitution.
If you say “projects meeting the criteria a, b, and c get tax breaks to encourage tourism” and then someone who meets a, b, and c gets disqualified simply because they’re a church, that’s discrimination on the basis of religion and it’s completely unconstitutional.
What they’re seeking is the same tax break that any other tourism-oriented project would receive. They aren’t getting money from the government. They’re giving less money to the government.
And are you or aren’t you aware that your church (assuming that it is a non-profit organization) doesn’t have to pay a number of different taxes that for-profit organizations would? So if you’re against churches getting tax breaks, you’re a hypocrite.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
If you answer no to any of these, you should be able to see why this construction project should receive no government money or special tax breaks.
And if I answered yes, you should be able to see why this should.
If a Muslim or Buddhist group were making a religious theme park and received government money to construct it, would you be okay with that? How about Scientology or Rastafarianism? Or, the Temple of Set?
If they are required to justify it economically just like any other organization and the statistics show that it would be a cost-effective project, the tourism department would be stupid not to help fund it.
Slashdot Mirror
Or your neighbour’s wife’s ass?
I switched to Linux during college. I refused to pirate software anymore, so the only way I could get the shit I needed was to switch to Linux.
Really?
What software did you need that exists free for Linux and doesn’t have the same or similar freely available for Windows?
Semi-serious question, and I do fully expect several serious replies... this is Slashdot, after all.
Erm, they sell an antivirus... it would hardly be a shining endorsement of their product if malware was actively infecting their users and successfully stealing license keys.
It would, however, be comically ironic.
i = 1
You can see it near the bottom of this page.
I was mildly disappointed at how scary they made it look, but meh. It’s not like they were telling the users anything they probably didn’t already know, and I’d say that the music industry has successfully waged a shock&awe campaign to inform people of what, exactly, they can do to you if they catch you making unauthorized copies. I’d have been much more impressed if they had tried to present a more friendly and informative message. Something along the lines of:
Simple, to the point, and non-scary.
No, that would be if we linked to the official press release.
I think not... it isn’t really referring to the Nazi party. Sort of like “Kleenex” is a proper noun and should be capitalized, but if you aren’t specifically referring to that brand of facial tissue it would be more appropriate to just use “kleenex”.
Then again, maybe that’s just my opinion. I’m not necessarily saying you’re wrong if you disagree.
Perhaps, but plenty of the unauthorized users were in the US, so if they’d wanted to make a payday from it, they could’ve.
people cheat when they think they can get away with it.
Your post was completely unrelated to mine, yet you replied to me. Did you think you’d get away with that?
Anyway, to respond more to your point, yes – people cheat when they think they can get away with it. However, pirating software that (by definition) phones home is... sort of... especially dumb. By which I mean, you’re unlikely to get away with it.
Well, that’s a good start, I guess.
As far as history sniffing is concerned, just recently we heard about history sniffing by “mainstream ad networks” and YouPorn (...accompanied by a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of anon suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced). Also, [PDF] “documents hundreds of commercial sites exploiting it”.
To learn whether you’re vulnerable (and how exactly this works), http://startpanic.com/.
There are a few ways to immunize Firefox against this sort of attack:
Clearing your history is obviously effective, whether that means clearing it entirely or just deleting particular sites from the history. If a site isn’t in the history, it can’t be detected. You could also use an addon to clean up your history, e.g.
History Deleter – Deletes browsing history by keywords and/or date (on browser close)
HistoryBlock – Blocks specified sites from history, recently closed tabs, and the download manager
Also, disabling the visited link styling will also prevent history sniffing, but you won’t be able to tell if links have been visited by their visual style any more. To disable it, go to about:config, paste layout.css.visited_links_enabled into the search bar, and change its value to false.
You would expect the trends to generally reflect the highest-profile topics, true enough. If they don’t, though, that isn’t censorship. They’re like a news network. You expect them to tell you what’s hot. They don’t always. It’s certainly a bias, but it isn’t censorship.
Censorship would be telling you that you can’t post that Twitter update because you tagged it #wikileaks.
Censorship would be mysteriously long page loads and 404 errors on feeds of users who posted wikileaks-related tweets.
Censorship would be banning users who posted about wikileaks.
The last line was met with mixed opinions ranging from pedantry to grammar naziism.
They wound their solenoids by hand? Isn’t that a little like writing an application in assembly language? on a CPU you built from relays and piano wire?
They should write a few more tunes... it would easily supplant this project in geekiness.
They have until February to design the robotic slide guitar and robotic congos. Cocktails not included...
It could also be a marimba.
Not sure what the difference between them is, other than a metallophone has metal keys by definition and a marimba’s keys are usually wood (but unlike the xylophone, don’t necessarily have to be).
organizations that proselytize their guests or customers are not eligible for government support
Citation needed. Preferably a supreme court decision.
No need. We already have.
Government-provided resources available to non-profit groups cannot be withheld from religious groups solely on the basis of the fact that they’re religious.
Just that it's pretty clearly at odds with the constitution to provide government money for such indoctrination.
Then you misunderstand the constitution. In fact, not giving them money would violate the constitution.
If you say “projects meeting the criteria a, b, and c get tax breaks to encourage tourism” and then someone who meets a, b, and c gets disqualified simply because they’re a church, that’s discrimination on the basis of religion and it’s completely unconstitutional.
What they’re seeking is the same tax break that any other tourism-oriented project would receive. They aren’t getting money from the government. They’re giving less money to the government.
And are you or aren’t you aware that your church (assuming that it is a non-profit organization) doesn’t have to pay a number of different taxes that for-profit organizations would? So if you’re against churches getting tax breaks, you’re a hypocrite.
But the 14th amendment wasn’t violated. Too bad, so sad.
It’s been estimated that it took between 90 and 120 years, IIRC. And he presumably also had the help of his 3 sons.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
If you answer no to any of these, you should be able to see why this construction project should receive no government money or special tax breaks.
And if I answered yes, you should be able to see why this should.
If a Muslim or Buddhist group were making a religious theme park and received government money to construct it, would you be okay with that? How about Scientology or Rastafarianism? Or, the Temple of Set?
If they are required to justify it economically just like any other organization and the statistics show that it would be a cost-effective project, the tourism department would be stupid not to help fund it.
You completely missed my point. And I don’t think you know what history sniffing is, or how it works.