I use a very long random string of digits that would take a very long time to brute force.
Luckily, it's also very easy for me to remember this entire string of random digits. I'm so sure you'll never be able to guess the rest, I'll give you the first eight bytes: 3.141592...
My guess is that Microsoft could develop OpenDocument support in less than a man month.
My guess is they already have. There exists on some Redmondian software developer's system an alpha version of Word, Excel, etc. that will read/write OpenDocument 1.0 files without a hitch.
Furthermore, I would venture a guess that (a) this version will never be released, and (b) if any version of Office with OpenDocument 1.0 support is ever released, it will be imperfectly implemented _on purpose_ and Office will insist on informing the user that they "may lose some document formatting" or other "functionality" if they don't save it in Microsoft's native format.
Students with the 4.0GPAs with CS degrees might come out of school and not know jack about shit, while the self-taught guy with a 2.8 in Liberal Arts might code rings around the former. That's a fact.
It's a fact that Alice might be better than Bob at knife-throwing, too.
I love having lots of certifications. It shows how smart you are. Plus, it just looks cool having all those letters after your name.
-Killmenow, CCNA, CNE, MCSE, RHCE
PS. Really, I let them ALL expire. They were neat to obtain but serve almost no practical purpose. They are mostly there for HR types, PHBs who wouldn't know talent from a hole in the ground, and vendors to bilk you out of more and more money keeping you on the re-cert treadmill.
June movies aren't typically the worst ones. The movie industry specifically and purposefully releases the movies expected to be the worst of the year in August.
I don't know why they do this...but all movies ever released to theatres in August were at the very least expected to suck by the companies releasing them.
That's not to say there've never been gems released in August. But if there were, they were like the needle in the haystack.
Roughly 85% of my movie-going experiences are disrupted by other moviegoers.
In my experience, it breaks down more like this:
40% ruined by the movie itself...either they flat out suck and I'm livid I wasted the money and time, or they're marginal and I'm just sad I didn't wait until it came out on video or at the dollar theatre
30% ruined by other movie-goers
20% ruined by poor projection, sound quality, or basic lack of maintenance of the theatre itself
10% enjoyable movie experience
I used to love going to the movies. But with a roughly 10% chance of it being an enjoyable experience, I don't go very often anymore.
It's not going to hurt the children, who are either gonna lose interest, or not comprehend the "bad" parts anyway.
Well, depending on their ages, I would mostly disagree with you. The way you watch a movie that is inappropriate for your children to view is to make them go to bed. You are the parent, after all.
call me old fashioned here, I actually like my movies to have this thing called a plot.
All good movies must have at least two of the following:
An interesting plot...simple enough, one would think. "Rob Schnieder goes to Amsterdam and poses as a gigolo to foil a murder mystery" doesn't count.
Dialog that sounds more like it was written by Quintin Tarantino than George Lucas.
Character development. This does not include a guy who thinks fat chicks are worthless until Tony Robbins hypnotizes him and when it wears off he finally realizes he's in love with one and it's what's on the inside that really matters.
Quality acting, as opposed to anything ever done by Keanu Reeves.
Just thick concrete, about 15 feet high, surrounding the area in which you want to contain the elephants.
A 2' thick 15' high wall long enough to surround several (50?) acres of land to let the Elephants roam around in is not cheap.
The problem isn't just cost, although that was apparently the major issue as they just don't have the money. Designing a proper and effective system to manage elephants at a place like The Wilds seems to me like a logistical nightmare.
I was at The Wilds not long ago. In answer to the question: "Will you ever have Elephants here?" the guide said, "No."
She went on to explain that, although they have paddocks with high electric fences to keep their current populations where they want them, they are inadequate for elephants. In other words, electric fence or not, elephants will just roll right on through. The investment, she said, needed to implement proper barriers to keep the elephants from just trampling into whatever area of the park they so desire (and to keep them from simply exiting the park) is too cost prohibitive to make any economic sense.
So, long story short, no elephants at the wilds. She did say they were considering getting some big cats. I don't know if she meant tigers or lions or what. Personally, I hope they get ligers. They're my favorite animal.
Yes I can look up many of Google's founder's "private" information via their own search engine. But while I may do so, I can have legitimate and illegitimate reasons for doing so. Legitimate reasons include trying to get a phone number for an old friend (in a world where Google's founder is a friend of mine); illegitimate reasons include gratuitously drawing the attention of thousands of people to information that reasonably should be considered private, whether it happens to be publically available or not.
It should not be reasonably considered private if he has not taken reasonable measures to scrub public sources of his data. Is his phone number unlisted? Has he taken steps to keep his street address private? I don't know the answer to these questions. My point is simply that it is wrong to assume that your phone number is private just because it isn't published on the front page of the New York Times.
Would that justify someone posting the information in my local newspaper, simply because it's out there and possible to find?
Justify it? It seems still to be a smarmy thing to do; but, unethical goes too far. As with many things, giving a person a choice to "opt out" in this case would have been the right thing to do, imho.
Half the reason why we have so many laws is that some people appear to be incapable of acting like adults.
Well, I can't disagree with you there. I think, in fact, you make many good points. CNet seems to have engaged in the tried and true journalist crutch: sensationalism. But, Google's reaction appears to be an over-reaction. All of this seems par for the course for two year olds.
I would point out, however, that while I haven't read the original CNet article that sparked this whole brouhaha, I do believe there is a perfectly valid reason to write an article about how easy it is to find and assemble personal details about damn near everybody and anybody. If you've not read Database Nation, I recommend it. I think it's fair to say many people don't realize how much data is collected about them and how easy it is to piece two and two together to build a profile full of juicy details about their lives.
To me, the greatest danger in this is not the loss of privacy; rather, it is the ghastly amount of inaccurate data out there. And if law enforcement, et. al., use these sources as authoritative means for investigating suspects we're all in danger of being investigated or becoming suspects for things of which there is no reasonable expectation of being suspected or investigated.
I'd hate to think I might become the target of an FBI investigation because two or three databases contain incorrect data about me that matches some pattern they've designated to terrorism. Imagine having your name automatically added to some no-fly watchlists and every time you attempt to board an airplane you have to go through extra inspections and interviews, you are held up and interrogated, etc. It can happen. It's already happened to people just because they have the wrong name.
So, is it right to publish an article about Google's CEO and how easy it is to use his search engine to find personal information about him? In some context, I'd say it's possible. It would have been better for CNet, if their purpose was to draw attention to the problem I mentioned, to have published an article about how easy it was to find personal details on their own CEO.
I just read an article about slave gamers somewhere. Why wouldn't whomever stands to gain financially from additional ad views create bots or macros to just repeatedly do what you mention and drive up their revenue artificially?
Possibly it will encourage these people to go out, get better jobs, be more social, get more exercise, work in their garden, anything but watch TV.
You're right. Because the only reason they're so poor that they can't afford a new TV is because they never go outside, have shit jobs, are unsociable, fat, and unable to grow their own vegetables.
I know a lot of *BSD people who don't care for Linux, and a lot of Linux people who don't care for *BSD.
And I know several people who provide *BSD and Linux services as consultants as well as a number of what I'll just call *BSD or Linux advocates. It has been my experience, however useless an anecdote may be, that a lot of "Linux people" appreciate the *BSDs and are willing to show some respect to them and their advocates even though the reverse is not true...again, in my experience.
Perhaps, this has something to do with many Linux advocates *also* being advocates of building strong communities...whereas, many *BSD advocates are less concerned with community.
Slashdot Mirror
I use a very long random string of digits that would take a very long time to brute force.
Luckily, it's also very easy for me to remember this entire string of random digits. I'm so sure you'll never be able to guess the rest, I'll give you the first eight bytes: 3.141592...
Google's is called GMail BETA
Furthermore, I would venture a guess that (a) this version will never be released, and (b) if any version of Office with OpenDocument 1.0 support is ever released, it will be imperfectly implemented _on purpose_ and Office will insist on informing the user that they "may lose some document formatting" or other "functionality" if they don't save it in Microsoft's native format.
I love having lots of certifications. It shows how smart you are. Plus, it just looks cool having all those letters after your name.
-Killmenow, CCNA, CNE, MCSE, RHCE
PS. Really, I let them ALL expire. They were neat to obtain but serve almost no practical purpose. They are mostly there for HR types, PHBs who wouldn't know talent from a hole in the ground, and vendors to bilk you out of more and more money keeping you on the re-cert treadmill.
June movies aren't typically the worst ones. The movie industry specifically and purposefully releases the movies expected to be the worst of the year in August.
I don't know why they do this...but all movies ever released to theatres in August were at the very least expected to suck by the companies releasing them.
That's not to say there've never been gems released in August. But if there were, they were like the needle in the haystack.
Ahh, too bad I've already posted in this thread as that deserves a +1, Funny mod for sure.
- 40% ruined by the movie itself...either they flat out suck and I'm livid I wasted the money and time, or they're marginal and I'm just sad I didn't wait until it came out on video or at the dollar theatre
- 30% ruined by other movie-goers
- 20% ruined by poor projection, sound quality, or basic lack of maintenance of the theatre itself
- 10% enjoyable movie experience
I used to love going to the movies. But with a roughly 10% chance of it being an enjoyable experience, I don't go very often anymore.- An interesting plot...simple enough, one would think. "Rob Schnieder goes to Amsterdam and poses as a gigolo to foil a murder mystery" doesn't count.
- Dialog that sounds more like it was written by Quintin Tarantino than George Lucas.
- Character development. This does not include a guy who thinks fat chicks are worthless until Tony Robbins hypnotizes him and when it wears off he finally realizes he's in love with one and it's what's on the inside that really matters.
- Quality acting, as opposed to anything ever done by Keanu Reeves.
- Jennifer Connelly
Actually, that last one is enough on its own.The problem isn't just cost, although that was apparently the major issue as they just don't have the money. Designing a proper and effective system to manage elephants at a place like The Wilds seems to me like a logistical nightmare.
I was at The Wilds not long ago. In answer to the question: "Will you ever have Elephants here?" the guide said, "No."
She went on to explain that, although they have paddocks with high electric fences to keep their current populations where they want them, they are inadequate for elephants. In other words, electric fence or not, elephants will just roll right on through. The investment, she said, needed to implement proper barriers to keep the elephants from just trampling into whatever area of the park they so desire (and to keep them from simply exiting the park) is too cost prohibitive to make any economic sense.
So, long story short, no elephants at the wilds. She did say they were considering getting some big cats. I don't know if she meant tigers or lions or what. Personally, I hope they get ligers. They're my favorite animal.
I would point out, however, that while I haven't read the original CNet article that sparked this whole brouhaha, I do believe there is a perfectly valid reason to write an article about how easy it is to find and assemble personal details about damn near everybody and anybody. If you've not read Database Nation, I recommend it. I think it's fair to say many people don't realize how much data is collected about them and how easy it is to piece two and two together to build a profile full of juicy details about their lives.
To me, the greatest danger in this is not the loss of privacy; rather, it is the ghastly amount of inaccurate data out there. And if law enforcement, et. al., use these sources as authoritative means for investigating suspects we're all in danger of being investigated or becoming suspects for things of which there is no reasonable expectation of being suspected or investigated.
I'd hate to think I might become the target of an FBI investigation because two or three databases contain incorrect data about me that matches some pattern they've designated to terrorism. Imagine having your name automatically added to some no-fly watchlists and every time you attempt to board an airplane you have to go through extra inspections and interviews, you are held up and interrogated, etc. It can happen. It's already happened to people just because they have the wrong name.
So, is it right to publish an article about Google's CEO and how easy it is to use his search engine to find personal information about him? In some context, I'd say it's possible. It would have been better for CNet, if their purpose was to draw attention to the problem I mentioned, to have published an article about how easy it was to find personal details on their own CEO.
I just read an article about slave gamers somewhere. Why wouldn't whomever stands to gain financially from additional ad views create bots or macros to just repeatedly do what you mention and drive up their revenue artificially?
Draft Prado
Perhaps, this has something to do with many Linux advocates *also* being advocates of building strong communities...whereas, many *BSD advocates are less concerned with community.
IMHO, YMMV, OMGWTFBBQ.
Back to reality