How the fuck does a radar detector cause deaths or injuries?!?
Oh...wait....
You must subscribe to the completely unproven propaganda that going 20 over the limit on the freeway increases accident rates by 400%....
Here's a hint: The selection bias in general accident rate studies is profoundly large, yet incredibly subtle at the same time. I'll let you figure out where it actually is.
One reason is that he is not the police, it is not his job to enforce the law. You don't want customer service people making decisions about who they think are criminals.
Hell, frequently you don't even want police making decisions about who they thing are criminals....:-/
Do all government jobs turn people into uncaring jerks with excuses for every stupid thing?
No. Uncaring jerks with excuses for every stupid thing are most qualified to work for government, and in most cases, are probably the only ones to apply for the job.
If you have set it up so only friends can view your profile information, pictures, etc. then in only those peoples uploads will you be autotagged. If you allow friends of friends, or groups you belong to to see your information then those peoples uploads will contain your data, etc.
And in order to know whether your pics show friends or random strangers, they've got to do facial recognition on everybody. Then, in order to not have to do FR on every pic every time you make a new FB friend, they've got to store all that info. They just won't make it public.
That is, they won't make it public until everybody's got past this latest privacy flap, then all of a sudden there'll be a new/. post "Facebook using facial recognition to autotag everyone, not just friends." That doesn't even get into the National Security Letters that have already been brought up by other posters, so I won't rehash them.
They may have been blocked entirely for this case. But that's probably because they pissed off the judge by being dicks. I don't know for sure, as I haven't read the whole article.
However, if they'd done it properly to begin with, and filed all the cases in the appropriate courts, then there would have been no reason to kick them out, from what I understand.
They can get past this step, if they do the legwork necessary.
The problem, as the judge sees, is that the rightsholders take every IP address, regardless of where it's located, and sue them all in one court, in order to get subscriber details from the ISPs involved. Well, the judge is basically saying, and rightfully, I would think, that someone who lives in North Carolina shouldn't be sued anonymously in California, just because the USCG has a buttload of lawsuits to file.
Basically, the USCG is trying to save money by filing all lawsuits together, rather than in the appropriate courts. The judge is saying they can't do this.
HTTP requests only apply to web servers. If the same service can/could in future be used for FTP, or anything else, for that matter, then "URL request" is the appropriate terminology.
If you can make the scene a lot simpler, then you can actually gain in both of these. If you are absolutely certain that a display will be drawn in less than a sixtieth of a second, then you can just draw that while the other image is visible.
So we'll have 3D versions of Battlezone, and it'll be called state of the art!
I'm assuming without the glasses you'd see both screens superimposed on each other. While it could be annoying, you'd get to follow both players this way.
And if you want to go with one player only, you don't need the glasses. Just blink really really fast.:)
No...you should just not post insightful shit as AC, because I was going to say the exact same thing, and now you've gone and taken my +5 Insighful, and made it -1 Redundant, and didn't even get any karma for yourself.
Normal form for the sake of normal form is useless. In this case, it's a hashing algorithm that's associated with a password hash. You could put a key in, instead, referring to another table, but your key isn't going to be much shorter than "SHA256", and it will add more complexity to the code, which means more chance of security holes. It will also slow things down needlessly, as you'll have to reference two tables for the data that could easily be stored in not only one table, but only one field.
Unless you're already sticking passwords in various places in your database, in which case you're already screwed on your normal form, then there's nothing wrong with this from a practical point of view.
You're assuming that people will no longer use stupid passwords when they've got a fingerprint scanner. If you've been around the block more than once, you'll know this is simply not true. People will still use a password of '123456' for their facebook account, and use the same one for their bank account, since they always use it for facebook, making it easy for them to remember. Then they'll program in their fingerprint to give their lame password to both sites.
But they'll think they're more secure, because the Best Buy commercial that advertised their laptop said "It's got a fingerprint scanner for security!"
People are stupid. People are lazy. Security requires zero amounts of both.
Your shameless plug is correct, but for one problem:
When you use a fingerprint sensor, the traditional attack methods (brute forcing, social engineering, etc) still work. But you also add a new attack method, by generating a fake fingerprint from that coffee cup you threw into the trash that morning.
Needless to say, increasing the possible attack vectors decreases security, rather than increasing it.
1. All our intellectual property is owned by us, and if you do anything unauthorized with it, we'll have to kill you. 2. All your intellectual property is competition for ours, and if we let anybody see it, it will stop us from selling at least 238 copies of the latest movie/album/ebook that we're selling, so we'll have to kill you. In order to prevent this undesirable situation, we'll claim to own it, and prevent your distribution.
I'm one of those people that you'd probably call a "religious nut." On top of that, I even live in SW Ontario. However, I believe, strongly, that this action by the school is the most despicable piece of authoritarian BS that they could have pulled.
The only way they could have made it worse is to threaten to censor people who were talking about the unjustness of it all.
Oh...wait. They did that, too.
Regardless of what I think of certain religious symbols, people, whatever, I also believe people should be able to express themselves against those symbols if they so choose. Do I personally find it disgusting that someone might want to urinate on a cross? Certainly. But I firmly believe that they should have the right, my offense at the action be damned. (No pun intended.) If this movie made fun of Jesus, then I can see one of a few possibilities: 1. The student misunderstood something about Jesus or his teachings. This can be corrected by discourse, as long as we know about the misunderstandings. If such speech is censored, we have no way to know of the problem, so it's impossible to correct. 2. The principal misunderstood something in the video. This can be corrected by discourse, but if he doesn't have the opportunity to see the video and get pissy about it because it's censored, then we can't correct the misunderstanding. 3. The student seriously doesn't agree with something about Jesus or his teachings. Fine. That's his right. Even Jesus himself agrees with that; free will and all. 4. There is no misunderstanding, and the video is merely comedy, not meant to be taken seriously. In this case, what the hell is there to be upset about? 5. The principal is an authoritarian asshole, who uses the guise of morality to prevent people doing things that he doesn't personally like. Isn't really any fix for this one, other than to can him.
It couldn't be put better than this commonly heard quote: "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
We can play hypotheticals until we're blue in the face:
If he'd come with a gun....
If he'd snapped into a psycho killer....
If bin Laden had killed all the Seal team....
If bin Laden had a hundred nukes to take revenge on the US for trying to kill him....
If the student's house burns to the ground....
If Whitby is hit with a meteor and the town is left a smoking crater....
If Niburu actually destroys the earth....
See? There are plenty more possibilities that end up with the student incapable of harming anyone. The problem is, they're just that. "Ifs."
Unless you're subscribing to the idea that thought police are a good idea, and you should be punished for something you have a small possibility that you might do in future, then this is bullshit. And if you do subscribe to that line of thought, then you're a much bigger danger to society than this student, so you should be locked up indefinitely.
Slashdot Mirror
while ($counterfeit)
{
$counterfeit += $counterfeit;
}
How the fuck does a radar detector cause deaths or injuries?!?
Oh...wait....
You must subscribe to the completely unproven propaganda that going 20 over the limit on the freeway increases accident rates by 400%....
Here's a hint: The selection bias in general accident rate studies is profoundly large, yet incredibly subtle at the same time. I'll let you figure out where it actually is.
One reason is that he is not the police, it is not his job to enforce the law. You don't want customer service people making decisions about who they think are criminals.
Hell, frequently you don't even want police making decisions about who they thing are criminals.... :-/
Do all government jobs turn people into uncaring jerks with excuses for every stupid thing?
No. Uncaring jerks with excuses for every stupid thing are most qualified to work for government, and in most cases, are probably the only ones to apply for the job.
Same with Chrome.
I bet it's Citibank that's reported it, so nobody can risk seeing the details of their stupidity. :)
If you have set it up so only friends can view your profile information, pictures, etc. then in only those peoples uploads will you be autotagged. If you allow friends of friends, or groups you belong to to see your information then those peoples uploads will contain your data, etc.
And in order to know whether your pics show friends or random strangers, they've got to do facial recognition on everybody. Then, in order to not have to do FR on every pic every time you make a new FB friend, they've got to store all that info. They just won't make it public.
That is, they won't make it public until everybody's got past this latest privacy flap, then all of a sudden there'll be a new /. post "Facebook using facial recognition to autotag everyone, not just friends."
That doesn't even get into the National Security Letters that have already been brought up by other posters, so I won't rehash them.
They may have been blocked entirely for this case. But that's probably because they pissed off the judge by being dicks.
I don't know for sure, as I haven't read the whole article.
However, if they'd done it properly to begin with, and filed all the cases in the appropriate courts, then there would have been no reason to kick them out, from what I understand.
Having said that, IANAL, and IDPOOTV.
They can get past this step, if they do the legwork necessary.
The problem, as the judge sees, is that the rightsholders take every IP address, regardless of where it's located, and sue them all in one court, in order to get subscriber details from the ISPs involved. Well, the judge is basically saying, and rightfully, I would think, that someone who lives in North Carolina shouldn't be sued anonymously in California, just because the USCG has a buttload of lawsuits to file.
Basically, the USCG is trying to save money by filing all lawsuits together, rather than in the appropriate courts. The judge is saying they can't do this.
Arrrrgghhh, start downloading, me mateys!
...
Start?
Exactly my thought.
Bambi's sharing Disney movies on eMule!!
HTTP requests only apply to web servers. If the same service can/could in future be used for FTP, or anything else, for that matter, then "URL request" is the appropriate terminology.
If you can make the scene a lot simpler, then you can actually gain in both of these. If you are absolutely certain that a display will be drawn in less than a sixtieth of a second, then you can just draw that while the other image is visible.
So we'll have 3D versions of Battlezone, and it'll be called state of the art!
I'm assuming without the glasses you'd see both screens superimposed on each other. While it could be annoying, you'd get to follow both players this way.
And if you want to go with one player only, you don't need the glasses. Just blink really really fast. :)
I should sign in...
No...you should just not post insightful shit as AC, because I was going to say the exact same thing, and now you've gone and taken my +5 Insighful, and made it -1 Redundant, and didn't even get any karma for yourself.
What a waste, you insensitive clod!!
At least 136 years ago if you only count internal combustion engines, 242 years ago if you count steam powered, and 500+ years for spring powered.
Don't get so hung up on the age. I'm pretty sure those are still making money, because all the patents must surely still be in force, right? :-/
Normal form for the sake of normal form is useless. In this case, it's a hashing algorithm that's associated with a password hash. You could put a key in, instead, referring to another table, but your key isn't going to be much shorter than "SHA256", and it will add more complexity to the code, which means more chance of security holes.
It will also slow things down needlessly, as you'll have to reference two tables for the data that could easily be stored in not only one table, but only one field.
Unless you're already sticking passwords in various places in your database, in which case you're already screwed on your normal form, then there's nothing wrong with this from a practical point of view.
You're assuming that people will no longer use stupid passwords when they've got a fingerprint scanner. If you've been around the block more than once, you'll know this is simply not true. People will still use a password of '123456' for their facebook account, and use the same one for their bank account, since they always use it for facebook, making it easy for them to remember. Then they'll program in their fingerprint to give their lame password to both sites.
But they'll think they're more secure, because the Best Buy commercial that advertised their laptop said "It's got a fingerprint scanner for security!"
People are stupid. People are lazy. Security requires zero amounts of both.
Your shameless plug is correct, but for one problem:
When you use a fingerprint sensor, the traditional attack methods (brute forcing, social engineering, etc) still work. But you also add a new attack method, by generating a fake fingerprint from that coffee cup you threw into the trash that morning.
Needless to say, increasing the possible attack vectors decreases security, rather than increasing it.
Persons shall not urinate in the vent?
What?
And now he's sending out an S.O.S.
Simple:
1. All our intellectual property is owned by us, and if you do anything unauthorized with it, we'll have to kill you.
2. All your intellectual property is competition for ours, and if we let anybody see it, it will stop us from selling at least 238 copies of the latest movie/album/ebook that we're selling, so we'll have to kill you. In order to prevent this undesirable situation, we'll claim to own it, and prevent your distribution.
I'm one of those people that you'd probably call a "religious nut." On top of that, I even live in SW Ontario.
However, I believe, strongly, that this action by the school is the most despicable piece of authoritarian BS that they could have pulled.
The only way they could have made it worse is to threaten to censor people who were talking about the unjustness of it all.
Oh...wait. They did that, too.
Regardless of what I think of certain religious symbols, people, whatever, I also believe people should be able to express themselves against those symbols if they so choose.
Do I personally find it disgusting that someone might want to urinate on a cross? Certainly. But I firmly believe that they should have the right, my offense at the action be damned. (No pun intended.)
If this movie made fun of Jesus, then I can see one of a few possibilities:
1. The student misunderstood something about Jesus or his teachings. This can be corrected by discourse, as long as we know about the misunderstandings. If such speech is censored, we have no way to know of the problem, so it's impossible to correct.
2. The principal misunderstood something in the video. This can be corrected by discourse, but if he doesn't have the opportunity to see the video and get pissy about it because it's censored, then we can't correct the misunderstanding.
3. The student seriously doesn't agree with something about Jesus or his teachings. Fine. That's his right. Even Jesus himself agrees with that; free will and all.
4. There is no misunderstanding, and the video is merely comedy, not meant to be taken seriously. In this case, what the hell is there to be upset about?
5. The principal is an authoritarian asshole, who uses the guise of morality to prevent people doing things that he doesn't personally like. Isn't really any fix for this one, other than to can him.
It couldn't be put better than this commonly heard quote:
"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
No. It's just that GP went to a US school, and didn't learn a thing as a result.
"If" he had come one day with a gun.
If?
We can play hypotheticals until we're blue in the face:
If he'd come with a gun....
If he'd snapped into a psycho killer....
If bin Laden had killed all the Seal team....
If bin Laden had a hundred nukes to take revenge on the US for trying to kill him....
If the student's house burns to the ground....
If Whitby is hit with a meteor and the town is left a smoking crater....
If Niburu actually destroys the earth....
See? There are plenty more possibilities that end up with the student incapable of harming anyone. The problem is, they're just that. "Ifs."
Unless you're subscribing to the idea that thought police are a good idea, and you should be punished for something you have a small possibility that you might do in future, then this is bullshit. And if you do subscribe to that line of thought, then you're a much bigger danger to society than this student, so you should be locked up indefinitely.
I dunno. Karma whore, maybe?