If you had a guest in your house, he couldn't access the contents of your safe. But if he asked "hey, what's the combination and location of your safe?", what the hell do you think would happen if you gave it to him? Likewise, if you run a trojan horse on your Mac with a non-administrator user account, the most it can do is damage all your user files that you have write access to. But if you idiotically give it your admin password, it can do much worse.
And when they come along with thought scanners, I suppose you'll blame some group for making us all private about our thoughts? Invasion of privacy, even what you consider unnecessary privacy, without a clearly compensating benefit, is wrong.
Are you claiming that there are Mac viruses being spread right now, or that there is the potential (note I said virus, not trojan horse)? The difference is big. Of course, if it's just a matter of the OS not being exploited, then the claims of not having viruses are another way of saying it has too small a market share to be worth writing them for.
Me: OK, according to Google they are on the keyhook next to the door... WTF? They aren't there! Her: Oh, that's right, dear, the Googol Housecrawling Spiders of Doom haven't been through since last Tuesday. That's where they were then. Me: Fucking useless GoogleHouse app.[...]
I also use the book as a source for passwords for the many accounts I have everywhere on the internet. I spell out the login name in the book (say "Mylogin") by looking for the first word starting with "M", then the next word with "y", then the nex word with "l", etc... until I find a word that starts with "n", use the very next word that's 8 characters or more, append the line number, and that's my password.
So that's it! I've been having a hell of a time figuring out your passwords. Thanks for the tips.
Plus, if they don't let you make your own question, they pretty much stick to the same stupid, generic 5-8 questions they all have.
Yes, but you can choose the answer; you don't have to answer them truthfully (in fact, best if you choose the answers randomly, and write them in a safe place if you want to use them in the future).
No, if we must make an analogy, it's like asking for a Sony DVD player and having the sales person show you some Sony units, and also mentioning that they also have other brands of compatible DVD players.
I agree with the company. I think nobody should be allowed to mention Fire**** products anywhere (not even product websites, since other products are also listed there), nor should Google be allowed to index that term. That way the only mention of that product will be on the company's website, and we can let them wither into obscurity.
I included enough to establish context. You left out the sarcastic ending, "nice of them". Had I simply quoted that last sentence, it wouldn't have been clear how it meshed with the rest.
I get the idea that I should have saved this criticism for a less-well-known submitter who isn't put on a podium by moderators. I really appreciate having NewYorkCountryLawyer as a contributor to Slashdot, but I wasn't going to play favorites when criticising a common practice in article summaries.
NewYorkCountryLawyer does have a point that I really should criticize the editors, as they are the ultimate gatekeepers. So in retrospect, I apologize for the criticism and hope to better target it in the future.
The court papers submitted by the lawyer (PDF) also indicated that the RIAA was not opposed to the withdrawal -- i.e. it graciously consented to Ms. Thomas having no legal representation -- but was opposed to any continuance (i.e. the RIAA wants to make sure that Ms. Thomas does not have sufficient time to find other legal representation, or to prepare to handle the trial herself, or to enable new counsel to prepare to handle the trial). Nice of them.
Please, I am not interested in reading someone's blog here, where you select the topic AND give your opinion on it. You select the topic and summarize it, then EVERYONE responds with opinion, commentary, etc. If you have some opinion on the topic, reply like everyone else. It might seem like a minor difference, but it makes a significant difference, and I doubt I'm alone. And if story submitters think it's a minor difference as well, thenthey shouldn't have any problem saving their opinion for a normal comment reply after the story is posted. That is all.
Re:Cue jokes about chairs in 3..2..1....
on
Phoenix BIOSOS?
·
· Score: 1
This is great news, a system to tell us whether a photograph is beautiful or not. We are approaching the point where we can outsource all our thinking to computers. Soon we won't have to use our brains at all!
Wow, what an uhh... <looks at what mods rated your post>... insightful posting! I'll have to wait to find out what kind of posting mine is.
The fucking Goatse image with a construction crane photoshopped into it (don't ask) just got an 84.1 on the same ACQUINE system....and no I'm not going to provide a URL just test it yourself.
Somewhere a Google engineer wonders why the sudden surge of image searches for "goatse crane".
Yet another reason why locking up content is wrong. Let it be freely copied, and then ANYONE who finds the work valuable can potentially become a caretaker of the work and keep it accessible online. Then the only way a work would disappear is if nobody has interest or time to preserve it.
What if something corrupted the database? The next day, the mirror (not backup) would be corrupt too. There's no substitute for incremental or otherwise "always at least n days old" copies of data. The backup server should not allow deletion, only addition.
Uh oh, I just DESTROYED your post in my computer's memory after reading it. Better call your insurance company and file a claim, "destruction of property".
Slashdot Mirror
Oh really?
If you had a guest in your house, he couldn't access the contents of your safe. But if he asked "hey, what's the combination and location of your safe?", what the hell do you think would happen if you gave it to him? Likewise, if you run a trojan horse on your Mac with a non-administrator user account, the most it can do is damage all your user files that you have write access to. But if you idiotically give it your admin password, it can do much worse.
Need to get somewhere quickly due to medical emergency.
Need to outrun someone chasing you.
Need to quickly pass some vehicle for safety reasons.
And when they come along with thought scanners, I suppose you'll blame some group for making us all private about our thoughts? Invasion of privacy, even what you consider unnecessary privacy, without a clearly compensating benefit, is wrong.
Are you claiming that there are Mac viruses being spread right now, or that there is the potential (note I said virus, not trojan horse)? The difference is big. Of course, if it's just a matter of the OS not being exploited, then the claims of not having viruses are another way of saying it has too small a market share to be worth writing them for.
The answer to 2+2 might not surprise you, but that it's copyrighted by Wolfram may!
There's always Google's cached copy of them...
Wouldn't tightening them be more appropriate?
So that's it! I've been having a hell of a time figuring out your passwords. Thanks for the tips.
Fortunately, it's the answers that your attacker needs to come up with (unless it's jeopardy.com)
Yes, but you can choose the answer; you don't have to answer them truthfully (in fact, best if you choose the answers randomly, and write them in a safe place if you want to use them in the future).
Except freedom to keep most of what we earn, unfortunately.
No, if we must make an analogy, it's like asking for a Sony DVD player and having the sales person show you some Sony units, and also mentioning that they also have other brands of compatible DVD players.
I agree with the company. I think nobody should be allowed to mention Fire**** products anywhere (not even product websites, since other products are also listed there), nor should Google be allowed to index that term. That way the only mention of that product will be on the company's website, and we can let them wither into obscurity.
I included enough to establish context. You left out the sarcastic ending, "nice of them". Had I simply quoted that last sentence, it wouldn't have been clear how it meshed with the rest.
I get the idea that I should have saved this criticism for a less-well-known submitter who isn't put on a podium by moderators. I really appreciate having NewYorkCountryLawyer as a contributor to Slashdot, but I wasn't going to play favorites when criticising a common practice in article summaries.
NewYorkCountryLawyer does have a point that I really should criticize the editors, as they are the ultimate gatekeepers. So in retrospect, I apologize for the criticism and hope to better target it in the future.
So the world can know who you CLAIM (will have) murdered you.
Please, I am not interested in reading someone's blog here, where you select the topic AND give your opinion on it. You select the topic and summarize it, then EVERYONE responds with opinion, commentary, etc. If you have some opinion on the topic, reply like everyone else. It might seem like a minor difference, but it makes a significant difference, and I doubt I'm alone. And if story submitters think it's a minor difference as well, thenthey shouldn't have any problem saving their opinion for a normal comment reply after the story is posted. That is all.
Is the above itself a joke about chairs? Hmmm...
Wow, what an uhh... <looks at what mods rated your post>... insightful posting! I'll have to wait to find out what kind of posting mine is.
Somewhere a Google engineer wonders why the sudden surge of image searches for "goatse crane".
Yet another reason why locking up content is wrong. Let it be freely copied, and then ANYONE who finds the work valuable can potentially become a caretaker of the work and keep it accessible online. Then the only way a work would disappear is if nobody has interest or time to preserve it.
What if something corrupted the database? The next day, the mirror (not backup) would be corrupt too. There's no substitute for incremental or otherwise "always at least n days old" copies of data. The backup server should not allow deletion, only addition.
Do they really claim to give an accuracy of one part in 100000 or 10000?
Uh oh, I just DESTROYED your post in my computer's memory after reading it. Better call your insurance company and file a claim, "destruction of property".
Thank you! Specifically, it's not there to protect the artist's source of income, or guarantee the artist any income, for that matter.