You think it doesn't exist... but that's just because it got launched in the future, before it travelled back in time and started sending data as planned:)
If you did something significant, write a paper or book about your work, elevate the resume line from 'releasing free code as a hobby' to "research" work
Or an iPhone and an app to do that.
Writing with pen and paper is just so inconvenient.
Or you need a recorder with a button you push, to keep record of the past 90 seconds, while you said what you need to remember, or while you captured video of someone saying something particularly important.
Rather than recording every moment, you need a way to tell the device what to record.
This is a result of it only taking a picture every 30 seconds. over 2/3 of the posts started some time after a picture, and, since they only took 15 seconds to write, were finished + off the screen, before the next picture.
Firefox is a secure browser... hackers couldn't run arbitrary code in it and the one major vulnerability turns out to be an unauthorized, unsupported modification to the browser by Microsoft.
The book belongs to the publisher, not to him; that's why he had to ask them for permission, to which they said "no".
No... the publisher owns the cover, the additions they've made, and whatever else the agreement with the author says they own.
Apparently, in this case, the agreement says the author owns the text, and the publisher gets an exclusive license from the author (owner of the text) to utilize the text in the publication.
So the publisher partially owns the book, , but not the book as a whole, and not the text: the author owns the text.
He's encouraging people to steal from him not the publisher.
He owns the text, the publisher owns the bits they added, cover, index, etc. Apparently he made a deal with them where he retained ownership of the text,
and they got an exclusive license.
Maybe he's breaking that deal (eg maybe in court this "promise to not sue" would be viewed as a license or implicit permission), or maybe he's abusing them for not requiring him sign over his ownership.
"So, even if you're joking sometimes it can really hurt people and now it's against the law," said Chief Chavez.
What part of intent don't they understand?
a third degree felony if the person posts one or more messages on a social networking site with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person.
Clearly, "joking" indicates an intent to humor, to cause laughter, not an intent to harm.
The computer as a whole doesn't have to know you're there or not. The program running the sonar just has to know you weren't there at one point, to trigger the locking.
By the way, if this one program, can figure it out, then any program would've been able to figure it out all along, using the same technique...
This isn't a security issue that would be "patched".. there's just a workaround of not having a mic, or use a headset instead, or physically mute/disconnect your mic when not in use.
Heck, you could even use the 'mute' switch as a way to quickly lock the computer. Detect background noise instead of doing fancy schmancy sonar.
I'd guess, if you knew who it was, any action that was attributable to you (commenting on the video definitely, because that would be a communication from you to them
Are you sure it's from you to them, and not from you to someone else about the video?
Is it possible that some types of comments in a public place could count as ''communication'' that violates the order and others not?
Let's say the person with an order against you is a member of a mailing list you happen to a member of, and posts a proposal or comment to a technical mailing list. Are you allowed to post a message in opposition to the proposal or in response to the comment? If policy is to vote on proposals, do you lose your vote, just because that person is a member of the list?
Are you required to unsubscribe or stop posting to any public mailing list that person chooses to subscribe to?
If a politician gets a no-contact order against you, are you barred from showing up at a political protest with a sign? (perhaps raising a sign in opposition to the policy would be considered communication)
In a comment to a youtube video, or slashdot post, how can you tell the difference between a message from commenter to author VS an expression of an opinion to the public? (I.E. a non-specific message to everyone in general).
Let's say they posted a message like "This video sucks, don't watch it."
Or I thought this video was kind of creepy
Is that to the author, or to other viewers?
Does it violate the order?
What if the commenter posted: the author of this video really really sucks
or.. I want the author of this video to go remove herself from the gene pool
or even more extreme.. Please don't post crap like this
to more sinister.... "I know where you live", "I'll get you and your little dog too", or "**** you"
I think "legal right" is a strong word to use
to describe what is happening; however.
It's more like "legal requirement to sellbuy 1Mb broadband" at a fair, affordable price, to any home.
It's more like a price control; or a government trying to regulate industry that wants to not sell service (when it's not profitable to).
The US has laws like this too.. in areas where there is an Incumbent Telephone company (descended from Ma Bell), the incumbent generally isnt't allowed to refuse random houses plain telephone service, and in many cases, they aren't even allowed to charge a higher monthly rate, or surcharge the subscriber such as for being farther away from the central office, requiring more maintenance on their line.
All of these examples are way more bad than just having the:// there (which is quite a standard in URI's too). And the @ would break username:password@ combo, so that would need changing too. And host:80 is the standard way to put hostname and port number together.
The reference to URIs is a straw man. URIs were defined from URLs originally, so if URLs had a different notation, URIs would have also.
As for specifying username and password in a URL, it was basically useless -- modern browsers treat such URLS as invalid, due to the phishing risk.
I would suggest using a different notation for passwords
This is the problem.. not enough human validation of the machine's output.
It's equivalent to Windows users just clicking Yes/Ok/Run every time, without reading the dialog box.
As a Windows user, you'll eventually get infected by malware or let some serious harm come to your system unchecked.
As a CT Technician... someone could die... the hospital procedures that allow this are inexcusable.
Not running through the new process at least once on each machine, with careful observation, or some method of measuring the dose, to ensure correctness, equally inexcusable.
That meant resetting the machine to override the pre-programmed instructions that came with the scanner when it was installed.
Note the device was programmed to do a certain thing, they for themselves decided they knew better, overrode programming and safety protocols,
and configured it to do something else. Then they failed to take some type of action to safely test that new config.
http:example.com/path/to/file.txt
With option to use alternative syntax like: http:[example.com:80]/path/to/file.txt
or
http:example.com@80/path/to/file.txt
or
http:example.com/80//path/to/file.txt
It hasn't passed the approval process.
In this case, maybe they haven't finished designing the gargantuan process your LP will have to go through yet and exacting restrictions your LP must obey to get approval, hence the difficulty...
Consider this. Let's say that instead of a "poke", the perp had instead placed a call to the victim's house and hung up after one ring.
That sort of nonsense is harassment, even if there is no restraining order, and you don't know the person. Calling someone and intentionally hanging up after 1 ring is either: (a) An accident, maybe you called the wrong person, clicked on the wrong speed dial or call-history item, and cancelled really quickly, OR (b) An attempt to annoy.
Even moreso if someone calls you and hangs up, or stays silent after you answer the phone.
The nature of the harassment is annoyance; you hear your phone ringing, so it disrupts your normal activities, while you go to pick up the phone, only to find it was a prank.
Poking someone is nothing like that.
Poking is more like they honked their horn while driving by their house, but didn't get out of their car, or go anywhere near their door.
Slashdot Mirror
You think it doesn't exist... but that's just because it got launched in the future, before it travelled back in time and started sending data as planned :)
If you did something significant, write a paper or book about your work, elevate the resume line from 'releasing free code as a hobby' to "research" work
Or an iPhone and an app to do that. Writing with pen and paper is just so inconvenient.
Or you need a recorder with a button you push, to keep record of the past 90 seconds, while you said what you need to remember, or while you captured video of someone saying something particularly important.
Rather than recording every moment, you need a way to tell the device what to record.
This is a result of it only taking a picture every 30 seconds. over 2/3 of the posts started some time after a picture, and, since they only took 15 seconds to write, were finished + off the screen, before the next picture.
Not taking the vaccine may have some side effects: side effects similar to sugar pill, and flu-like symptoms, which can occur at any future date.
I think Intel pissed someone off with after the 3DMark benchmark cheating was discovered.
Interesting that the insider trading arrests come approximately a week later?
It discredits MS and MSIE even more.
Firefox is a secure browser... hackers couldn't run arbitrary code in it and the one major vulnerability turns out to be an unauthorized, unsupported modification to the browser by Microsoft.
The book belongs to the publisher, not to him; that's why he had to ask them for permission, to which they said "no".
No... the publisher owns the cover, the additions they've made, and whatever else the agreement with the author says they own.
Apparently, in this case, the agreement says the author owns the text, and the publisher gets an exclusive license from the author (owner of the text) to utilize the text in the publication.
So the publisher partially owns the book, , but not the book as a whole, and not the text: the author owns the text.
He's encouraging people to steal from him not the publisher.
He owns the text, the publisher owns the bits they added, cover, index, etc. Apparently he made a deal with them where he retained ownership of the text, and they got an exclusive license.
Maybe he's breaking that deal (eg maybe in court this "promise to not sue" would be viewed as a license or implicit permission), or maybe he's abusing them for not requiring him sign over his ownership.
What part of intent don't they understand?
a third degree felony if the person posts one or more messages on a social networking site with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person.
Clearly, "joking" indicates an intent to humor, to cause laughter, not an intent to harm.
A well placed piece of tape and preferably a bit of foam, to further prevent audio from entering the mic.
Uh. No. Satellite (at worst) is geosynchronous, which is 500 to 900ms round trip [satsig.net].
IP round trip time from Host A to Host B is measured as: amount of time it takes for Host A to send a message to Host B and then receive a response.
It will take 500 to 900ms for Host A's transmission to go up the satellite link and be received on the ground, and carried to Host B's ISP.
Then when Host B sends the reply, and it goes from Host B's ISP to the satellite link, it will take another 500 to 900ms to reach Host A.
So, the Round trip is actually 1000 to 1800ms.
The computer as a whole doesn't have to know you're there or not. The program running the sonar just has to know you weren't there at one point, to trigger the locking.
By the way, if this one program, can figure it out, then any program would've been able to figure it out all along, using the same technique...
This isn't a security issue that would be "patched".. there's just a workaround of not having a mic, or use a headset instead, or physically mute/disconnect your mic when not in use.
Heck, you could even use the 'mute' switch as a way to quickly lock the computer. Detect background noise instead of doing fancy schmancy sonar.
I'd guess, if you knew who it was, any action that was attributable to you (commenting on the video definitely, because that would be a communication from you to them
Are you sure it's from you to them, and not from you to someone else about the video? Is it possible that some types of comments in a public place could count as ''communication'' that violates the order and others not?
Let's say the person with an order against you is a member of a mailing list you happen to a member of, and posts a proposal or comment to a technical mailing list. Are you allowed to post a message in opposition to the proposal or in response to the comment? If policy is to vote on proposals, do you lose your vote, just because that person is a member of the list?
Are you required to unsubscribe or stop posting to any public mailing list that person chooses to subscribe to?
If a politician gets a no-contact order against you, are you barred from showing up at a political protest with a sign? (perhaps raising a sign in opposition to the policy would be considered communication)
In a comment to a youtube video, or slashdot post, how can you tell the difference between a message from commenter to author VS an expression of an opinion to the public? (I.E. a non-specific message to everyone in general).
Let's say they posted a message like "This video sucks, don't watch it."
Or I thought this video was kind of creepy
Is that to the author, or to other viewers? Does it violate the order?
What if the commenter posted: the author of this video really really sucks
or.. I want the author of this video to go remove herself from the gene pool
or even more extreme.. Please don't post crap like this
to more sinister.... "I know where you live", "I'll get you and your little dog too", or "**** you"
It becomes one when they pass the law.
I think "legal right" is a strong word to use to describe what is happening; however.
It's more like "legal requirement to sellbuy 1Mb broadband" at a fair, affordable price, to any home.
It's more like a price control; or a government trying to regulate industry that wants to not sell service (when it's not profitable to).
The US has laws like this too.. in areas where there is an Incumbent Telephone company (descended from Ma Bell), the incumbent generally isnt't allowed to refuse random houses plain telephone service, and in many cases, they aren't even allowed to charge a higher monthly rate, or surcharge the subscriber such as for being farther away from the central office, requiring more maintenance on their line.
Satellite is a high-latency service up to 500 to 900ms one way.
The result is that it's slow/unusable for many types of applications, which can't handle a 1 second round-trip delay.
In other words, it's not "broadband".
You won't be comfortable trying to use VoIP over satellite, and streaming media won't work at all without a stout amount of pre-buffering.
All of these examples are way more bad than just having the :// there (which is quite a standard in URI's too). And the @ would break username:password@ combo, so that would need changing too. And host:80 is the standard way to put hostname and port number together.
The reference to URIs is a straw man. URIs were defined from URLs originally, so if URLs had a different notation, URIs would have also.
As for specifying username and password in a URL, it was basically useless -- modern browsers treat such URLS as invalid, due to the phishing risk. I would suggest using a different notation for passwords
http:example.com@80,user=fido,pass=blah/path/to/file.txt
http:example.com@user=fido,pass=blahpass/path/to/file.txt
http:[example.com:80]@fido:blahpass/path/to/file.txt
No... port number is related to the hostname, not the protocol.
You connect to a certain host on a certain destination port. That is, you connect to a host,port pair.
And once the TCP connection is established to that host,port pair, you speak a certain protocol.
In other words, host and port are more strongly bound than protocol and port.
This is the problem.. not enough human validation of the machine's output.
It's equivalent to Windows users just clicking Yes/Ok/Run every time, without reading the dialog box.
As a Windows user, you'll eventually get infected by malware or let some serious harm come to your system unchecked.
As a CT Technician... someone could die... the hospital procedures that allow this are inexcusable.
Not running through the new process at least once on each machine, with careful observation, or some method of measuring the dose, to ensure correctness, equally inexcusable.
That meant resetting the machine to override the pre-programmed instructions that came with the scanner when it was installed.
Note the device was programmed to do a certain thing, they for themselves decided they knew better, overrode programming and safety protocols, and configured it to do something else. Then they failed to take some type of action to safely test that new config.
Then a simple input error while administering it, causes an overdose...
It's only the standard way to put hostname and port together, because HTTP made it that way.
What about:
http:[example.com:80]/path/to/file.txt
?
Users don't type port numbers generally. If concerned about user typing, provide the port number in a DNS SRV record as suggested earlier.
They are not worse than http:/// And in many cases, the alternative format involves significantly less typing (for short URLs).
So use a different syntax, like
http:example.com/path/to/file.txt
With option to use alternative syntax like:
http:[example.com:80]/path/to/file.txt
or
http:example.com@80/path/to/file.txt
or
http:example.com/80//path/to/file.txt
It hasn't passed the approval process. In this case, maybe they haven't finished designing the gargantuan process your LP will have to go through yet and exacting restrictions your LP must obey to get approval, hence the difficulty...
Geez.. Refusing Renewable energy.. that's a really harsh penalty..
So homes built on them go dark, when fossil fuels are exhausted.
Won't anyone think of the Toxic Waste Sites?? They sure deserve to have some energy too..
Consider this. Let's say that instead of a "poke", the perp had instead placed a call to the victim's house and hung up after one ring.
That sort of nonsense is harassment, even if there is no restraining order, and you don't know the person. Calling someone and intentionally hanging up after 1 ring is either: (a) An accident, maybe you called the wrong person, clicked on the wrong speed dial or call-history item, and cancelled really quickly, OR (b) An attempt to annoy.
Even moreso if someone calls you and hangs up, or stays silent after you answer the phone.
The nature of the harassment is annoyance; you hear your phone ringing, so it disrupts your normal activities, while you go to pick up the phone, only to find it was a prank.
Poking someone is nothing like that.
Poking is more like they honked their horn while driving by their house, but didn't get out of their car, or go anywhere near their door.