In what way is pointing out the fact that sites often fail to detect Opera because it spoofs as IE by default whining?
It's whining because Opera are claiming higher browser share than they likey have, and then blaming the lack of evidence on a "feature" they themselves decided to implement. No one forced them to misidentify themselves. And besides, many versions of Opera do include "Opera" in the UA string and therefore can and are counted accurately. In summary, it's whining because Opera bought the situation on themselves.
There is no practical difference as far as I can see. The material is on the CD, the CD, and therefore the material, is being sold.
It's inaccessible without third party modification. It's not part of the game experience delivered to the user. I think the distinction between a mod that unlocks otherwise inaccessible content and a mod that adds new content is extremely dubious. The two cases are identical from the user's point of view. It makes no sense to treat them differently in terms of classification.
My understanding is that they have viewed content made accessible by the HotCoffee mod and decided it's not appropriate for a MA15+ certification. They will not review the certification again unless RockStar issue a modified version.
Those are not claims that were made by TFA. Do you have another source?
The fact is, this game was certified without full knowledge of what was being certified. Now that it's come to light that there is stuff in there that the certification board didn't see, and that many people have a problem with, the current certification is no longer valid until the certification board has had the opportunity to review this content.
The certification board didn't see it because it's not a part of the game. And nobody else who doesn't want to see it will see it. So what's the problem? What are they certifying anyway - the game or the CD it comes on?
It's likely that the certification board will take one look at the content and reinstate the certification, but until that happens (and you know how slow government organisations can act sometimes), the fact is that this game is uncertified and thus is restricted in how it can be sold.
My understanding is that they have viewed content made accessible by the HotCoffee mod and decided it's not appropriate for a MA15+ certification. They will not review the certification again unless RockStar issue a modified version. That is extremely likely - Australia banned GTA3 due to the player being able to hire prostitutes to regain health and RockStar simply removed that part of the game and got it certified again.
At least there is a specified rating guide for content instead of an arbitrary one. According to Australian rating codes from TFA, the mini-game pushes it beyond the acceptable rating in the sex category. A mini-game is a little bit more than implied (although it is still modified in order to access the content).
I agree the ratings code is much better. My problem with the whole re-rating exercise is that the game-experience, as delivered to the user has not changed: it does not include this mini-game. IMHO, it is the HotCoffee mod that should be rated AO (or banned in the case of Australia). Ratings should be based on what is an accessible part of the game, not what unaccessible code might be activated by third party patches.
That's still just a phone working like phone though. The integrated address book is an obvious extension to make it easier to use. These people are talking about stuff like on demand video on your phone.
Discovered? Late last year? I think I remember "discovering" then subsequently reading about this problem in one of my TCP/IP books many years ago. Does this have to do with inserting packets into a TCP stream that have the RST flag set? (I can't find any technical information on this...some of the dumbed-down articles have broken links, but no interesting information.)
Yes. What's new is that Paul realised that the sequence number doesn't need to be brute forced from all 2^32 combinations - it only needs to fall within the current window. That makes the attack much more practical.
Yes. There is no contradiction there. Apple is, and since 1984, has been an Operating System provider.
They sell their OS in a metal and plastic box, rather than a cardboard one like Microsoft... but that is what they do. The ipod and the Mac are just two product lines in their core business of making operating systems.
That's not really true. Apple are both a hardware company and a software company and they believe that the combination is the key. Their core business is systems (hardware and software bundled), just like Sun or SGI. They don't view themselves as a OS company or even software company. If they were an OS company do you think they would have killed the emerging Mac clone market like they did?
This is why I'm not interested in the banner headline, I never have and never will. I'm interested in the story which is usually in the link. As other posters keep saying, RTFA. Don't expect the submitter OR the editor to do that for you, you have to do that yourself.
So why post your comments in a thread that discusses the inconsistency between the headline and story?
None of these claims are dramatic. To hear some of the replies, it's as if I'd claimed to have solved thirty hitherto-unsolved mysteries of the Universe. No, I made some very basic observations and recalled some prior comments by NASA's own chiefs.
I never made any statement about your claims, mainly because you appear to be completely off topic within the context of this thread.
If you want to make a Big Deal out of something you are willfully not reading, then that is your concern and not mine. I don't see why you would want to do so, though. What on earth can you get out of being a troll? Nobody likes a troll, nobody respects a troll, so why would you want to present yourself as one?
WTF? What am I "willfully not reading"? How am I trolling? All I pointed out was that your comment "your powers of observation need sharpening" was pretty bizarre given that in nine paragraphs you never addressed the main point of the person you responded to.
Yes it is, unless you take an overly broad view and include anything with a rocket, regardless of whether it was for manned flight.
Safety doesn't start and end with the crew on the vehicle. Saftey of ground crew is also part of it and the Soviets have far more ground crew deaths than anyone else.
Generally yes, with regard to manned flight, no. They've actually done better then the US in this regard.
No, they've been lucky. Take a look at the Mir station history. They had docking problems virtually every mission. They had life support failures. It's pure luck that they never lost anyone.
Meaningless? Its very accurate. Russians have a safer manned space program. It's unusual compared to their other programs. And the death toll is significantly lower partly due to smaller crew sizes, but even their 'accidents resulting in death(s)" rate is lower then the US program.
Rubbish. Deaths are not the only relevant statistic. Close calls also need to be accounted for. And besides no one mentioned "manned program only" until now - you're changing the premise to suit your argument. Everyone with any knowledge in this area agrees that the Soviet space program is historically less safe.
How is a mis-managed experimental ICBM program relate to manned flight? Even at the time of the accident the ICBM and manned space programs were seperate independant programs. Yangel was hoping to use the political favour generated by a successful on time launch, to take over the manned space program.
The R16 was not used for manned space flight, its only purpose at the time was as an ICBM, other rocket designs were to be used for the manned flights.
It's the same organisation, as you clearly know. You can't say "that program doesn't count because it's not manned" because a disaster of that magnitude points to systemic lack of safety awareness. And your estimation of Yangel's motives only reinforces my argument - the Soviets were not focused on safety.
A good example of a failed program, as would have been Buran, or many US programs for that matter, however it is not an example of poor safety measures.
Four failures from four launches again highlights a lack of care. The N-1 was intended for manned flight. More evidence of systemic issues with quality. And it's a miracle no one was killed in those failures, particularly the N-1 5L launch.
Buran was not a failed program, it's was a cancelled program. It never had any mission failures.
The N1 was an experimental rocket and treated as such.
The N-1 was not an experimental rocket, it was the launch platform intended for a manned luna landing.
Just because you want something to be so, for national pride, doesn't make it so. Strangely enough, the US is not the best at everything.
I'm not from the US. Once again you've illustrated that you don't know what you're talking about.
Pot, kettle, etc. You completely missed the point. Let me spell it out for you. We have two statements:
Debris Seen Hitting Shuttle During Launch
The NASA video showed the unidentified debris falling and not appearing to hit Discovery.
Clearly these statements are contradictory. Either the debris was seen to hit or it was seen to miss. Yet the story was published with that contradiction. So what, exactly, do the "editors" do?
Because Microsoft still manufactured the pirated versions. They should still be held responsible for the potential damage those copies can cause to the community.
Your analogy was poor, let me try. Say you buy a Ford. It has a design flaw that causes it to lose steering. That's potentially dangerous to the owner and to the general public. Then you find out that infact the car was stolen from Ford before being sold to you. Does Ford have a responsibility to fix the design flaw? I say they clearly do - the illegal status of the ownership does not mitigate Ford's responsibility to ensure that their product is safe.
Sorry to burst your American superiority bubble, but so far you have lost 14 astronauts in flight, while Russians have lost 4 cosmonauts. So, whoose record looks pure as driven snow now?
That's not an accurate view of the safety situation. The Soviet safety record was attrocious, and I suggest you do some reading about the two programs instead of just parroting one meaningless measure. Start here for their worst aerospace disaster and here for information on their disastrous moon program.
How would that help? I mean you clearly didn't bother to check the category this story is in or you'd know that "it's funny. Laugh".
Re:FreeBSD is free'er, MacOS X better for users
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
FreeBSD is free'er than Linux, or more accurately the BSD license is free'er than the GPL. That said, the less free GPL's restrictions are meant to be benevolent for certain users.
It's a different kind of freedom. The BSD license gives more freedom to the developer - they can take other people's work and close it to the community (and even the original developer). The GPL doesn't allow that - it's more interested in the rights of the original developer and the community than those who seek to derive from a work. So while the BSD license is "free'er" in that it places fewer restrictions on developers you can also consider the GPL to be "free'er" in that it ensures that free software stays free.
The only thing they can't do is modify the kernel, distribute it, and not ship the code. And that is only relevant to an OS company. Hell, they could even do all the in-house customization they want, like the NSA did. Or just publish their modifications, since they're not in the OS business anyway. So to claim there's any relevant licensing difference for companies using either OS is just FUD, in my opinion.
What about all the companies who sell a product with an embedded OS? Routers, firewalls, PVRs, etc? It's hardly FUD to say that the license difference is significant in those cases. Certainly there have been a number of GPL violations and it is often difficult to get the kernel source from the manufacturer. Those problems would have been avoided had the manufacturers chosen BSD.
You're assuming tusklessness is a genetic trait -- how do you know for sure that it is? Maybe tuskless elephants are just as likely to have tusked offspring as tusked elephants. Not that this is likely, but let's rule out the wacky-but-possible first.
It's either genetic or environmental. And it appears to be occuring in all elephant populations (asian, indian, african, et al). So if it's environmental, it's a very widepread but subtle change. The chances of it not being genetic are vanishingly small.
Tuskless elephants giving birth to tusked offspring (if they do), means nothing: it could be that the trait is recessive.
Now here's the trick, you can't just say that tusklessness is passed on genetically because of the rise of tuskless elephants. As GP was pointing out, you get an increase in the incidence of tusklessness if you cull tusked elephants, even if it's not genetic. By itself the increase proves nothing; you have to do some statistics to figure out whether it's a genetically determined trait or just random.
The post you refered to made a critical error: the author assumed that the percentage mentioned is the percentage of living elephants without tusks. It's not. It's the percentage of elephants being born without tusks. So culling will have no impact on that figure.
Right. The web as it is now is much more like the Memex's database of documents than the entire system. Search engines are also part of the system as you need to be able to find the documents which information on the topic you're interested in. The Memex "trails" could be implemented as personal wikis, allowing linking to interesting pages and adding comments.
I completely agree with you. Worst. Article. Ever.
That's a pretty broad claim to make. I liked this recent piece, a post by an anonymous high-schooler about how useless he thought floppies were, described as an "editorial".
You might not be suprised to find that the floppy "article" is from Flexbeta.net, just like this "article". Can people please stop submitting this sort of rubbish?
The wording of the title rules out the possibility of this having happened in Los Angeles
How? How is the interpretation "Los Angeles City Votes..." not possible?
Bell South doesn't do business in CA (California, not to be confused with Cape Ann, which isn't in the south, either.)./blockquote>
Believe it or not, some/. readers are not resident in the USA and are not experts on the coverage and clientele of US telecommunications providers. I don't have the slightest clue where Bell South does business and nor should I need to get a clear understanding of a/. story.
I like science fiction, but there seems to be precious little of that in Firefly. It's basically a western in space, and I can't stand westerns.
You shouldn't have assumed that it was hard core science fiction just because it's set in the future in space. It's always been described as a western in space. Certainly if you read many/. articles about Firefly you should have know what to expect.
That is what DRM's should do in my opinion. They don't yet, but hopefully they will.
They won't because it's not in the content owners interests for DRM to work that way. The content owners want you (or your insurance) to pay for a new copy of everything when the old one is stolen or damaged. They want you to buy separate copies for your car stereo, your home entertainment system, your computer, etc. In fact they'd like you to rent all your content. DRM doesn't quite enforce all that (yet), so it doesn't work entirely the way the content owners would like either, but it's closer to their vision than yours, and it's likely to get worse for the consumer, not better.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right - it's not a new attack. But the vulnerability was underestimated, particularly in light of extended window sizes.
That's still just a phone working like phone though. The integrated address book is an obvious extension to make it easier to use. These people are talking about stuff like on demand video on your phone.
Buran was not a failed program, it's was a cancelled program. It never had any mission failures.
The N-1 was not an experimental rocket, it was the launch platform intended for a manned luna landing. I'm not from the US. Once again you've illustrated that you don't know what you're talking about.- Debris Seen Hitting Shuttle During Launch
- The NASA video showed the unidentified debris falling and not appearing to hit Discovery.
Clearly these statements are contradictory. Either the debris was seen to hit or it was seen to miss. Yet the story was published with that contradiction. So what, exactly, do the "editors" do?Your analogy was poor, let me try. Say you buy a Ford. It has a design flaw that causes it to lose steering. That's potentially dangerous to the owner and to the general public. Then you find out that infact the car was stolen from Ford before being sold to you. Does Ford have a responsibility to fix the design flaw? I say they clearly do - the illegal status of the ownership does not mitigate Ford's responsibility to ensure that their product is safe.
Tuskless elephants giving birth to tusked offspring (if they do), means nothing: it could be that the trait is recessive.
The post you refered to made a critical error: the author assumed that the percentage mentioned is the percentage of living elephants without tusks. It's not. It's the percentage of elephants being born without tusks. So culling will have no impact on that figure.Right. The web as it is now is much more like the Memex's database of documents than the entire system. Search engines are also part of the system as you need to be able to find the documents which information on the topic you're interested in. The Memex "trails" could be implemented as personal wikis, allowing linking to interesting pages and adding comments.