I'm none too proud of the actions of my country over the past decade, although the ongoing tirade of jokes about fat, ignorant Americans is beginning to wear on me, and could very well be construed as outright racist.
It's not racist because USians aren't a race. Tick ignorant. So, how much do you weigh?
I've had exactly zero problems with "software update" on Debian Stable. If you want to live on the bleeding edge then expect to bleed every now and then.
The CanSecWest competition has seen OS X pwned two years in succession. The Vista exploit was apparently cross-platform and Adobe's fault for making Flash bypass Vista's security mechanisms, which would otherwise have stopped it dead in its tracks. NT is a multi-user OS by design, by the way. I have no love for Microsoft at all, quite the contrary, but from what I read Vista does seem to be moving the right way. Anyway, the security of the OS perhaps isn't the biggest problem. As long as vendors like Adobe keep making stupid programs which want more access than they really need (I ditched Acrobat on OS X because it wanted admin rights for the installer) and users have admin rights which can be granted to the programs they install there will always be gaping holes, no matter how secure the underlying OS.
Everyone benefits from not having to reload all the sidebars, etc. on a page when they click a link.
Except those of us who prefer unique URLs for quicker reference...
It is possible to make AJAX "pages" bookmarkable, but I don't think I've seen it in the wild. The trick is to stuff state into the anchor part of the URL (the bit after the #). Of course that means you then have to script to get the equivalent functionality of anchors, but that's not too hard. A much better idea is to only use AJAX for truly dynamic things and, where there is a choice, err in the direction of simple HTML and complex CSS (which gets cached) to keep the pages small.
Why C/C++ with all those language features and libraries to learn? With assembly you only need to know 50-100 commands to do everything a computer can possibly do. That's much simpler than learning all those standard library and API calls, isn't it?
Given the program in question was written on punch-cards (and worked on the second compile), I wouldn't be so sure that those debugging tools are quite the same as the modern interactive debuggers we all know and love.
My personal ethical argument against copyright is that the works you're misapproprited by copyright violation were only created in the expectation that the creators would get paid for copies. Without that expectation, which is reasonable as copyright law does exist, they simply would not exist.
Maybe my information is out of date, but last I checked cloning of mammals is still a massively expensive process with a stupidly high failure rate (95%+ of embryos fail to develop into live young). Even when the cloned embryos develop to adulthood there are usually significant defects.
The program cost a mere $320 000 AUD and they have dogs which are presumably not slavering mutants or they wouldn't bother trying to train them, so it doesn't seem particularly expensive or error-prone so far. They're not adults yet, so perhaps bad things will eventually happen, but if you're going to clone animals to see how they get on it seems to me to be a good idea to cone useful ones with unique characteristics which will be operating in a closely monitored role with a well-defined benchmark (the, erm, parent? donor? clonee?).
WD40 is reasonable as a degreaser and water-repellant. It's a god-awful lubricant and doesn't last, as most of it evaporates fairly quickly, leaving a sticky mess. If you want penetrating oil, use some penetrating oil.
The Independent now does virtually nothing but criticise the government. It's become incredibly tedious with front-page after front-page doom-mongering about some trivial matter or other. It used to provide balanced reporting and clearly separate fact and opinion, but it's changed beyond all recognition. It's become a tabloid in more than just its physical format.
But not the important part of the capacity problem, which is the backbone connections. We need cables across oceans and between cities before we think about the connection to the premises getting much faster. ADSL2+ will be fine for a while yet, though it really is pushing copper (and aluminium and lead - there's some crazy old shit still in use) to its limits. No point having 100Mbps to your house if every peering point and backbone link is so saturated you only actually get 3Mbps.
I used to think that as well, but after many hours playing Ghost Recon on a friend's 360 and now having just completed Rainbow Six Vegas 2 on my spanking new PS3, I'm really not finding it so bad. Aiming is fine, though I'm not quite back to where I was with a mouse. Everything else is much better with a controller than a keyboard, movement in particular. You can't really use a mouse on the sofa either.
Now, the muppets who play driving games without a wheel I can't understand at all. It's quite tragic watching them wiggle their way around the track.
Have you ever actually seen anything which isn't a bus stop, but which looks just like a bus stop? Anyway, SamsCafe doesn't indicate that it's free and I never said that it did. You have to get that information from elsewhere, but if you're in Sam's Cafe and they have a sign saying "free wireless internet access for customers" then you're pretty safe connecting to SamsCafe. If you're in Bob's Cafe down the road then you probably aren't OK connecting to SamsCafe, just as you're not OK parking in the car park for Sam's Hardware if you're shopping at Bob's Supermarket down the road.
You are responsible for your actions when choosing to connect to a network which you do not know you are authorised to connect to. Take responsibility for finding out which you are allowed to connect to. Aww, that takes some effort on your part. Well boo fucking hoo. Take some PERSONAL responsibility for you actions.
Sooner or later people will come to realize that information is a completely different type of product that needs its own unique business framework(s) to be traded successfully. Until then, enjoy the legislative ignorance in this still-very-young industry.
Young industry? Different laws? What on earth are you talking about? We already have completely different laws for trading information - copyright and patents. They may be called "intellectual property" by some, but the subjects of copyrights and patents are not covered by the same laws as tangible items. From those laws we already have different business models for companies which trade information from those which trade tangible goods. The laws and business models are not new because the trading of information is not new. It's been going on for centuries using essentially the laws be have now. The only difference now is that it's easier and cheaper to duplicate and transmit information, but fundamentally its the same shit as has been going on since well before computers were invented, let alone the internet.
This debate was had centuries ago and it was decided that the restriction of freedom to exchange information was outweighed by the incentives to invent, compose, create and collate information which copyright and patents provide. They are merely time-limited monopolies, the information reverts to the public domain after a while (though after far too long in the case of copyrights as they currently stand). The idea is that in the end we all get more inventions and information than we otherwise would and it seems to work.
What new laws do you propose? How do you propose you make it viable for people to make a living as, say, a writer if their work can be freely distributed without any kind of compensation for them? They need to eat you know. If they can't get money to sustain themselves from writing they will find another job and the world will have lost a writer.
If nobody paid for content there would be far, far fewer people making it and nobody at all making big-budget movies and TV. That simply isn't sustainable.
It deprives artists of potential sales. While some people use illegal downloads as "tasters" and do actually buy music, there are plenty who have never paid for a CD or DVD in their lives. If they couldn't get it for free do you really think none of them would ever pay for any?
The analogy was intended to illustrate the point about permission to use, nothing more. The degree of harm caused is irrelevant. You simply do not get to make decisions about what to do with things which belong to other people. The fact that you might not mind people taking your "bike" is wholly irrelevant when the question concerns someone else's "bike". When it's someone else's "bike" they get to make the decisions, not you.
You seem to be implying that depriving someone of something doesn't make them a victim as long as it doesn't leave them struggling to survive. Which is of course complete and utter bullshit.
Requesting a connection to a wireless network (the IP bit comes later) is in fact different to requesting access to a web page. Publishing a web page is inviting people to view it. Plugging in a router in its default configuration is not.
There is such a thing as taking an analogy too far you know. There is no accurate continuation of that analogy, it has served it purpose, but the miscreant climbing on the bike, riding it to the shop and selling it would be closer to the truth.
All the WiFi networks I've seen which are meant for sharing have an SSID which is either the name the establishment which offers free WiFi (typically to customers only, even though that may not be enforced by technical measures) or which makes it clear they are open, thus they do not look exactly like poorly configured private networks. If you see a network called "Belkin-54g" or "Linksys" it is more reasonable to assume it's a poorly configured private network than to assume it's an open-access one.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not racist because USians aren't a race. Tick ignorant. So, how much do you weigh?
I've had exactly zero problems with "software update" on Debian Stable. If you want to live on the bleeding edge then expect to bleed every now and then.
I didn't think sarcasm tags would be required for that one; that the "Oh, wait..." would suffice. I guess I was wrong.
What makes you think photographers are the only people who want lots of fast storage?
You mean like Linux, which runs on loads of hardware and is just as buggy and fucked up as Windows? Oh, wait...
The CanSecWest competition has seen OS X pwned two years in succession. The Vista exploit was apparently cross-platform and Adobe's fault for making Flash bypass Vista's security mechanisms, which would otherwise have stopped it dead in its tracks. NT is a multi-user OS by design, by the way. I have no love for Microsoft at all, quite the contrary, but from what I read Vista does seem to be moving the right way. Anyway, the security of the OS perhaps isn't the biggest problem. As long as vendors like Adobe keep making stupid programs which want more access than they really need (I ditched Acrobat on OS X because it wanted admin rights for the installer) and users have admin rights which can be granted to the programs they install there will always be gaping holes, no matter how secure the underlying OS.
I expect they use the internet rather than the web specifically.
It is possible to make AJAX "pages" bookmarkable, but I don't think I've seen it in the wild. The trick is to stuff state into the anchor part of the URL (the bit after the #). Of course that means you then have to script to get the equivalent functionality of anchors, but that's not too hard. A much better idea is to only use AJAX for truly dynamic things and, where there is a choice, err in the direction of simple HTML and complex CSS (which gets cached) to keep the pages small.
Why C/C++ with all those language features and libraries to learn? With assembly you only need to know 50-100 commands to do everything a computer can possibly do. That's much simpler than learning all those standard library and API calls, isn't it?
Given the program in question was written on punch-cards (and worked on the second compile), I wouldn't be so sure that those debugging tools are quite the same as the modern interactive debuggers we all know and love.
My personal ethical argument against copyright is that the works you're misapproprited by copyright violation were only created in the expectation that the creators would get paid for copies. Without that expectation, which is reasonable as copyright law does exist, they simply would not exist.
The program cost a mere $320 000 AUD and they have dogs which are presumably not slavering mutants or they wouldn't bother trying to train them, so it doesn't seem particularly expensive or error-prone so far. They're not adults yet, so perhaps bad things will eventually happen, but if you're going to clone animals to see how they get on it seems to me to be a good idea to cone useful ones with unique characteristics which will be operating in a closely monitored role with a well-defined benchmark (the, erm, parent? donor? clonee?).
WD40 is reasonable as a degreaser and water-repellant. It's a god-awful lubricant and doesn't last, as most of it evaporates fairly quickly, leaving a sticky mess. If you want penetrating oil, use some penetrating oil.
The Independent now does virtually nothing but criticise the government. It's become incredibly tedious with front-page after front-page doom-mongering about some trivial matter or other. It used to provide balanced reporting and clearly separate fact and opinion, but it's changed beyond all recognition. It's become a tabloid in more than just its physical format.
But not the important part of the capacity problem, which is the backbone connections. We need cables across oceans and between cities before we think about the connection to the premises getting much faster. ADSL2+ will be fine for a while yet, though it really is pushing copper (and aluminium and lead - there's some crazy old shit still in use) to its limits. No point having 100Mbps to your house if every peering point and backbone link is so saturated you only actually get 3Mbps.
I used to think that as well, but after many hours playing Ghost Recon on a friend's 360 and now having just completed Rainbow Six Vegas 2 on my spanking new PS3, I'm really not finding it so bad. Aiming is fine, though I'm not quite back to where I was with a mouse. Everything else is much better with a controller than a keyboard, movement in particular. You can't really use a mouse on the sofa either.
Now, the muppets who play driving games without a wheel I can't understand at all. It's quite tragic watching them wiggle their way around the track.
Have you ever actually seen anything which isn't a bus stop, but which looks just like a bus stop? Anyway, SamsCafe doesn't indicate that it's free and I never said that it did. You have to get that information from elsewhere, but if you're in Sam's Cafe and they have a sign saying "free wireless internet access for customers" then you're pretty safe connecting to SamsCafe. If you're in Bob's Cafe down the road then you probably aren't OK connecting to SamsCafe, just as you're not OK parking in the car park for Sam's Hardware if you're shopping at Bob's Supermarket down the road.
You are responsible for your actions when choosing to connect to a network which you do not know you are authorised to connect to. Take responsibility for finding out which you are allowed to connect to. Aww, that takes some effort on your part. Well boo fucking hoo. Take some PERSONAL responsibility for you actions.
Young industry? Different laws? What on earth are you talking about? We already have completely different laws for trading information - copyright and patents. They may be called "intellectual property" by some, but the subjects of copyrights and patents are not covered by the same laws as tangible items. From those laws we already have different business models for companies which trade information from those which trade tangible goods. The laws and business models are not new because the trading of information is not new. It's been going on for centuries using essentially the laws be have now. The only difference now is that it's easier and cheaper to duplicate and transmit information, but fundamentally its the same shit as has been going on since well before computers were invented, let alone the internet.
This debate was had centuries ago and it was decided that the restriction of freedom to exchange information was outweighed by the incentives to invent, compose, create and collate information which copyright and patents provide. They are merely time-limited monopolies, the information reverts to the public domain after a while (though after far too long in the case of copyrights as they currently stand). The idea is that in the end we all get more inventions and information than we otherwise would and it seems to work.
What new laws do you propose? How do you propose you make it viable for people to make a living as, say, a writer if their work can be freely distributed without any kind of compensation for them? They need to eat you know. If they can't get money to sustain themselves from writing they will find another job and the world will have lost a writer.
If nobody paid for content there would be far, far fewer people making it and nobody at all making big-budget movies and TV. That simply isn't sustainable.
It deprives artists of potential sales. While some people use illegal downloads as "tasters" and do actually buy music, there are plenty who have never paid for a CD or DVD in their lives. If they couldn't get it for free do you really think none of them would ever pay for any?
The analogy was intended to illustrate the point about permission to use, nothing more. The degree of harm caused is irrelevant. You simply do not get to make decisions about what to do with things which belong to other people. The fact that you might not mind people taking your "bike" is wholly irrelevant when the question concerns someone else's "bike". When it's someone else's "bike" they get to make the decisions, not you.
You seem to be implying that depriving someone of something doesn't make them a victim as long as it doesn't leave them struggling to survive. Which is of course complete and utter bullshit.
Requesting a connection to a wireless network (the IP bit comes later) is in fact different to requesting access to a web page. Publishing a web page is inviting people to view it. Plugging in a router in its default configuration is not.
There is such a thing as taking an analogy too far you know. There is no accurate continuation of that analogy, it has served it purpose, but the miscreant climbing on the bike, riding it to the shop and selling it would be closer to the truth.
All the WiFi networks I've seen which are meant for sharing have an SSID which is either the name the establishment which offers free WiFi (typically to customers only, even though that may not be enforced by technical measures) or which makes it clear they are open, thus they do not look exactly like poorly configured private networks. If you see a network called "Belkin-54g" or "Linksys" it is more reasonable to assume it's a poorly configured private network than to assume it's an open-access one.