Obviously her paranoia level is too low and she over looked the passing similarity between blinking lights and high explosives. That or we are simply living in such an amazing state of fear that we see high explosives everywhere (and feel justified in it).
No, she just forgot to stick the battery somewhere out of sight. Tacky and suspicious.
Honestly, though, it sounds to me like security responded appropriately, right up until the "lucky she's not in a morgue" press release... Regardless of whether or not she actually thought about what she was wearing (having been in College myself once, I can understand this) she didn't help herself by ignoring the person who asked her about her shirt. But in the end, nobody got hurt, and the poor college girl probably had a little bit of sense scared into her. Next time, she'll at least know enough to hide the wires, right?
I'd guess that 3D adventure games never caught on because everybody was completely sick of 2D adventure games long before 3D even appeared on the scene. I haven't seen a half way decent new "adventure" game (if you can even call them that) since about 1995.
You picked one of the several factors that the parent listed as affecting the price. No there almost certainly isn't $90 of R&D cost in every iPod Nano. But let's not forget about distribution costs and store markup, which are almost certainly more than the R&D costs. For a $150 product, I wouldn't be surprised if only about $100 of that actually finds its way back to Apple. (Not counting purchases directly from Apple's web site, of course.)
And don't forget that, like Microsoft, the cost of the iPod is covering the R&D of software that Apple wrote - iTunes and the software interface of the iPod. (You didn't think that came bundled with the click wheel did you?)
Plus, you know, the whole point of selling a product is to make a profit...
Common misconception. Insider trading is not at all illegal, otherwise it would be impossible for company executives to buy or sell their stock, and and stock or option grants for high level executives would be worthless. You could forget about Steve Jobs $1 salary...
There are just a very strict set of rules that you have to follow when you buy or sell stock as an insider, or with insider information. The main thing, AFAIK, is that you have to file paperwork with the SEC announcing your intention to buy or sell your stock, but I believe that there are other restrictions too. The paperwork that they file is public information, so if you see all of a companies executives filing to significant chunks of their stock on date X, you might want to consider selling any stock you have before that date as well.
It depends on the circumstances. I don't remember specifically the last time somebody tried to hijack a Russian plane, but I believe it had to be at least three decades ago now. As I remember the story (it's been quite a while since I heard it, so I don't remember the exact details) the hijackers told the authorities that they had a plane full of hostages and that they wanted to negotiate. The Russians immediately scrambled a squadron of fighters and shot the airliner down, no questions asked. Nobody bothered after that (at lest through the end of the Cold War - maybe things have changed since), because it became immediately obvious that hijacking (and taking hostages in general) was a losing proposition.
The missiles were being transported to be decommissioned. They were probably never even hooked up to the fire control system, because presumably there was no possible circumstance under which they would have been fired. I would imagine that it's probably a standard safety practice to not hook them up for a flight like this to prevent accidents.
I don't know much about the N80, but honestly, I have to consider the opinion of anyone who considers iTunes to be an excellent piece of engineering to be incredibly suspect. I suppose it's pretty enough, but about the only programs that I've tried using recently that were more irritating than iTunes are the various the Linux programs that did such a poor job of imitating it. (Note to Linux developers - if you're going to spend all of your effort cloning existing apps, you could at least start with a good one.)
He also was not the first to fly a balloon around the world. Again, he was the first person to do it solo, but the Breitling Orbiter made the trip before he did. Whoever posted the summary seems to have been either badly misinformed, or completely careless.
Another, more important and not disclosed until now fact - which you also mentioned - is that the USA still uses this design of the propeller,
...on this particular submarine.
Seriously, even if they didn't count on Virtual Earth picking this up, they know full well how many satellites are orbiting above them and exactly when they pass over and probably have a pretty good idea of how all of them are equipped. I would give better than even odds that this "security oversight" was premeditated.
Of course, even assuming that the hardware truly is backwards compatible, as you say, and doesn't have a broken BIOS, APIC, or whatever, the OP wasn't trying to install a "backwards compatible" 32 bit OS on it, so backwards compatibility is completely irrelevant, isn't it?
They say the history books are written by the victors, or in this case, those who eventually achieved independence. However, I am sure that if I looked, I could easily find just as many counterexamples. Off the top of my head, how many people outside of France have you ever heard calling for the liberation of Corsica? Or the Basques in Spain? (by the way, both of which seem to me to be more apt comparisons to the situation between China and Tibet than the cases you mention, or at least the ones that I am familiar with.)
Do you uninstall all of your applications and games when you wipe your hard drive? Sounds like a ridiculous assumption to me.
Personally, I'm a bit hesitant to install any new games with heavy content protection after I got bit by it on Knights of the Old Republic II. In (I believe) their latest patch, they upgraded the SecuROM software, and from that point on, the game crashes immediately any time I try to run it. The only way I've been able to get it to work again is with a nocd hack that I downloaded off the internet. The nocd hack is the previous version of the executable, though, and I'm still not 100% convinced it doesn't carry any rogue nastyware with it.
It may be offensive to you, but it's also good sense. When storing data, you pick a common independent format to store the data, and the application is then responsible to map the stored data to the local presentation. The internal format could be Klingon for all it matters, it just happens to be US English in this case. The fact that a particular application does a poor job of translation should be looked on as a fault of the application, not the storage format. Try looking around at a couple of Open Source projects. I'd be willing to bet you quite a bit of money they all take the same approach.
Try to think of this from the perspective of somebody trying to implement the spec, rather than somebody just trying to pick a way at the document with a couple of quickly hacked up Perl scripts, as Mr. Rodriguez appears to be. Would you rather write a parser for one canonical format, or a parser for every possible localization. Keep in mind that some localizations depend on system settings, so you would need a way to store and check those values on the system at the time that the document was written. Then there is the question of extensibility. Do you write every supported localization into the spec, closing off all futer language support forever (or until the next revision)? Or do you leave it open, so that any time another company anywhere in the world writes a software product using your document format in a new language, everyone else in the world has to upgrade to recognize the new language stored in the document.
I'm sorry that you have a grudge against Office for it's poor localization support, but writing localization into the storage format itself us just not a viable path to getting what you want.
As an aside, it appears that almost all of this author's "debunking" falls into one of two categories: 1) Problems with the Office 2007 implementation of OOXML, rather than the spec itself. 2) It's not as easy as he would like to hack up the file by hand, which has no bearing on somebody actually trying to implement the spec in a full product.
#1 would not be an issue for somebody trying to actually write a real implementation of the spec. #2 shouldn't be a surprise to anyone with the most basic understanding of computer floating point math. #3 he has a minor point in that the OOXML way is a regression from the binary way, but again, for somebody actually trying to write an implementation of the spec, rather than a quick 'n dirty perl script, this is not a big deal. #4 VML is as much XML as SVG. Yes, it's undocumented. It's also deprecated. #5 it sounds like he might have a valid complaint here, although it may just be another complaint about trying to hack the file by hand. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt... #6 is bull for the reasons just discussed. #7 there may be valid reasons for the multiple formats if you look in the spec, but it does sound much more complicated than necessary. In the absence of further evidence, I'll give him credit for this one. #8 the VariantTimeToSystemTime documentation is a red herring. The only thing that's important here is that MS has chosen a floating point number showing the number of days since 1900 as their internal date format. It's not platform dependent, or undocumented (unless the number of days since 1900 is different for Unix users than Windows users? Didn't think so...) #9 as long as both documents follow the spec and look the same when you open them in a program that implements the spec, I don't see the problem here. The problem I see is this: "If a business process assumes the existence of a custom structure, it won't work." It sounds like the problem here is that his "business process" is not following the spec. #10 seems to be more of a complaint about Office 2007's implementation than the document format, but without knowing how the spec addresses encrypted files, I can't really say. #11 is completely irrelevant to OOXML. #12 likewise is a complaint about Microsoft's abilit
Actually, the entered vs. stored values seemed like the least compelling part of the link to me. It sounds like it's probably just a matter of using IEEE floats to store values. Unless the spec never defines how floating point values are to be stored, or the implementation differs from what is described, this appears to me to be a red herring. In either case, we need more information, as I am not particularly interested in digging through the spec myself.
Sure, you can package all your apps in a JAR with Main-Class set, but then I have seen some people where WinZIP has stolen the association for JAR.
Funny you should mention that. I was just trying to figure out the other day if it was possible to get the built in windows zip fie handler to recognize.jar files. I would love to be able to edit files inside of them directly without having to rename the file, change the contents and then rename it back. Maybe I should try WinZip...
Does WinZip allow you to edit the files in a zip file without unzipping and rezipping it? Been a while since I used it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, she just forgot to stick the battery somewhere out of sight. Tacky and suspicious.
Honestly, though, it sounds to me like security responded appropriately, right up until the "lucky she's not in a morgue" press release... Regardless of whether or not she actually thought about what she was wearing (having been in College myself once, I can understand this) she didn't help herself by ignoring the person who asked her about her shirt. But in the end, nobody got hurt, and the poor college girl probably had a little bit of sense scared into her. Next time, she'll at least know enough to hide the wires, right?
I'd guess that 3D adventure games never caught on because everybody was completely sick of 2D adventure games long before 3D even appeared on the scene. I haven't seen a half way decent new "adventure" game (if you can even call them that) since about 1995.
You picked one of the several factors that the parent listed as affecting the price. No there almost certainly isn't $90 of R&D cost in every iPod Nano. But let's not forget about distribution costs and store markup, which are almost certainly more than the R&D costs. For a $150 product, I wouldn't be surprised if only about $100 of that actually finds its way back to Apple. (Not counting purchases directly from Apple's web site, of course.)
And don't forget that, like Microsoft, the cost of the iPod is covering the R&D of software that Apple wrote - iTunes and the software interface of the iPod. (You didn't think that came bundled with the click wheel did you?)
Plus, you know, the whole point of selling a product is to make a profit...
Common misconception. Insider trading is not at all illegal, otherwise it would be impossible for company executives to buy or sell their stock, and and stock or option grants for high level executives would be worthless. You could forget about Steve Jobs $1 salary...
There are just a very strict set of rules that you have to follow when you buy or sell stock as an insider, or with insider information. The main thing, AFAIK, is that you have to file paperwork with the SEC announcing your intention to buy or sell your stock, but I believe that there are other restrictions too. The paperwork that they file is public information, so if you see all of a companies executives filing to significant chunks of their stock on date X, you might want to consider selling any stock you have before that date as well.
It depends on the circumstances. I don't remember specifically the last time somebody tried to hijack a Russian plane, but I believe it had to be at least three decades ago now. As I remember the story (it's been quite a while since I heard it, so I don't remember the exact details) the hijackers told the authorities that they had a plane full of hostages and that they wanted to negotiate. The Russians immediately scrambled a squadron of fighters and shot the airliner down, no questions asked. Nobody bothered after that (at lest through the end of the Cold War - maybe things have changed since), because it became immediately obvious that hijacking (and taking hostages in general) was a losing proposition.
...and the next guy who wants to be President because her Hubby was president as well, one can hope!
I was just using one of those yesterday...
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/winrg
Without incident?
The missiles were being transported to be decommissioned. They were probably never even hooked up to the fire control system, because presumably there was no possible circumstance under which they would have been fired. I would imagine that it's probably a standard safety practice to not hook them up for a flight like this to prevent accidents.
I don't know much about the N80, but honestly, I have to consider the opinion of anyone who considers iTunes to be an excellent piece of engineering to be incredibly suspect. I suppose it's pretty enough, but about the only programs that I've tried using recently that were more irritating than iTunes are the various the Linux programs that did such a poor job of imitating it. (Note to Linux developers - if you're going to spend all of your effort cloning existing apps, you could at least start with a good one.)
You didn't happen to see what the rest of the market was doing yesterday, did you?
If I ever put up my own social Web 0.2 site, I am definitely going to forbid mixing up "there" and "their" in the TOS.
Which is different from the Linux version of Flash player lagging two versions behind the Windows version, how?
He also was not the first to fly a balloon around the world. Again, he was the first person to do it solo, but the Breitling Orbiter made the trip before he did. Whoever posted the summary seems to have been either badly misinformed, or completely careless.
Seriously, even if they didn't count on Virtual Earth picking this up, they know full well how many satellites are orbiting above them and exactly when they pass over and probably have a pretty good idea of how all of them are equipped. I would give better than even odds that this "security oversight" was premeditated.
A laughable claim... perpetuated by overzealous teachers of science!
...what percentage of either gender feels the overwhelming urge to vomit every time they hear the word "blogosphere"?
Of course, even assuming that the hardware truly is backwards compatible, as you say, and doesn't have a broken BIOS, APIC, or whatever, the OP wasn't trying to install a "backwards compatible" 32 bit OS on it, so backwards compatibility is completely irrelevant, isn't it?
They say the history books are written by the victors, or in this case, those who eventually achieved independence. However, I am sure that if I looked, I could easily find just as many counterexamples. Off the top of my head, how many people outside of France have you ever heard calling for the liberation of Corsica? Or the Basques in Spain? (by the way, both of which seem to me to be more apt comparisons to the situation between China and Tibet than the cases you mention, or at least the ones that I am familiar with.)
Do you uninstall all of your applications and games when you wipe your hard drive? Sounds like a ridiculous assumption to me.
Personally, I'm a bit hesitant to install any new games with heavy content protection after I got bit by it on Knights of the Old Republic II. In (I believe) their latest patch, they upgraded the SecuROM software, and from that point on, the game crashes immediately any time I try to run it. The only way I've been able to get it to work again is with a nocd hack that I downloaded off the internet. The nocd hack is the previous version of the executable, though, and I'm still not 100% convinced it doesn't carry any rogue nastyware with it.
You know, in order to get a patent, you have to publish. It's kind of the whole point.
Congratulations on being probably the first person I've seen in at least six months to properly use the word "effect" as a verb.
It may be offensive to you, but it's also good sense. When storing data, you pick a common independent format to store the data, and the application is then responsible to map the stored data to the local presentation. The internal format could be Klingon for all it matters, it just happens to be US English in this case. The fact that a particular application does a poor job of translation should be looked on as a fault of the application, not the storage format. Try looking around at a couple of Open Source projects. I'd be willing to bet you quite a bit of money they all take the same approach.
Try to think of this from the perspective of somebody trying to implement the spec, rather than somebody just trying to pick a way at the document with a couple of quickly hacked up Perl scripts, as Mr. Rodriguez appears to be. Would you rather write a parser for one canonical format, or a parser for every possible localization. Keep in mind that some localizations depend on system settings, so you would need a way to store and check those values on the system at the time that the document was written. Then there is the question of extensibility. Do you write every supported localization into the spec, closing off all futer language support forever (or until the next revision)? Or do you leave it open, so that any time another company anywhere in the world writes a software product using your document format in a new language, everyone else in the world has to upgrade to recognize the new language stored in the document.
I'm sorry that you have a grudge against Office for it's poor localization support, but writing localization into the storage format itself us just not a viable path to getting what you want.
As an aside, it appears that almost all of this author's "debunking" falls into one of two categories:
1) Problems with the Office 2007 implementation of OOXML, rather than the spec itself.
2) It's not as easy as he would like to hack up the file by hand, which has no bearing on somebody actually trying to implement the spec in a full product.
#1 would not be an issue for somebody trying to actually write a real implementation of the spec.
#2 shouldn't be a surprise to anyone with the most basic understanding of computer floating point math.
#3 he has a minor point in that the OOXML way is a regression from the binary way, but again, for somebody actually trying to write an implementation of the spec, rather than a quick 'n dirty perl script, this is not a big deal.
#4 VML is as much XML as SVG. Yes, it's undocumented. It's also deprecated.
#5 it sounds like he might have a valid complaint here, although it may just be another complaint about trying to hack the file by hand. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt...
#6 is bull for the reasons just discussed.
#7 there may be valid reasons for the multiple formats if you look in the spec, but it does sound much more complicated than necessary. In the absence of further evidence, I'll give him credit for this one.
#8 the VariantTimeToSystemTime documentation is a red herring. The only thing that's important here is that MS has chosen a floating point number showing the number of days since 1900 as their internal date format. It's not platform dependent, or undocumented (unless the number of days since 1900 is different for Unix users than Windows users? Didn't think so...)
#9 as long as both documents follow the spec and look the same when you open them in a program that implements the spec, I don't see the problem here. The problem I see is this: "If a business process assumes the existence of a custom structure, it won't work." It sounds like the problem here is that his "business process" is not following the spec.
#10 seems to be more of a complaint about Office 2007's implementation than the document format, but without knowing how the spec addresses encrypted files, I can't really say.
#11 is completely irrelevant to OOXML.
#12 likewise is a complaint about Microsoft's abilit
Actually, the entered vs. stored values seemed like the least compelling part of the link to me. It sounds like it's probably just a matter of using IEEE floats to store values. Unless the spec never defines how floating point values are to be stored, or the implementation differs from what is described, this appears to me to be a red herring. In either case, we need more information, as I am not particularly interested in digging through the spec myself.
Funny you should mention that. I was just trying to figure out the other day if it was possible to get the built in windows zip fie handler to recognize
Does WinZip allow you to edit the files in a zip file without unzipping and rezipping it? Been a while since I used it.