Not if the mugger's pistol is up to your head or his knife to your throat before you notice him, then he just gets a nice shiny new gun to add to the previous list.
That's true, I was trying to imply that, if it were common for people carrying laptops and such to be armed, muggers would likely leave them alone. You never see wolves attacking a young, healthy buffalo bull, they go after the old wounded ones or the calves. Criminals are no different, they prey on what they perceive to be easy pickings.
Well, there is one important difference. 15 years ago, robbing a regular middle-class guy would get you maybe $30-60 in cash and a $100 watch. These days, you have every other college student or white collar employee carrying around a $400 cell phone, a $300 music player, and possibly a $1500 computer. And they're using all of this stuff in public. This makes mugging people a lot more profitable than it used to be.
One has to wonder if muggings would be as common if, in addition to the above gear, mister average guy was also carrying a $900 pistol...
Step 1) Start watching your show Step 2) Pause in the first few seconds Step 3) Wait (five to eight minutes for half hour shows, 10 to 15 for hour long) Step 4) Start watching again, and fast forward through the commercials
By the time you reach the end of the show, you might have caught up to the commercial breaks, but most likely not.
Just so everybody knows, that reference in the V for Vendetta movie is a play on a quote by early 20th century anarchist Emma Goldman ("If I can't dance, it's not my revolution"), although there's speculation that she may not have actually said that. But it's attributed to her, anyways.
Yes, because a comment in a games forum about dance revolution must refer to some obscure anarchist quote, doesn't it?
We've been there for at least six years. Every ISP has a Carnivore box, and they scan everything. Where have you been?
From Wikipedia: The software grew from an earlier FBI project called Omnivore. Omnivore began in February 1997, and was then rebranded. After prolonged negative coverage in the press, the FBI changed the name of its system from "Carnivore" to the more benign-sounding "DCS1000." DCS is reported to stand for "Digital Collection System"; the system has the same functions as before. The three separate packages Carnivore, Packeteer and CoolMiner, are referred to as the DragonWare Suite.
It has been reported, as of the middle of January 2005, that the FBI has essentially abandoned the use of Carnivore in 2001, in favor of commercially available software.
Hmm, so it came online in February 1997, then was discontinued in January 2005. So not only are you wrong about it still being used [1], you're wrong about the implication of who started it in the first place. Interesting.
[1] The software isn't being used, but something basically just like it is. So the privacy concerns you voiced are legitimate, and I share them.
Change whichever is needed and propogate the changes to the partners you want to connect. Seems much easier than beating your head against a wall...don't you think?
Maybe, maybe not. There are two problems, though:
1) There are at least dozens, if not hundreds of sites running thousands of servers accessing the NTP server legitimately. Getting them all to change might be easier than a court fight, but it might not. 2) What's to stop someone, including D-Link, from just pointing to the new address in the future?
Really, the problem is there are no access controls to the service. I feel for the guy, but at this point he probably needs to go to the ISPs who use the service and say "I can't afford to deal with this anymore, either you start compensating me enough so I can afford the hosting feeds, or one of you do this instead." It was nice of him to volunteer his time and effort to providing accurate time to others, but I think now's the time for him either to become a professional level service, or pack up his toys and go home. Sad, really, but I don't see any other workable solutions. Even getting a settlement from D-Link, which if it happened would take months or years, doesn't preclude some other no talent assclown from doing the same thing next week or next year.
It was once. Have you read any of the treatises by Locke, Voltaire, Jefferson, and other greats of the Enlightenment? While they didn't advocate conversion at the point of the sword (in most cases), they absolutely did make clear that human rights are the rights of everyone, and the goal of making sure every man, woman, and child on the planet enjoyed them was a noble one. At some point, we got lazy and started doubting the very foundations of our society. I say, mix a little of that old time religion with Enlightenment thinking, and watch what happens.
Of course, if they're prying the tuner from my cold dead hands, then I'll have died in my car, and I don't want to think about why that would happen...
Don't confuse the incompetence of the current party in power with the idea that government is neccessarily incompetent.
That would be easy to do, except that it doesn't matter which party is currently in power, they're equally incompetent. As Mark Twain once said, "Suppose you are an idiot. Now suppose you are a Congressman. But I repeat myself."
E.g. an American creates an anti-us website, and happens to cross-link an image located on a Pakistani website. Now this is considered an "international communication channel" which justifies to the NSA full sniffing of packets, forfeiture of logs from the ISP, etc.
Has this actually happened, or are you crying wolf? If so, to whom did it happen, when did it happen, what fallout has there been...? In short, what are the relevant details to prove such an event ever occurred?
Left to my own devices, I self regulate my addictive substances and whatnot. Sure I go through binges with coffee and pot, and even alcohol sometimes. (of course by binges I mean times of relativly heavy use, not like drinking to the point of alcohol poisoning or drinking for days on end)... but they are rare and I tend to use them just now and again.
Sounds like you're in denial. You talk about how outside factors drive you to drugs and drinking. That's the classic "it's not my fault, I can't help it" plea of the addict. You need to get a grip on your life and get your addictions under control before they destroy you. I'd say "before they control you", but that's already happening.
This is coming from the adult child of a recovering alcoholic, who got to watch his younger brother overdose and die in front of him. So I know whereof I speak. Go get some help before it's too late and the people around you have to go through the pain of watching you destroy your life.
Though a competitor may try to make advances against google with revampments, Google's already got the golden brand and in this industry the guy who's at the top stays there as people feel more comfortable using what everyone else uses
Tell that to AltaVista and Excite. They were both, at one time or another, king of the search hill. When was the last time you used either, though?
Granted that Google's been popular for longer than the others were, but it's not a foregone conclusion that someone else can't knock 'em over.
To be completely accurate; the supermarket-chain (Albert Hein) subpoena'ed the 'cake'-maker after the latter declined to deliver its 'cakes' to the former.
Ah, must have been a contract dispute, then. That makes sense.
To the other poster, re: refusal to deal. Usually that only comes up if there some sort of relationship between the parties involved. For instance, if Wholesaler A refused to sell goods to Retailer X while selling to Retailer Y, who is a subsidiary of Wholesaler A or its parent company.
Real world example: I owned an online game store years ago (lost in the divorce, small price). This was around the time when Games Workshop started refusing to sell to online retailers, but still sold through their own mail order and online store. I casually mentioned the fact that it looked like they were trying to start a monopoly to my account rep one day, and never heard anything after that about not being able to buy product from them.
...a Dutch 'cake'-maker* (for those who know Dutch: ontbijtkoek) actually went to court so that they wouldn't be obliged to sell to a certain supermarket** anymore
Huh? Why in God's name would the be "obliged" to sell to anyone? Is it part of the Dutch business license, that you can't refuse to do business with someone? Please explain in detail, I feel like I'm missing something.
I don't know if you understand how impossibly assinine your comments are. I'll use as an example:
Also, human rights is a very subjective thing. it varies from country to country
By definition, human rights transcend nation-states. Unless you maintain that Iranians are not human (which I don't think you are), you cannot say they have have different/fewer inherent human rights than any other member of the species. We have these rights because we are human, not because we live in the US, or Canada, or Australia, or Germany, or any other nation-state which recognizes their existance.
It's one thing to say that "cultures are different and should be allowed to be so." I completely, 100%, agree with that. However, it is quite another to say "it's ok to hang rape victims, because my culture says it is." Life is a fundamental human right, and no one has the authority to deprive you of that right unless their life (or an innocent third party's life) is also in jeopardy. If people want to make rape something shameful, I disagree with that, but it's not violating anyone's fundamental rights to do so. If a culture wants to believe that committing suicide is an honorable way to handle shame, again, I disagree with it, but suicide is a choice of an individual. But executing a woman because some guy beat her into submission and had his way with her? That's barbaric, and a sane society would not countenance such a thing.
Hey, muslims may be seen as intollerant, but at least they don't go around killing people who convert from Islam to another religion. Now that would be intollerant!
And defensive patents can be argued as less of an evil than not getting them.
So you agree that doing so is evil? Google never said "We'll be less evil than those other guys", they said they wouldn't be evil AT ALL. Any amount of evil greater than 'none' is, by definition, evil.
Don't get upset with me because they set the bar so high for themselves, then failed to meet it.
I've not read the patents, just the basic idea in TFA. The first one talks about modifying a browser's appearance to serve up ads when connecting to a wireless access point. So here's what you do:
1) Modify DNS so that every request gets 'wifi.google.com' appended to it (so 'slashdot.org' becomes 'slashdot.org.wifi.google.com'). Make sure DHCP is pushing your DNS servers. Correllary to this, block access to port 53 off your network. 2) Have every request get rewritten with the same IP address, or group of IP addresses. 3) Have a proxy server on that/those IP(s) serving up pages. The proxy discards the 'wifi.google.com' bit and gets the actual page from the real site, then rewrites the HTML, putting the original content in a frame beneath a smaller frame serving Google ads based on the content of the original page.
There's some fleshing out to be done there, especially regarding cookies and https, but nothing that couldn't be hammered out with a whiteboard, two markers, and a six pack of Diet Berries & Cream Dr. Pepper (yumm, tastes like happy!).
Considering pretty much every broadband provider I'm acquainted with is doing something similar (at least they're doing points #1 and #2), how much of a stretch is it to do #3? (Normally, the only do it for the first request, requiring you to accept their TOS. Hotels usually require it on every initial connect.)
Now, I don't know for certain that this is what the Google engineers have come up with. Maybe they're much more clever than I (nah, couldn't be). But whatever it is, it's going to look very similar to this. And if I can come up with this solution two minutes after reading the words "show ads on a browser to pay for wifi", how in the world could they think it qualifies for a patent???
Can we get a Google section, please? That way, I can turn it off and not see any more ramblings about a company that is waaaay too hyped for my taste. Thanks much.
Slashdot Mirror
your parents have never killed a hooker or stolen a car
You obviously haven't met my parents.
Not if the mugger's pistol is up to your head or his knife to your throat before you notice him, then he just gets a nice shiny new gun to add to the previous list.
That's true, I was trying to imply that, if it were common for people carrying laptops and such to be armed, muggers would likely leave them alone. You never see wolves attacking a young, healthy buffalo bull, they go after the old wounded ones or the calves. Criminals are no different, they prey on what they perceive to be easy pickings.
"Oh oh, officer, that hispanic guy in hip-hop attire happened to touch my laptop, so I shot him in the head!"... Yeah that would work
What the hell, it's worth a try!
Well, there is one important difference. 15 years ago, robbing a regular middle-class guy would get you maybe $30-60 in cash and a $100 watch. These days, you have every other college student or white collar employee carrying around a $400 cell phone, a $300 music player, and possibly a $1500 computer. And they're using all of this stuff in public. This makes mugging people a lot more profitable than it used to be.
One has to wonder if muggings would be as common if, in addition to the above gear, mister average guy was also carrying a $900 pistol...
Step 1) Start watching your show
Step 2) Pause in the first few seconds
Step 3) Wait (five to eight minutes for half hour shows, 10 to 15 for hour long)
Step 4) Start watching again, and fast forward through the commercials
By the time you reach the end of the show, you might have caught up to the commercial breaks, but most likely not.
Just so everybody knows, that reference in the V for Vendetta movie is a play on a quote by early 20th century anarchist Emma Goldman ("If I can't dance, it's not my revolution"), although there's speculation that she may not have actually said that. But it's attributed to her, anyways.
Yes, because a comment in a games forum about dance revolution must refer to some obscure anarchist quote, doesn't it?
seven times one hundred plus eight times ten plus six
n dred+plus+eight+times+ten+plus+six&start=0&ie=utf- 8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US: official
That's incredibly easy to circumvent. Just use http://www.google.com/search?q=seven+times+one+hu
((seven times one hundred) plus (eight times ten)) plus six = seven hundred eighty-six
We've been there for at least six years. Every ISP has a Carnivore box, and they scan everything. Where have you been?
From Wikipedia:
The software grew from an earlier FBI project called Omnivore. Omnivore began in February 1997, and was then rebranded. After prolonged negative coverage in the press, the FBI changed the name of its system from "Carnivore" to the more benign-sounding "DCS1000." DCS is reported to stand for "Digital Collection System"; the system has the same functions as before. The three separate packages Carnivore, Packeteer and CoolMiner, are referred to as the DragonWare Suite.
It has been reported, as of the middle of January 2005, that the FBI has essentially abandoned the use of Carnivore in 2001, in favor of commercially available software.
Hmm, so it came online in February 1997, then was discontinued in January 2005. So not only are you wrong about it still being used [1], you're wrong about the implication of who started it in the first place. Interesting.
[1] The software isn't being used, but something basically just like it is. So the privacy concerns you voiced are legitimate, and I share them.
Change whichever is needed and propogate the changes to the partners you want to connect. Seems much easier than beating your head against a wall...don't you think?
Maybe, maybe not. There are two problems, though:
1) There are at least dozens, if not hundreds of sites running thousands of servers accessing the NTP server legitimately. Getting them all to change might be easier than a court fight, but it might not.
2) What's to stop someone, including D-Link, from just pointing to the new address in the future?
Really, the problem is there are no access controls to the service. I feel for the guy, but at this point he probably needs to go to the ISPs who use the service and say "I can't afford to deal with this anymore, either you start compensating me enough so I can afford the hosting feeds, or one of you do this instead." It was nice of him to volunteer his time and effort to providing accurate time to others, but I think now's the time for him either to become a professional level service, or pack up his toys and go home. Sad, really, but I don't see any other workable solutions. Even getting a settlement from D-Link, which if it happened would take months or years, doesn't preclude some other no talent assclown from doing the same thing next week or next year.
The Enligtenment world view is not evangelical.
It was once. Have you read any of the treatises by Locke, Voltaire, Jefferson, and other greats of the Enlightenment? While they didn't advocate conversion at the point of the sword (in most cases), they absolutely did make clear that human rights are the rights of everyone, and the goal of making sure every man, woman, and child on the planet enjoyed them was a noble one. At some point, we got lazy and started doubting the very foundations of our society. I say, mix a little of that old time religion with Enlightenment thinking, and watch what happens.
I also have my own software company and I have some one else be the CEO I am the chairman of the board
Hey, I think there was an article about you today! Yeah, here it is!
Of course, if they're prying the tuner from my cold dead hands, then I'll have died in my car, and I don't want to think about why that would happen...
Wow, my sig is oddly appropriate for once!
Don't confuse the incompetence of the current party in power with the idea that government is neccessarily incompetent.
That would be easy to do, except that it doesn't matter which party is currently in power, they're equally incompetent. As Mark Twain once said, "Suppose you are an idiot. Now suppose you are a Congressman. But I repeat myself."
E.g. an American creates an anti-us website, and happens to cross-link an image located on a Pakistani website. Now this is considered an "international communication channel" which justifies to the NSA full sniffing of packets, forfeiture of logs from the ISP, etc.
Has this actually happened, or are you crying wolf? If so, to whom did it happen, when did it happen, what fallout has there been...? In short, what are the relevant details to prove such an event ever occurred?
Left to my own devices, I self regulate my addictive substances and whatnot. Sure I go through binges with coffee and pot, and even alcohol sometimes. (of course by binges I mean times of relativly heavy use, not like drinking to the point of alcohol poisoning or drinking for days on end)... but they are rare and I tend to use them just now and again.
Sounds like you're in denial. You talk about how outside factors drive you to drugs and drinking. That's the classic "it's not my fault, I can't help it" plea of the addict. You need to get a grip on your life and get your addictions under control before they destroy you. I'd say "before they control you", but that's already happening.
This is coming from the adult child of a recovering alcoholic, who got to watch his younger brother overdose and die in front of him. So I know whereof I speak. Go get some help before it's too late and the people around you have to go through the pain of watching you destroy your life.
Ask.com throws big ad searches first before any of the results you actually want. Google ads are off to the side. I'll stick with Google still.
This search turns up three ads at the top before any actual search results. So what's the problem with Ask doing this, exactly?
Though a competitor may try to make advances against google with revampments, Google's already got the golden brand and in this industry the guy who's at the top stays there as people feel more comfortable using what everyone else uses
Tell that to AltaVista and Excite. They were both, at one time or another, king of the search hill. When was the last time you used either, though?
Granted that Google's been popular for longer than the others were, but it's not a foregone conclusion that someone else can't knock 'em over.
To be completely accurate; the supermarket-chain (Albert Hein) subpoena'ed the 'cake'-maker after the latter declined to deliver its 'cakes' to the former.
Ah, must have been a contract dispute, then. That makes sense.
To the other poster, re: refusal to deal. Usually that only comes up if there some sort of relationship between the parties involved. For instance, if Wholesaler A refused to sell goods to Retailer X while selling to Retailer Y, who is a subsidiary of Wholesaler A or its parent company.
Real world example: I owned an online game store years ago (lost in the divorce, small price). This was around the time when Games Workshop started refusing to sell to online retailers, but still sold through their own mail order and online store. I casually mentioned the fact that it looked like they were trying to start a monopoly to my account rep one day, and never heard anything after that about not being able to buy product from them.
...a Dutch 'cake'-maker* (for those who know Dutch: ontbijtkoek)
actually went to court so that they wouldn't be obliged to sell to a certain supermarket** anymore
Huh? Why in God's name would the be "obliged" to sell to anyone? Is it part of the Dutch business license, that you can't refuse to do business with someone? Please explain in detail, I feel like I'm missing something.
I don't know if you understand how impossibly assinine your comments are. I'll use as an example:
Also, human rights is a very subjective thing. it varies from country to country
By definition, human rights transcend nation-states. Unless you maintain that Iranians are not human (which I don't think you are), you cannot say they have have different/fewer inherent human rights than any other member of the species. We have these rights because we are human, not because we live in the US, or Canada, or Australia, or Germany, or any other nation-state which recognizes their existance.
It's one thing to say that "cultures are different and should be allowed to be so." I completely, 100%, agree with that. However, it is quite another to say "it's ok to hang rape victims, because my culture says it is." Life is a fundamental human right, and no one has the authority to deprive you of that right unless their life (or an innocent third party's life) is also in jeopardy. If people want to make rape something shameful, I disagree with that, but it's not violating anyone's fundamental rights to do so. If a culture wants to believe that committing suicide is an honorable way to handle shame, again, I disagree with it, but suicide is a choice of an individual. But executing a woman because some guy beat her into submission and had his way with her? That's barbaric, and a sane society would not countenance such a thing.
Hey, muslims may be seen as intollerant, but at least they don't go around killing people who convert from Islam to another religion. Now that would be intollerant!
They don't?
Exactly the ignorant elitist attitude that will place you near the top of the list when it's time to lay a few people off.
That's assuming he gets the job in the first place. Pretty big assumption in most places east of the Sierra Madre.
And defensive patents can be argued as less of an evil than not getting them.
So you agree that doing so is evil? Google never said "We'll be less evil than those other guys", they said they wouldn't be evil AT ALL. Any amount of evil greater than 'none' is, by definition, evil.
Don't get upset with me because they set the bar so high for themselves, then failed to meet it.
I've not read the patents, just the basic idea in TFA. The first one talks about modifying a browser's appearance to serve up ads when connecting to a wireless access point. So here's what you do:
1) Modify DNS so that every request gets 'wifi.google.com' appended to it (so 'slashdot.org' becomes 'slashdot.org.wifi.google.com'). Make sure DHCP is pushing your DNS servers. Correllary to this, block access to port 53 off your network.
2) Have every request get rewritten with the same IP address, or group of IP addresses.
3) Have a proxy server on that/those IP(s) serving up pages. The proxy discards the 'wifi.google.com' bit and gets the actual page from the real site, then rewrites the HTML, putting the original content in a frame beneath a smaller frame serving Google ads based on the content of the original page.
There's some fleshing out to be done there, especially regarding cookies and https, but nothing that couldn't be hammered out with a whiteboard, two markers, and a six pack of Diet Berries & Cream Dr. Pepper (yumm, tastes like happy!).
Considering pretty much every broadband provider I'm acquainted with is doing something similar (at least they're doing points #1 and #2), how much of a stretch is it to do #3? (Normally, the only do it for the first request, requiring you to accept their TOS. Hotels usually require it on every initial connect.)
Now, I don't know for certain that this is what the Google engineers have come up with. Maybe they're much more clever than I (nah, couldn't be). But whatever it is, it's going to look very similar to this. And if I can come up with this solution two minutes after reading the words "show ads on a browser to pay for wifi", how in the world could they think it qualifies for a patent???
Can we get a Google section, please? That way, I can turn it off and not see any more ramblings about a company that is waaaay too hyped for my taste. Thanks much.