That's pretty sloppy coding, you didn't even include any comments or exit gracefully. Here is the a proper implementation in Perl: #!/usr/bin/perl -tw # Safe-T by Pharmboy.org Copyright (C)2010 Unauthorized use is PROHIBITED !!!!11 # exit 0; #this makes the program exit. 1;
Not me, I want applications that can't read or write to files, OS API, video subsystem, ports or RAM. Programs that are properly designed to this are always safe. Every program that *doesn't* will always have some risk, no matter how well you code it.;)
I tend to agree with you on this point. While I don't like the ISP narrowing down my location by zip+4 in particular, more relevant ads would actually be a good thing for several reasons.
1. Targeted ads cost more than broadcast ads, so less are needed to achieve $x income. This makes having a website more viable with less ads. If your favorite website is covered in too many ads, go to some other website instead.
2. Ads that are relevant might actually interest me. If my local Dominos is having a $9 Large with any toppings special (they are, as a matter of fact) then I just might like to know. Same for other regional businesses.
3. Showing me ads for chain stores only in the Northeast doesn't help me or them. Most ads don't appeal to me, but ads for a company that isn't even driving distance (brick and mortar) is stupid.
4. Brick and mortar companies will be better able to actually advertise now. There was no reason for a regional chain (say 12 states) to advertise if most of their ads were going to areas they don't serve. Now even small businesses that serve 4 or 5 zip codes can cost effectively advertise. Ads = sales = jobs. Google and Yahoo ads let you only serve to US or other countries, but their methods for localizing it further don't exist. This will increase the number of companies advertising, which helps small website owners, and increases the potential number of specialized sites.
We can all bitch and moan about ads, but they pay the bills here at/., and lots of websites that I LIKE. I still click ads from time to time on those websites, even if I'm not in the market for the item, just to look, and help pay the bills. Ads *can* be done properly, and this might be a step in the right direction.
As for privacy, there really isn't any on the web unless you take extraordinary steps. The websites already know your IP address, which can be traced to general region pretty easy. If you really need privacy, don't depend on your ISP to provide it.
But it has SIX links! Most readers don't even RTFA, no less RT6FAs. If you put them all together, I think you get a couple of paragraphs. Actually, I'm guessing, I didn't RTFA either.
Not sure why that was modded troll, since the link was informative and even mainstream, but I digress. Besides, I'm sure both sides of the aisle are doing the same.
I'm sure there are plenty of politicians that want to use the easy and cheap method of blogging and tweeting information since there is no rebuttal, except on different pages/sites. Now they can be even MORE disconnected from the rest of us. To be fair, there are plenty of bloggers that attack politicians, and often what they are blogging about is pure nonsense with no recourse from the candidate. I guess this just levels the playing field. Unfortunately, it levels the field for politicians and anonymous bloggers, not for the taxpayers.
the truth is people are defending Google not because it make sense, but because they want to believe Google is the good guy.
Truer words were never spoken. We need good guys, and will invent them if necessary. All of our historic "legends" were likely nothing like the myths that surrounded them, and some were outright asshats. In popular culture (Star Trek specifically), I love how Zephram Cochrane was actually just trying to get rich when he came up with the warp drive, there was no "higher calling" to it. Even art gets it.
There are no good guys when it comes to capitalism. Don't get me wrong, it's the only system for me, but what you have are "bad guys", "evil guys", and "guys that usually play by the rules", and that is about as good as it gets. It is in our nature. The real "good guys" never truly succeed, partially because success isn't worth the price they would have to pay: A willingness to be ruthless when it is required.
In short, Google is simply the lesser of all the available evils. Perhaps their motto should be "Do less evil".
I agree that Google is the lesser of all the available evils. That just goes to show you how fucked up the choices are. Then again, any public corporation is beholden to make each quarter look better than the last, and money is not only the first priority, but #2, #3 and often #4 as well. Protecting consumer privacy is pretty low on that list.
Of course it was accidental, after all, their corporate slogan is "Do no evil". Obviously they wouldn't do anything that would be evil.
Re:Does it have a monitor and full-size keyboard?
on
Flight of the Desktops
·
· Score: 1
And what about businesses? We have 15 desktops at work, and half the employees don't have any computer at home. We will NOT be replacing the desktops with laptops, only with new desktops. While *some* businesses manage to use laptops in place of desktops (and some for good reason), the majority of people doing data entry, graphics, customer service, etc. will not be changing over to a laptop any time soon.
Also, I have my desktop connected to my 42" LCD TV as a monitor, for gaming. Laptops will always be "lesser" for gaming, if for no other reason than they are not typically practical to upgrade graphics on. Laptops are also very uncomfortable for serious long term typing, number pad use, and simply not laid out for use at the desk. They have their place, but not for long sessions at the desk, which is where most people still use computers.
Actually, writing your notes twice would probably insure you would never need to refer to them ever again. The act of writing notes itself makes us more likely to remember what we wrote, and doing it twice surely should have a modest increase in memorization of the facts written.
I still take notes now during meetings and such, not so I can organize them, but simply to reinforce it in my mind and reduce the need to refer back to notes, and yes, I take the notes on dead tree with a real pencil.
You are talking about a DEVICE. No one here has a problem with patents for THINGS, but we do have a problem with patents on IDEAS. Software patents are just that, patenting an idea, an algorithm. Math. Kind of like when Microsoft patented zeros and ones.
But you get 1st downs, which has nothing comparable in soccer. It also can put you in field goal range, which has no parallel in soccer. In US football, the team with the most offensive yards almost always wins. Does soccer have a similar outcome? And in US football, yards are only counted FORWARD. If the fullback runs 30 yards left, then 30 yards right, then is tackled on the line of scrimmage, he has gained exactly zero yards. Comparing to US football isn't a fruitful exercise, they are just too different.
NFL football is more like a blend of chess and raw violence. It is a series of calculated moves, not a continuous flow of play. Not better or worse, just not really comparable.
Now how about a ruling that all government agencies have to keep copies of all texts and make them part of the public record to promote transparency in government.
If it wasn't so difficult to enable, I would agree with the concept 100%. If technology allows some part of that to happen without a ton of cost or inconvenience, I say release everything that you reasonably can, even if they anonymize the source. Our taxes paid for it, after all.
Why would I want to pay for a second phone I don't need?
Easy to answer: Use it all you want, but assume that your employer will see everything you do. If you want to do something without them knowing, then use your own device. It isn't YOURS. Go ahead and call mom, order that pizza, call a cab, use it for anything that you are fine with it being public, but nothing else.
My experience is that you are better off if you act like everything you do is completely public, be it on any phone, computer, device. Even with the best proxies and encryption, it still *almost* is. If you need to do something that requires no one knowing, then expect that you will have to take extraordinary steps. Simply texting on your company phone is NOT "extraordinary steps".
That might explain why it is a 9/0 ruling, which is rare. It would seem common sense that if you use any employer supplied device (phone, computer, whatever) that the employer has the right to view what traverses their network and devices. This case might have been about the government as an employer, but I would expect no less protection for the private sector. And yes, protection is the right word. If you start making threats to someone (as an example) using company property, they might could be held partially liable as their gear facilitated the communication. Even if that wasn't the case, IT IS NOT YOUR PHONE/COMPUTER, you shouldn't expect privacy.
Now, on your OWN device, at work, that is a different story. They can fire you if they want, for spending all day texting instead of working, but they don't get to see what you are doing without a subpoena. Seems fair enough, and common sense.
My exact same experience. I uploaded over 100 images (many of which kept getting deleted), had over 8000 edits, and finally just gave up as the WikiNazis just sucked all the enjoyment out of it. It went from being a way to share my experience and willingness to research, into a drudgery that forced me to have to constantly argue with Admins who had more interest in inflating their numbers than creating a set of balanced articles.
Once in a while, I will remove a comma, correct a spelling, or do something minor, but I haven't logged into my account in a few years now. If I want to be constantly bothered with fools who are wrong but constantly are trying to correct me, I will go to work, where at least I am rewarded well for the aggravation.
I will have to trust your math, as I am certainly not a rocket scientist. It does seem that once you get rid of the human element (life support, food, water, recreation, etc.) you have gotten rid of 90% of your problems. Several people have talked about doing a mission to mars (manned or not) using multiple launch vehicles. It would seem you might as well put the craft that will fly back to earth in orbit only, and the lander having only enough mechanical to get into orbit and dock/load, ie: not needing as much shielding/weight/fuel. That means the return craft only lands once (earth), the rover craft only lands once (Mars), and hopefully we can bring back more than 5kg of rock. We already have a proven rover platform, so if it takes 90 days to collect rock, that wouldn't be such a bad thing, would it? Of course, this all depends on optimum times for launch/land/relaunch for the trip to use the least amount of fuel, even if it takes more time. And of course, 1 million other problems that my better judgement says we *can* overcome.
Obviously this is something new for us, but what better way to try it than Mars, where the risk might be high, but the payoff is just as high. It is about time we brought back some souvenirs from somewhere that doesn't orbit us.
At least you can put most of your fuel in orbir around Mars. You only need enough on the craft to break orbit, which is still a fair amount, but nothing approaching the total load. Half the fuel typically used on a craft is there simply to lift the other half of the fuel.
Renting doesn't necessarily imply that you live there. Perhaps you are just renting the services of the current resident, which is even better than living there as you don't have to go from fresh to gray in 4 years.
Great, so Afghanistan can just use all that mining equipment they have lying around then, right? The real answer is when both countries win. They have something to protect and exploit, we have the means to do both, and as long as the country itself gets the lion's share of the benefits, everyone wins as the country has a better chance of becoming stable.
Then again, Iran and Irag both have the equivalent in oil, and it hasn't really led to stability there. Even Saudi Arabia has gained stability mainly by using the wealth to oppress their people.
I'm not a fan of MS either, but we have no choice on the corporate desktop. AV is a shim, but it is as well on Linux if you run AV. Windows 7 is honestly much better than XP even if it is still flawed, but then again, XP was designed a decade ago. I'm just buying time until Linux is more desktop ready than it currently is. Now on the server, I've not run Windows in over 10 years.
My problem with MS isn't about the usability of Windows. It is still easier on the desktop than Linux, although that is more of an issue of drivers and applications. My problem is the company itself and their history of abusing wholesale and retail customers.
Slashdot Mirror
That's pretty sloppy coding, you didn't even include any comments or exit gracefully. Here is the a proper implementation in Perl:
#!/usr/bin/perl -tw
# Safe-T by Pharmboy.org Copyright (C)2010 Unauthorized use is PROHIBITED !!!!11
#
exit 0; #this makes the program exit.
1;
Not me, I want applications that can't read or write to files, OS API, video subsystem, ports or RAM. Programs that are properly designed to this are always safe. Every program that *doesn't* will always have some risk, no matter how well you code it. ;)
I tend to agree with you on this point. While I don't like the ISP narrowing down my location by zip+4 in particular, more relevant ads would actually be a good thing for several reasons.
1. Targeted ads cost more than broadcast ads, so less are needed to achieve $x income. This makes having a website more viable with less ads. If your favorite website is covered in too many ads, go to some other website instead.
2. Ads that are relevant might actually interest me. If my local Dominos is having a $9 Large with any toppings special (they are, as a matter of fact) then I just might like to know. Same for other regional businesses.
3. Showing me ads for chain stores only in the Northeast doesn't help me or them. Most ads don't appeal to me, but ads for a company that isn't even driving distance (brick and mortar) is stupid.
4. Brick and mortar companies will be better able to actually advertise now. There was no reason for a regional chain (say 12 states) to advertise if most of their ads were going to areas they don't serve. Now even small businesses that serve 4 or 5 zip codes can cost effectively advertise. Ads = sales = jobs. Google and Yahoo ads let you only serve to US or other countries, but their methods for localizing it further don't exist. This will increase the number of companies advertising, which helps small website owners, and increases the potential number of specialized sites.
We can all bitch and moan about ads, but they pay the bills here at /., and lots of websites that I LIKE. I still click ads from time to time on those websites, even if I'm not in the market for the item, just to look, and help pay the bills. Ads *can* be done properly, and this might be a step in the right direction.
As for privacy, there really isn't any on the web unless you take extraordinary steps. The websites already know your IP address, which can be traced to general region pretty easy. If you really need privacy, don't depend on your ISP to provide it.
But it has SIX links! Most readers don't even RTFA, no less RT6FAs. If you put them all together, I think you get a couple of paragraphs. Actually, I'm guessing, I didn't RTFA either.
Not sure why that was modded troll, since the link was informative and even mainstream, but I digress. Besides, I'm sure both sides of the aisle are doing the same.
I'm sure there are plenty of politicians that want to use the easy and cheap method of blogging and tweeting information since there is no rebuttal, except on different pages/sites. Now they can be even MORE disconnected from the rest of us. To be fair, there are plenty of bloggers that attack politicians, and often what they are blogging about is pure nonsense with no recourse from the candidate. I guess this just levels the playing field. Unfortunately, it levels the field for politicians and anonymous bloggers, not for the taxpayers.
the truth is people are defending Google not because it make sense, but because they want to believe Google is the good guy.
Truer words were never spoken. We need good guys, and will invent them if necessary. All of our historic "legends" were likely nothing like the myths that surrounded them, and some were outright asshats. In popular culture (Star Trek specifically), I love how Zephram Cochrane was actually just trying to get rich when he came up with the warp drive, there was no "higher calling" to it. Even art gets it.
There are no good guys when it comes to capitalism. Don't get me wrong, it's the only system for me, but what you have are "bad guys", "evil guys", and "guys that usually play by the rules", and that is about as good as it gets. It is in our nature. The real "good guys" never truly succeed, partially because success isn't worth the price they would have to pay: A willingness to be ruthless when it is required.
In short, Google is simply the lesser of all the available evils. Perhaps their motto should be "Do less evil".
I agree that Google is the lesser of all the available evils. That just goes to show you how fucked up the choices are. Then again, any public corporation is beholden to make each quarter look better than the last, and money is not only the first priority, but #2, #3 and often #4 as well. Protecting consumer privacy is pretty low on that list.
Of course it was accidental, after all, their corporate slogan is "Do no evil". Obviously they wouldn't do anything that would be evil.
And what about businesses? We have 15 desktops at work, and half the employees don't have any computer at home. We will NOT be replacing the desktops with laptops, only with new desktops. While *some* businesses manage to use laptops in place of desktops (and some for good reason), the majority of people doing data entry, graphics, customer service, etc. will not be changing over to a laptop any time soon.
Also, I have my desktop connected to my 42" LCD TV as a monitor, for gaming. Laptops will always be "lesser" for gaming, if for no other reason than they are not typically practical to upgrade graphics on. Laptops are also very uncomfortable for serious long term typing, number pad use, and simply not laid out for use at the desk. They have their place, but not for long sessions at the desk, which is where most people still use computers.
Actually, writing your notes twice would probably insure you would never need to refer to them ever again. The act of writing notes itself makes us more likely to remember what we wrote, and doing it twice surely should have a modest increase in memorization of the facts written.
I still take notes now during meetings and such, not so I can organize them, but simply to reinforce it in my mind and reduce the need to refer back to notes, and yes, I take the notes on dead tree with a real pencil.
You are talking about a DEVICE. No one here has a problem with patents for THINGS, but we do have a problem with patents on IDEAS. Software patents are just that, patenting an idea, an algorithm. Math. Kind of like when Microsoft patented zeros and ones.
But you get 1st downs, which has nothing comparable in soccer. It also can put you in field goal range, which has no parallel in soccer. In US football, the team with the most offensive yards almost always wins. Does soccer have a similar outcome? And in US football, yards are only counted FORWARD. If the fullback runs 30 yards left, then 30 yards right, then is tackled on the line of scrimmage, he has gained exactly zero yards. Comparing to US football isn't a fruitful exercise, they are just too different.
NFL football is more like a blend of chess and raw violence. It is a series of calculated moves, not a continuous flow of play. Not better or worse, just not really comparable.
Now how about a ruling that all government agencies have to keep copies of all texts and make them part of the public record to promote transparency in government.
If it wasn't so difficult to enable, I would agree with the concept 100%. If technology allows some part of that to happen without a ton of cost or inconvenience, I say release everything that you reasonably can, even if they anonymize the source. Our taxes paid for it, after all.
Why would I want to pay for a second phone I don't need?
Easy to answer: Use it all you want, but assume that your employer will see everything you do. If you want to do something without them knowing, then use your own device. It isn't YOURS. Go ahead and call mom, order that pizza, call a cab, use it for anything that you are fine with it being public, but nothing else.
My experience is that you are better off if you act like everything you do is completely public, be it on any phone, computer, device. Even with the best proxies and encryption, it still *almost* is. If you need to do something that requires no one knowing, then expect that you will have to take extraordinary steps. Simply texting on your company phone is NOT "extraordinary steps".
That might explain why it is a 9/0 ruling, which is rare. It would seem common sense that if you use any employer supplied device (phone, computer, whatever) that the employer has the right to view what traverses their network and devices. This case might have been about the government as an employer, but I would expect no less protection for the private sector. And yes, protection is the right word. If you start making threats to someone (as an example) using company property, they might could be held partially liable as their gear facilitated the communication. Even if that wasn't the case, IT IS NOT YOUR PHONE/COMPUTER, you shouldn't expect privacy.
Now, on your OWN device, at work, that is a different story. They can fire you if they want, for spending all day texting instead of working, but they don't get to see what you are doing without a subpoena. Seems fair enough, and common sense.
My exact same experience. I uploaded over 100 images (many of which kept getting deleted), had over 8000 edits, and finally just gave up as the WikiNazis just sucked all the enjoyment out of it. It went from being a way to share my experience and willingness to research, into a drudgery that forced me to have to constantly argue with Admins who had more interest in inflating their numbers than creating a set of balanced articles.
Once in a while, I will remove a comma, correct a spelling, or do something minor, but I haven't logged into my account in a few years now. If I want to be constantly bothered with fools who are wrong but constantly are trying to correct me, I will go to work, where at least I am rewarded well for the aggravation.
I will have to trust your math, as I am certainly not a rocket scientist. It does seem that once you get rid of the human element (life support, food, water, recreation, etc.) you have gotten rid of 90% of your problems. Several people have talked about doing a mission to mars (manned or not) using multiple launch vehicles. It would seem you might as well put the craft that will fly back to earth in orbit only, and the lander having only enough mechanical to get into orbit and dock/load, ie: not needing as much shielding/weight/fuel. That means the return craft only lands once (earth), the rover craft only lands once (Mars), and hopefully we can bring back more than 5kg of rock. We already have a proven rover platform, so if it takes 90 days to collect rock, that wouldn't be such a bad thing, would it? Of course, this all depends on optimum times for launch/land/relaunch for the trip to use the least amount of fuel, even if it takes more time. And of course, 1 million other problems that my better judgement says we *can* overcome.
Obviously this is something new for us, but what better way to try it than Mars, where the risk might be high, but the payoff is just as high. It is about time we brought back some souvenirs from somewhere that doesn't orbit us.
At least you can put most of your fuel in orbir around Mars. You only need enough on the craft to break orbit, which is still a fair amount, but nothing approaching the total load. Half the fuel typically used on a craft is there simply to lift the other half of the fuel.
Renting doesn't necessarily imply that you live there. Perhaps you are just renting the services of the current resident, which is even better than living there as you don't have to go from fresh to gray in 4 years.
I don't think that is ALL Clinton was getting out of the White House bedrooms....
[rimshot]
Great, so Afghanistan can just use all that mining equipment they have lying around then, right? The real answer is when both countries win. They have something to protect and exploit, we have the means to do both, and as long as the country itself gets the lion's share of the benefits, everyone wins as the country has a better chance of becoming stable.
Then again, Iran and Irag both have the equivalent in oil, and it hasn't really led to stability there. Even Saudi Arabia has gained stability mainly by using the wealth to oppress their people.
Is the White House for sale? No, but you can certainly *rent* it for four years at a time, if the price is right.
Because if you are not polite, they have a reason to ask you to leave, thus defeating your goals.
I'm not a fan of MS either, but we have no choice on the corporate desktop. AV is a shim, but it is as well on Linux if you run AV. Windows 7 is honestly much better than XP even if it is still flawed, but then again, XP was designed a decade ago. I'm just buying time until Linux is more desktop ready than it currently is. Now on the server, I've not run Windows in over 10 years.
My problem with MS isn't about the usability of Windows. It is still easier on the desktop than Linux, although that is more of an issue of drivers and applications. My problem is the company itself and their history of abusing wholesale and retail customers.
citation needed.