...applications for use on cellular phones and/or tablet devices that require communication with a server to perform a license check to prevent the unauthorized use of said application...
Sometimes Battle.net 2.0 is all about logging on to a server to play a singleplayer or LAN game.
Software patents are so dumb. Just because some idiot patents something obvious doesn't mean the rest of us should not be able to do the obvious thing. What if someone patented walking in a straight line? The rest of society would be relegated to drinking heavily, or inventing silly walks.
Your logic does not pertain to my argument.
I merely say that you should be secure, and not boast about being secure.
You're talking about a strawman where easy to hack systems are hacked more. Of course easy to hack systems are going to be hacked more. My argument wasn't arguing against that.
I just say that the minute you start boasting about your security, you draw more people in to try and hack it. Unless you're a sicko ready to pursue an arms race to "Hacker Armageddon", you never boast about your device or code being unhackable.
From my experience with hackers, if you say your platform is more challenging to hack, it attracts more hackers to try and hack it. Never taunt happy fun hackers.
Obfuscating your security is okay, but obfuscating the fact you have a bunch of anti-hacks in place seems even better.
I've been looking into anti hacker theory ever since Starcraft 1 maphackers ruined ladder.
My sentence structure was ambiguous. When I said nothing of value is lost there, I meant if they turned television into one giant infomercial. Digg was actually a real loss because it was a very good community they trashed because they wanted to feed mass mindless advertising while making it look like users submit it. For a while Digg.com was fun to go to watch the train wreck and everyone trashing it in the comments, but then their advertisements started becoming links to virus sites, so I stopped even visiting so I could mock them.
Digg was good for social media. People would submit stories, and then the cool ones would come to the top. Apparently a minor problem arose with power users who could spam their friends with messages,"Digg this cuz ur my friend", and a lot of them would. These power users eventually started getting corporate sponsor to astroturf, and their friends were oblivious so they still got Diggs. The actual user base didn't have much of a problem with this as you could read user names and just ignore them. I think the proper solution was to allow people to permanently ignore user posts, then power user spam would have been fixed.
Where Digg went wrong was,"We gotta beat these power users to their own game!" So they made it so users could no longer submit stories. And then your entire feed was all corporate sponsored advertising. This is equivalent of turning prime time television into one giant informercial. I know nothing of value is lost there, but in social media, this is a group of people moderating news and it was pretty valuable until they killed it thinking we're all bunch of sheep who will just sit there and read advertisements all day.
I'm glad Digg.com is dead. I just hope Reddit.com doesn't pull something stupid too.
I think an executable would be fine. I think executables would be what lets Linux take off in the market more.
The key is: Do not let an executable change data in any directory other than where it is installed. This way it can't change the system boot sector! It can't even change your sims baby cats edition.
You could turn Windows into a solid security machine if you just did that. People would start downloading junk they find off the internet and liking it.
Clinton kept our deficit low, and it was ingenious if he would have got a balanced budget amendment passed.
He spent 1/2 the money on this project getting it started then 1/4 closing it down, if he would have just spent 1/4 it would have been completed and bringing in physics jobs
Hello,
Some of us code our systems somewhat like a finite state machine, and we figure our machine will never operate outside it.
If you're testing if something that increments ever hits a number(like 10) and goes back to 0, instead of checking if it ==10, check if it is >9.
There are a lot of defensive coding mechanisms you can use. The downside of this is that when you debug, something can sneak by and put you outside of a state you want, so it makes it ever so slightly harder to debug. But if you're making software that will be used by the public that is hard to give updates, defensive programming can save the day here and there.,Jim
Me: *cracks open a Yuengling beer"
TV: *watches me and scans the room through video camera*
TV: Wouldn't you rather have a Coors Light? If you don't like the taste of beer, Coors has less taste as it is designed to be closer to water.
Me: *Sips some Yuengling*
Me: No thanks TV, I like my beer's taste.
TV: One way or another you're going to taste the silver bullet.
Me: "You'll have to pry my Yuengling out of my cold dead hands."
TV: Okay... *fires a gun at me, wounding me*
Me: "How could TV betray me! These spy cameras were supposed to be innocent and the people who were supposed to be spied on is the enemy."
TV: You betrayed your country by not buying the things in the ads. How will the patriotic television exist if you don't buy what is in the ads? It was either me or you kid.
TV: *fires a few more bullets*
Me: *aaaaarrgh*
TV: "Recording deleted for security concerns"
So what you're saying is that in Korea, they don't HFT the stocks anymore. The more markets you take away, the better. It doesn't have to be perfect to impact the problem. And don't underestimate how much the taxes would help. Just because people invest doesn't mean that makes the world a better place in and of itself. Of course the government doesn't necessarily help either. But shifting the burden of taxes off the poor is humanitarian.
Stocks/bonds/commodoties have an undodgable tax of 0.2%? This is collected out of the trade automatically and sent to DC in real time.
I'm not in a thinking mood whether this should be on sales or purchase. It would hurt high frequency traders because they'd be paying mad taxes, but people who invest like a sane man for long term the tax is negligable.
If you're looking into one way trips, you'd be the first person to land on the sun. Though I don't think it would serve much purpose to bring a flag along.
Since Microsoft has no desire to secure its OS, you can get a virus at the slightest thing. It wouldn't be difficult to secure Windows OS. Just secure it so things can't be installed outside the directory you put them in, and can't affect things outside that directory. Leave a backwards compatibility mode for those who's systems rely on legacy software.
Once you register a vote, it prints out for you validate. If it isn't who you voted for, you call the voting officials. You can't fool all the people. Enough people will check that you can't change votes when they are counted. And you can't change the votes later because the paper will be held securely and counted by different people who count the electronic votes.
The only reason places like MTV tell people to vote is this:
People who watch MTV might subscribe to a liberal philosophy for example and vote Democrat. Democratic committee sees this and pays MTV. They then say vote when what they really mean is,"We want you to vote democratic!"
This isn't an endorsement for Dems or Reps, just a big dose of reality. If everyone voted, it doesn't make the world a better place other than the guys in charge being scared if they tried to remove voting from us. That is the reason I vote even if I can't change the outcome, I'm a +1 count on who voted. Don't try and take voting away from us or you'll have a true revolution.
To a lesser extent I am not a fan of electronic voting, there's rumors they've been hacked in the US already... Like when Romney won a place by 1% and that place just so happened to be a place a woman accidentally took the results home with her and wasn't heard for hours... Electronic voting needs a paper validator printed out, or hacking will be increasingly a problem. The candidates never are responsible, just a supporter who is rogue gives hackers some money and "Do your best out there, and you never heard from me."
Just like when we had prohibition of alcohol, people were going blind from stills, refusing to regulate pot means they can make poisonous alternatives. I've heard of people getting real sick and permanently maimed off of designer drugs. The worst that can happen with pot is that you try and drive somewhere intoxicated. Pot doesn't even cause lung cancer like cigarettes(You can google many mainstream scientific studies).
Legalization of pot would harm gangs who sell pot in addition to removing pot from being a gateway drug. Since people would no longer go to underground dealers for pot, they would no longer have access to the other underground connections.
Slashdot Mirror
...applications for use on cellular phones and/or tablet devices that require communication with a server to perform a license check to prevent the unauthorized use of said application...
Sometimes Battle.net 2.0 is all about logging on to a server to play a singleplayer or LAN game.
Software patents are so dumb. Just because some idiot patents something obvious doesn't mean the rest of us should not be able to do the obvious thing. What if someone patented walking in a straight line? The rest of society would be relegated to drinking heavily, or inventing silly walks.
Your logic does not pertain to my argument.
I merely say that you should be secure, and not boast about being secure.
You're talking about a strawman where easy to hack systems are hacked more. Of course easy to hack systems are going to be hacked more. My argument wasn't arguing against that.
I just say that the minute you start boasting about your security, you draw more people in to try and hack it. Unless you're a sicko ready to pursue an arms race to "Hacker Armageddon", you never boast about your device or code being unhackable.
From my experience with hackers, if you say your platform is more challenging to hack, it attracts more hackers to try and hack it. Never taunt happy fun hackers.
Obfuscating your security is okay, but obfuscating the fact you have a bunch of anti-hacks in place seems even better.
I've been looking into anti hacker theory ever since Starcraft 1 maphackers ruined ladder.
My sentence structure was ambiguous. When I said nothing of value is lost there, I meant if they turned television into one giant infomercial. Digg was actually a real loss because it was a very good community they trashed because they wanted to feed mass mindless advertising while making it look like users submit it. For a while Digg.com was fun to go to watch the train wreck and everyone trashing it in the comments, but then their advertisements started becoming links to virus sites, so I stopped even visiting so I could mock them.
Digg was good for social media. People would submit stories, and then the cool ones would come to the top. Apparently a minor problem arose with power users who could spam their friends with messages,"Digg this cuz ur my friend", and a lot of them would. These power users eventually started getting corporate sponsor to astroturf, and their friends were oblivious so they still got Diggs. The actual user base didn't have much of a problem with this as you could read user names and just ignore them. I think the proper solution was to allow people to permanently ignore user posts, then power user spam would have been fixed.
Where Digg went wrong was,"We gotta beat these power users to their own game!" So they made it so users could no longer submit stories. And then your entire feed was all corporate sponsored advertising. This is equivalent of turning prime time television into one giant informercial. I know nothing of value is lost there, but in social media, this is a group of people moderating news and it was pretty valuable until they killed it thinking we're all bunch of sheep who will just sit there and read advertisements all day.
I'm glad Digg.com is dead. I just hope Reddit.com doesn't pull something stupid too.
Those are also known as Chuck Norris streams, because you do not cross them or people might die.
Well I did hear from God after listening to Bob Marley in 2003 :)
This is pretty good music to chill out to
I just find it amusing, I'm listening to some Bob, even No woman No Cry when I run across this article
I wanna read a biography on the man sometime. I hear he even brokered peace between two nations at one point.
Isn't that their plan?
I think an executable would be fine. I think executables would be what lets Linux take off in the market more.
The key is: Do not let an executable change data in any directory other than where it is installed. This way it can't change the system boot sector! It can't even change your sims baby cats edition.
You could turn Windows into a solid security machine if you just did that. People would start downloading junk they find off the internet and liking it.
Clinton kept our deficit low, and it was ingenious if he would have got a balanced budget amendment passed.
He spent 1/2 the money on this project getting it started then 1/4 closing it down, if he would have just spent 1/4 it would have been completed and bringing in physics jobs
Since you have access to a phone's contacts: I'm surprised you didn't skim phones for them, and add them as friends automatically.
Hello, Some of us code our systems somewhat like a finite state machine, and we figure our machine will never operate outside it.
,Jim
If you're testing if something that increments ever hits a number(like 10) and goes back to 0, instead of checking if it ==10, check if it is >9.
There are a lot of defensive coding mechanisms you can use. The downside of this is that when you debug, something can sneak by and put you outside of a state you want, so it makes it ever so slightly harder to debug. But if you're making software that will be used by the public that is hard to give updates, defensive programming can save the day here and there.
Me: *cracks open a Yuengling beer"
TV: *watches me and scans the room through video camera*
TV: Wouldn't you rather have a Coors Light? If you don't like the taste of beer, Coors has less taste as it is designed to be closer to water.
Me: *Sips some Yuengling*
Me: No thanks TV, I like my beer's taste.
TV: One way or another you're going to taste the silver bullet.
Me: "You'll have to pry my Yuengling out of my cold dead hands."
TV: Okay... *fires a gun at me, wounding me*
Me: "How could TV betray me! These spy cameras were supposed to be innocent and the people who were supposed to be spied on is the enemy."
TV: You betrayed your country by not buying the things in the ads. How will the patriotic television exist if you don't buy what is in the ads? It was either me or you kid.
TV: *fires a few more bullets*
Me: *aaaaarrgh*
TV: "Recording deleted for security concerns"
Or Night of the Lupus...
Joking aside, this sounds seriously legit! Will ambulances be carrying around machines to inject this into people like an IV?
So what you're saying is that in Korea, they don't HFT the stocks anymore. The more markets you take away, the better. It doesn't have to be perfect to impact the problem. And don't underestimate how much the taxes would help. Just because people invest doesn't mean that makes the world a better place in and of itself. Of course the government doesn't necessarily help either. But shifting the burden of taxes off the poor is humanitarian.
How hard would it be to say:
Stocks/bonds/commodoties have an undodgable tax of 0.2%? This is collected out of the trade automatically and sent to DC in real time.
I'm not in a thinking mood whether this should be on sales or purchase. It would hurt high frequency traders because they'd be paying mad taxes, but people who invest like a sane man for long term the tax is negligable.
If you're looking into one way trips, you'd be the first person to land on the sun. Though I don't think it would serve much purpose to bring a flag along.
I am still using the programming language made a long time ago C3PO. You'd be surprised how similar it is to Jawa.
Since Microsoft has no desire to secure its OS, you can get a virus at the slightest thing. It wouldn't be difficult to secure Windows OS. Just secure it so things can't be installed outside the directory you put them in, and can't affect things outside that directory. Leave a backwards compatibility mode for those who's systems rely on legacy software.
Here is how the paper trail works:
Once you register a vote, it prints out for you validate. If it isn't who you voted for, you call the voting officials. You can't fool all the people. Enough people will check that you can't change votes when they are counted. And you can't change the votes later because the paper will be held securely and counted by different people who count the electronic votes.
The only reason places like MTV tell people to vote is this:
People who watch MTV might subscribe to a liberal philosophy for example and vote Democrat. Democratic committee sees this and pays MTV. They then say vote when what they really mean is,"We want you to vote democratic!"
This isn't an endorsement for Dems or Reps, just a big dose of reality. If everyone voted, it doesn't make the world a better place other than the guys in charge being scared if they tried to remove voting from us. That is the reason I vote even if I can't change the outcome, I'm a +1 count on who voted. Don't try and take voting away from us or you'll have a true revolution.
To a lesser extent I am not a fan of electronic voting, there's rumors they've been hacked in the US already... Like when Romney won a place by 1% and that place just so happened to be a place a woman accidentally took the results home with her and wasn't heard for hours... Electronic voting needs a paper validator printed out, or hacking will be increasingly a problem. The candidates never are responsible, just a supporter who is rogue gives hackers some money and "Do your best out there, and you never heard from me."
Not really. I've searched for a job for like 10 years in Pittsburgh and only even got one interview. I'm a highly talented computer programmer.
Just like when we had prohibition of alcohol, people were going blind from stills, refusing to regulate pot means they can make poisonous alternatives. I've heard of people getting real sick and permanently maimed off of designer drugs. The worst that can happen with pot is that you try and drive somewhere intoxicated. Pot doesn't even cause lung cancer like cigarettes(You can google many mainstream scientific studies).
Legalization of pot would harm gangs who sell pot in addition to removing pot from being a gateway drug. Since people would no longer go to underground dealers for pot, they would no longer have access to the other underground connections.
"The Cloud" is unreliable for saving you all fires. If it is a very big fire, "The Cloud" only has so much rain in it.