If you believe the terrorists were stupid for going for the world trade center, and other high profile buildings, then you don't really understand how they think, nor what their intentions were. You need to put more effort into your exercise. I'll grade your essay a C+.
Sure, they know how far away you are, but they're not advertising only for you. They're advertising for all potential customers. There exist customers that can reach that top speed.
I do agree partially though. They're not telling you what the average connection speed is, and how likely it is that you'll fall below the max. I'd like the advertisements to at least mention mean levels and standard derivations. In small writing is sufficient.
Because the comment was snarky and impolite. Sure, the truth hurts, as you say, but there are many ways of speaking the truth. You chose a way which attacked the self-esteem of the person you were commenting about. That's what galls me.
Why should anybody give a shit what I say?
I like people to be considerate and constructive with their comments. Sure, what you said doesn't affect me directly, but I felt it necessary to voice my objection. Now hopefully others reading these comments may learn that it isn't the nicest thing to say.
I never said they weren't valid. I merely hinted that some of his thoughts and feelings were likely to be reasons that he hasn't dated anyone yet.
Your comment attacked his self-esteem. He may be thick-skinned, and can handle it, but that doesn't justify the comment. By saying that I believe his thoughts were valid, I was attempting to show that I support the way he thinks. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but I support it.
His point was, a diamond on a ring is not useful (well, unless you're MacGyver). He thinks it would be much nicer to get your partner something that they'd find of use. I can appreciate that point of view. I've met a few women who think that way as well. It's not beyond the point of possibility for him to meet a like-minded woman.
First time I've ever been accused of possibly being obtuse. Interesting. You may have a point. I sometimes miss obvious details, which my partner at that time will gleefully correct me on. That's one thing I've noticed all women have in common.;)
I know you said that jokingly, but that sort of comment just galls me. It's insulting to bluefoxlucid, and the many women out there who have no desire for a big diamond ring, nor a fancy wedding. His thoughts are valid, and there are females out there who will agree with him.
There's nothing like that in the citation that I gave. I'm not saying that management were perfect; they were not. Neither was Terry.
According to what I've read, he was asked to give access to a user he knew was authorised. Terry did not do this. That, to me, is an arrogant action. I believe Terry felt like he owned the systems he managed, and he was loath to part with control over them. That was wrong of him. He is now paying the price for that, which I think is too harsh, but that's the law there.
This is a comment from a juror presiding over his trial. The juror makes a number of very interesting comments in that slashdot article. It's worth a read.
This is a notice to network admins that your bosses don't want security or good workers. They want "Yes!" men.
They also want workers that will give access to authorised personnel. Terry didn't do that. Withholding his password is fine, but he also refused to give admin access to people he _knew_ were authorised for it.
I once had a co-worker that disabled admin rights for me (and some others) to the network switches and routers at work. He wanted to lock it down just to people that maintained it (his justification), although I learnt that he had given access to his clique, which included people that were certainly not responsible for network maintenance. Anyway, this prevented me from debugging issues that were handed to me to solve. I tried dealing with him directly, but he was frustratingly obstinate, dismissing out of hand any argument that I gave for my access. I eventually had to ask management to talk with him. Access was grudgingly given back to me.
Thankfully, the guy has now left the company. He caused me enough grief. If he had been like Terry Childs though, it would have been worse.
Make sure you enable pass through mode, otherwise the javascript keyboard event handler will not receive your keystrokes. It's rather frustrating playing a game where your plane does not move. Would have been amusing if I made it through the level anyway.
You must have scored a bad batch of Cascade, as it's a great beer. Carlton Cold is very good as well. Crown larger is awesome. Tooheys Dry is worth a drink. All of these are far better than Fosters. I really can't believe you tried to compare Cascade to Fosters. Shame on you!
Blue Tongue is a Hunter Valley beer. Brewed in NSW, not in Tazzie. It started as a micro brewery, but it has become much more commercial now. You're right. It's a very good beer.
In specific examples, that may work. It assumes a familiarity with all different websites on any given IP, and how they load off-site content. That's a tall order. Not impossible, but very unlikely.
The only truly deterministic method of logging visited websites would be packet data inspection, and logging the Site header in the http transfer.
I agree with most people. The background images were quite annoying. They upset the simplicity of the Google search page.
But, the images themselves were great. Does anybody know where Google picked them up from? Is there a handy link to browse those images? They may just make a good background for my desktop.
The censorship is crazy, I agree, but it hasn't gone through yet. There is talk of legislation for it towards the end of the year, but currently it hasn't passed through the democratic process. So far, it's all talk, and a little bit of 'convenient' test results.
Crazy laws, like having a button on Facebook where Australians can report online crime to Australian police? What is crazy about that? How is it different than providing a phone number to report crime? Look at it this way, it's an attempt by the Australian police to modernise the way they work. Don't you want your law enforcement to enter the modern age?
Sure, there will probably be issues with identity and a high rate of false calls, but at least they're trying something different.
I'm not familiar with Facebook development. Couldn't the Australian police just develop a Facebook app and restrict usage to Australian residents?
Ummm, where in the article did it mention that Google was getting sued? They're being investigated to see if they've broken Australian law. It's an investigation. No conclusion has come of it yet.
Seems like a fairly reasonable thing to do. I wouldn't call it idiotic.
No regards to laws? That's a rather over the top statement. It seems they have some regard for laws, considering they're cooperating with authorities. They've admitted they made a mistake, and have apologised for it. What else do you want them to do, publicly flagellate themselves?
No respect for privacy? Sure, I guess that's why they have a privacy policy. It's because they have no respect for it. Yeah, that's it.
I can't believe the rhetoric that is being spouted in the above post. Is it a Microsoft shill trying to cast aspersions under the guise of Anonymous Coward? You'd think they could afford more subtle posters.
Well, it does make a change from all the stories about America. As per your example:
'American Man Takes Shit In Morning!'
'American Schools Buy New Computers!'
'Slashdot Editor Says "Fuck News, Let's Just Promote My Country"!'
Personally, if the news is interesting to nerds anywhere on the planet, it should be on Slashdot. It does have an international viewer base, after all.
The Slashdot summary article explains why this is news. The Air Force now cannot buy used PS3s to replace units, since the used consoles will likely have their firmware updated. They can't even send the console to Sony to repair, since they come back with updated firmware. That point was from the actual article, not the Slashdot one.
Good PR with nerds is more important than you think.
Nerds are often consulted when their family members are purchasing consumer electronics. If you piss off that small segment, there is a large follow on to the general market. Nerds are also quite active in tech related forums and groups. They can also be very vocal when they're annoyed.
The only cost to Sony with the Other OS feature, was in maintaining their hypervisor code for it. They didn't support the feature over the phone, so there was no technical support cost for them.
Linux was never going to be a tool for pirating games directly. It's just a stepping stone to developing a hack for the PS3 Game OS. Once that hack has been developed, then technically speaking, the hackers won't need Linux any more. They'll be able to load their own homebrew through the PS3 Game OS directly.
The strange thing is, this update will not affect the people developing the hack. The hackers just won't update. So, in this case, Sony are actually being *that* stupid.
Wow, you really do dislike Joss Whedon. I'm impressed.
I personally think he does a great job with producing. You regularly point out his failings, but fail to mention his successes. That's a one-sided view, my friend.
You really thought that Dollhouse looked like a set? You must have a keener eye than me. Everything looked very real, as far as I could tell.
Tell me, what did you think of casting Enver Gjokaj as Victor? The point in the second episode where he was imprinted with Topher's mind was brilliant! He replicated every nuance of the character. I was stunned by how good it was. Dichen Lachman also put in a terrific performance.
But you are right, Joss Whedon's strength is his dialogue. He always manages to hint at cliché, and then stabs it in the back with a viscous twist. I enjoy that tremendously.
Anyway, I've enjoyed every show that Joss Whedon has created. He has a masterful control of situation and twist. Can't believe you're comparing him to JJ Abrams and "Lost". Do you want me to flashback to Michael screaming out "Walt!" once more? I enjoy watching the show, but I laugh more than what is possibly intended.
Justification? The only reason they've given is "security concerns", whatever that is. Sony have been very tight-lipped about it, even though there have been close to 10,000 posts on the issue, in official forums.
Everyone thinks it's because of the Geohot PS3 hack, which needs Linux access to work. The strange thing is, the PS3 hack will never be able to run copied games. What it does is allow hackers to read previously hidden system internal code.
So basically, the hackers will never upgrade, and the only people stung by this update are the legitimate users. Yes, it's a pretty stupid move by Sony.
As for legality, I'm not a lawyer, but I agree that it does seem very wrong for a company to retroactively remove features after purchase. I'm pretty sure it does break a few consumer protection laws around the world.
I believe that Sony allowing Linux to run on the PS3 took the majority of hacker heat off it. That's why I think the PS3 has been unhacked for all these years.
But wait, Sony don't allow you to run Linux on the PS3 any more. Oh well, looks like the PS3 will soon have pirated games.
It is a joke, but I'm not sure that Sony realise that.
The strange thing is, there's no technically valid reason for disabling the Other OS feature. The hack cannot be used to run pirated games. It is only a stepping stone to further exploits, which will be usable on all machines, regardless of whether they run Other OS or not.
So basically, Sony are closing down Other OS to try and stop the hackers, but those hackers will never update their machines to the new firmware. They will never be affected. Hence, this update is 100% useless. Q.E.D
Actually, the majority of refused classification games are modified, or classification appealed. Then they're moved to a lower rating, thus allowing kids to get the games.
There are, of course, a few examples of games where that didn't work. The majority make it through, though.
Slashdot Mirror
If you believe the terrorists were stupid for going for the world trade center, and other high profile buildings, then you don't really understand how they think, nor what their intentions were. You need to put more effort into your exercise. I'll grade your essay a C+.
Sure, they know how far away you are, but they're not advertising only for you. They're advertising for all potential customers. There exist customers that can reach that top speed.
I do agree partially though. They're not telling you what the average connection speed is, and how likely it is that you'll fall below the max. I'd like the advertisements to at least mention mean levels and standard derivations. In small writing is sufficient.
Because the comment was snarky and impolite. Sure, the truth hurts, as you say, but there are many ways of speaking the truth. You chose a way which attacked the self-esteem of the person you were commenting about. That's what galls me.
I like people to be considerate and constructive with their comments. Sure, what you said doesn't affect me directly, but I felt it necessary to voice my objection. Now hopefully others reading these comments may learn that it isn't the nicest thing to say.
Your comment attacked his self-esteem. He may be thick-skinned, and can handle it, but that doesn't justify the comment. By saying that I believe his thoughts were valid, I was attempting to show that I support the way he thinks. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but I support it.
His point was, a diamond on a ring is not useful (well, unless you're MacGyver). He thinks it would be much nicer to get your partner something that they'd find of use. I can appreciate that point of view. I've met a few women who think that way as well. It's not beyond the point of possibility for him to meet a like-minded woman.
First time I've ever been accused of possibly being obtuse. Interesting. You may have a point. I sometimes miss obvious details, which my partner at that time will gleefully correct me on. That's one thing I've noticed all women have in common. ;)
I know you said that jokingly, but that sort of comment just galls me. It's insulting to bluefoxlucid, and the many women out there who have no desire for a big diamond ring, nor a fancy wedding. His thoughts are valid, and there are females out there who will agree with him.
There's nothing like that in the citation that I gave. I'm not saying that management were perfect; they were not. Neither was Terry.
According to what I've read, he was asked to give access to a user he knew was authorised. Terry did not do this. That, to me, is an arrogant action. I believe Terry felt like he owned the systems he managed, and he was loath to part with control over them. That was wrong of him. He is now paying the price for that, which I think is too harsh, but that's the law there.
You want a citation? Sure, no problem.
This is a comment from a juror presiding over his trial. The juror makes a number of very interesting comments in that slashdot article. It's worth a read.
They also want workers that will give access to authorised personnel. Terry didn't do that. Withholding his password is fine, but he also refused to give admin access to people he _knew_ were authorised for it.
I once had a co-worker that disabled admin rights for me (and some others) to the network switches and routers at work. He wanted to lock it down just to people that maintained it (his justification), although I learnt that he had given access to his clique, which included people that were certainly not responsible for network maintenance. Anyway, this prevented me from debugging issues that were handed to me to solve. I tried dealing with him directly, but he was frustratingly obstinate, dismissing out of hand any argument that I gave for my access. I eventually had to ask management to talk with him. Access was grudgingly given back to me.
Thankfully, the guy has now left the company. He caused me enough grief. If he had been like Terry Childs though, it would have been worse.
Make sure you enable pass through mode, otherwise the javascript keyboard event handler will not receive your keystrokes. It's rather frustrating playing a game where your plane does not move. Would have been amusing if I made it through the level anyway.
You must have scored a bad batch of Cascade, as it's a great beer. Carlton Cold is very good as well. Crown larger is awesome. Tooheys Dry is worth a drink. All of these are far better than Fosters. I really can't believe you tried to compare Cascade to Fosters. Shame on you!
Blue Tongue is a Hunter Valley beer. Brewed in NSW, not in Tazzie. It started as a micro brewery, but it has become much more commercial now. You're right. It's a very good beer.
In specific examples, that may work. It assumes a familiarity with all different websites on any given IP, and how they load off-site content. That's a tall order. Not impossible, but very unlikely.
The only truly deterministic method of logging visited websites would be packet data inspection, and logging the Site header in the http transfer.
I was thinking that they've only just created the 7-atom transistor, and now they've made a whole server from just 512 of them!
Oh well, maybe next year.
I agree with most people. The background images were quite annoying. They upset the simplicity of the Google search page.
But, the images themselves were great. Does anybody know where Google picked them up from? Is there a handy link to browse those images? They may just make a good background for my desktop.
The censorship is crazy, I agree, but it hasn't gone through yet. There is talk of legislation for it towards the end of the year, but currently it hasn't passed through the democratic process. So far, it's all talk, and a little bit of 'convenient' test results.
Crazy laws, like having a button on Facebook where Australians can report online crime to Australian police? What is crazy about that? How is it different than providing a phone number to report crime? Look at it this way, it's an attempt by the Australian police to modernise the way they work. Don't you want your law enforcement to enter the modern age?
Sure, there will probably be issues with identity and a high rate of false calls, but at least they're trying something different.
I'm not familiar with Facebook development. Couldn't the Australian police just develop a Facebook app and restrict usage to Australian residents?
Ummm, where in the article did it mention that Google was getting sued? They're being investigated to see if they've broken Australian law. It's an investigation. No conclusion has come of it yet.
Seems like a fairly reasonable thing to do. I wouldn't call it idiotic.
No regards to laws? That's a rather over the top statement. It seems they have some regard for laws, considering they're cooperating with authorities. They've admitted they made a mistake, and have apologised for it. What else do you want them to do, publicly flagellate themselves?
No respect for privacy? Sure, I guess that's why they have a privacy policy. It's because they have no respect for it. Yeah, that's it.
I can't believe the rhetoric that is being spouted in the above post. Is it a Microsoft shill trying to cast aspersions under the guise of Anonymous Coward? You'd think they could afford more subtle posters.
Well, it does make a change from all the stories about America. As per your example:
'American Man Takes Shit In Morning!'
'American Schools Buy New Computers!'
'Slashdot Editor Says "Fuck News, Let's Just Promote My Country"!'
Personally, if the news is interesting to nerds anywhere on the planet, it should be on Slashdot. It does have an international viewer base, after all.
It was not as much an issue before, because the Air Force could buy used PS3s to replace any units. Now, they can't even do that.
The Slashdot summary article explains why this is news. The Air Force now cannot buy used PS3s to replace units, since the used consoles will likely have their firmware updated. They can't even send the console to Sony to repair, since they come back with updated firmware. That point was from the actual article, not the Slashdot one.
Good PR with nerds is more important than you think.
Nerds are often consulted when their family members are purchasing consumer electronics. If you piss off that small segment, there is a large follow on to the general market. Nerds are also quite active in tech related forums and groups. They can also be very vocal when they're annoyed.
The only cost to Sony with the Other OS feature, was in maintaining their hypervisor code for it. They didn't support the feature over the phone, so there was no technical support cost for them.
Linux was never going to be a tool for pirating games directly. It's just a stepping stone to developing a hack for the PS3 Game OS. Once that hack has been developed, then technically speaking, the hackers won't need Linux any more. They'll be able to load their own homebrew through the PS3 Game OS directly.
The strange thing is, this update will not affect the people developing the hack. The hackers just won't update. So, in this case, Sony are actually being *that* stupid.
Wow, you really do dislike Joss Whedon. I'm impressed.
I personally think he does a great job with producing. You regularly point out his failings, but fail to mention his successes. That's a one-sided view, my friend.
You really thought that Dollhouse looked like a set? You must have a keener eye than me. Everything looked very real, as far as I could tell.
Tell me, what did you think of casting Enver Gjokaj as Victor? The point in the second episode where he was imprinted with Topher's mind was brilliant! He replicated every nuance of the character. I was stunned by how good it was. Dichen Lachman also put in a terrific performance.
But you are right, Joss Whedon's strength is his dialogue. He always manages to hint at cliché, and then stabs it in the back with a viscous twist. I enjoy that tremendously.
Anyway, I've enjoyed every show that Joss Whedon has created. He has a masterful control of situation and twist. Can't believe you're comparing him to JJ Abrams and "Lost". Do you want me to flashback to Michael screaming out "Walt!" once more? I enjoy watching the show, but I laugh more than what is possibly intended.
Does this mean that, when "Lorentz" covers all plugins, we can install and update plugins without having to restart Firefox?
That would be a worthwhile feature. It's annoying having to restart the browser for any plugin changes.
Justification? The only reason they've given is "security concerns", whatever that is. Sony have been very tight-lipped about it, even though there have been close to 10,000 posts on the issue, in official forums.
Everyone thinks it's because of the Geohot PS3 hack, which needs Linux access to work. The strange thing is, the PS3 hack will never be able to run copied games. What it does is allow hackers to read previously hidden system internal code.
So basically, the hackers will never upgrade, and the only people stung by this update are the legitimate users. Yes, it's a pretty stupid move by Sony.
As for legality, I'm not a lawyer, but I agree that it does seem very wrong for a company to retroactively remove features after purchase. I'm pretty sure it does break a few consumer protection laws around the world.
I believe that Sony allowing Linux to run on the PS3 took the majority of hacker heat off it. That's why I think the PS3 has been unhacked for all these years.
But wait, Sony don't allow you to run Linux on the PS3 any more. Oh well, looks like the PS3 will soon have pirated games.
It is a joke, but I'm not sure that Sony realise that.
The strange thing is, there's no technically valid reason for disabling the Other OS feature. The hack cannot be used to run pirated games. It is only a stepping stone to further exploits, which will be usable on all machines, regardless of whether they run Other OS or not.
So basically, Sony are closing down Other OS to try and stop the hackers, but those hackers will never update their machines to the new firmware. They will never be affected. Hence, this update is 100% useless. Q.E.D
Actually, the majority of refused classification games are modified, or classification appealed. Then they're moved to a lower rating, thus allowing kids to get the games.
There are, of course, a few examples of games where that didn't work. The majority make it through, though.