That's my trick too. Works better than anything else because it's final, clear, puts pressure on them to not be recorded breaking the law, and is backed by a bigger company. (Visa wants me as a customer enough to help fight this crap.)
My cell phone company tried that for the phone I cancelled, I told them that it was illegal and that I'd stop payment with Visa over it. Moreover, I specifically told the Rep that I was recording this call and would use it as proof that I had notified the company of this and supplied to VIsa. He put me on hold for less than a minute and told me that there would be absolutely no charges.
The trick was putting his neck on the line. As long as he's anonymously holding me up, he's in the clear. As soon as he's the fall-guy in the scenario he starts playing nice. Must take a real creep to do this sort of job.
Everyone: Do many cell phones have good line-out for this recording? I'm using the phone in speaker-phone mode which is horrible for quality. I haven't see any mainstream phones that didn't require a proprietary cable to do this. Ideas?
If you buy into a franchise that is so corrupt it can't police its members, you're just paying into this corrupt organization... The "innocent" franchises are just the ones that are less blatant, and even a theoretical honest franchise is guilty by financial association.
I've never had it take more than 10 minutes to cancel unless I got talked into a lesser deal. My cell-phones went from $200/m to $30 (for a lesser plan, but one they didn't offer normally), at that point it wasn't worth canceling. For everything else I just absolutely refuse to listen to anything else and I tell them that I really don't care if they cancel the account or not, that I've stopped payment and I'm just calling making an honest effort to tell them this. I record these calls and intend to be able to use them as proof later, but this no-nonsense approach has always worked so far. Nobody wants a customer recording them nearly breaking the law...
Seriously though, what's the problem? Change the password to something random so nobody can ever log in again.
I never delete accounts on blogs/etc because it screws with history. Similarly, I never delete content just because someone doesn't like what they said last week.
This article is about companies who almost refuse to stop billing you. When I have a business that charges you, you have a reason to ask me to stop. You don't have a right to ask me to delete all records related to serving you and/or storing content related to you. Even under privacy laws you don't - you said/did something in virtual 'public' and have no expectation of privacy.
I hate people like you. Seriously Toby, you. Your attitude of flaunting the rules for a "good reason" without investigating it in the slightest is ignorance and you revel in it. As if your slack-jawed, instantly-formed opinion on the rights of a supposedly morally offended person justify the abuse of our legal system, outright fraud and provable lies.
If you actually tried to understand something before having your knee-jerk response to it, you might contribute something. As is, your random bleating is merely interfering with your betters having a real discussion of the societal implications of corruption and quashing free-speech.
You misread that. Wikipedia is saying that the screenshot in question was made by the developer hitting print-screen, not just of his application... If you made your own screenshot by print-screen or camera, or software you owned (or had even pirated or shoplifted) you would still own your copyright on that specific screenshot and be allowed to publish it.
and the copyright for it is most likely held by the author(s) They'd have said "and THUS the copyright..." if they had meant that one followed from the other.
Under US law, which this is, the recorder of the video owns the copyright, or if someone paid them to record the content, they hold the copyright unless contracted otherwise (which it virtually always is for photographers).
So, everyone at the event, by invite or not, against instructions or not, *owns* their screenshots of the event and is fully entitled to publish it and/or grant others (YouTube) the right to do so.
This is true unless everyone at the event was being paid to create/film it, in which the organizations which paid them would have the rights mentioned above.
As someone else points out, there are exceptions to the ownership of a picture you take. Usually, you own the copyright to your additions to the derivative work (If you take a picture of my sculpture I don't own your picture - you merely can't lawfully publish it). The picture becomes a non-derivative work when the interest is mainly not my sculpture, for its own artistic reasons. For instance, if my sculpture broke, you could sell a video of the breaking, but not the high-res stills you took while it was in one piece. Further, a photo of the sculpture again becomes publishable if it's newsworthy and people can see if from public property - the picture isn't the sculpture, it's the sculpture in the park, which is not just a blatant copy (depending on context).
The essence of this is that there are very few times when someone isn't able to video something, or own the content when they do. They might not be able to publish it without violating other copyrights, but this almost always goes in favor of the creator of the potentially derivative work.
No, why do people have this broken property metaphor? Virtual space is infinite, why buy into a system where it's artificially limited.
Why "rent" a tiny plot from some virtual landlord who thereby controls your server resources? Why are acreage and CPU power linked?
SL is a horribly designed system, imho because Linden Labs wanted to design a cash cow - have people paying maintenance fees on their creations when they total a few K in a database. If Ms Chung didn't exist they'd have invented her - someone to convince everyone else that "land" in the game has value.
And really, just being able to communicate with the server and change something is the important thing. This is what changes the "business logic", the rest is just window dressing. When there's an implementation difficulty in an area it's usually better if the developer avoid that feature instead of trying to make it work. Perhaps text won't rollover, or align in some way, but better than it looks a little clunky for everyone than not work for anyone.
Write in whatever style results in the easiest to understand code that works. If you're modeling physical things, OOP is often that paradigm, but you can do OOP in C - it's a philosophy as well, not just a technology. If you find it's a pain to make something fit OOP, maybe you examine it and it's not an analog of a thing but a non-concrete idea like security, perhaps it just isn't amenable to this abstraction.
Similarly, your object model should represent your data, not your programming hurdles. If you have five levels of class hierarchy for a Table, you're probably over-using inheritance.
Short understandable code - the "right way" is whatever the fastest way to achieve this is.
AJAX is a bit slower, per K of HTML, than straight HTML from the server because it receives XML and parses it into changes it makes to the DOM. That's the only technical limitation of AJAX, really.
If you try to receive 60K of XML and do complicated parsing in the browser, UGH. If instead you receive back 10-50 bytes and render this into important status updates, you save a 50k load and a corresponding wait, with the convenience of having a single action on a single page, so that going back doesn't appear to undo your event.
If you change *any* UI element, you're probably doing something wrong, standards are good. Your AJAX app shouldn't change how clicking in textboxes works, I agree, but neither should all the local Windows apps that do this. An old company I worked for deployed a phone-status package that exactly fit a 1024x768 page with standard-size windows bar. Any changes in this and it started to look horrible. If we changed the system font size it was almost unreadable. Needless to say, this is just before the otherwise successful company tanked. This was all done windows native, with MFC code. Had my testing team gotten our way the status page would have been HTML and worked static, having AJAX only to provide a live view. The web interface would have been faster and better, even with AJAX.
It's not the tech, it's how you. If you think not, that proves it's you... Real experts can use dangerous tools sparingly and safely.
You laugh, but most of this thread is people saying how the bug didn't work, mocking the guy. I'd rather patch a theoretical bug than sit around laughing with the fanbois over how lame it is the expect to find a bug in Apple software right until I contract my first virus. Mac users have drunk the "Unix is always secure" kool-aid. Heh.
Just keep laughing, and please totally ignore all bug reports. If it was important, Steve Jobs would have called you personally - seriously, Apple service is just *that* good.
Re:QuickTime + Flip4Mac + Perian = no need for VLC
on
Month of Apple Fixes
·
· Score: 1
Quite right. For all the talk of how Windows and Mac just work, it takes at least a full day to install a Windows machine with a full developer's suite of tools, virus scanners, etc. If I'd just had all the software made into a slipstreamed disk it would have been one thing, but you can't SSH from Windows, can't write Perl or Ruby, can't play any non-WMV video format more recent than MPEG2 without a special codec pack you have to download from a Russian site... Of course, you don't have the benefit of public-key signatures on the packages and a consistent installer interface to use to do this either.
I know that the Linux GUI might not have all the glitz of a Mac, but I can setup a new Debian box with everything I want in half an hour, including custom apps. Sound works, most videos work. (I can rarely play all my movies in any one OS or player, they're a mix of old and new and rarely use one nice set of codecs.)
My mom is currently using Linux and whenever someone sends her an attachment she can't open I just SSH in, open the desktop via VNC, and fix the problem with her watching. A properly setup Mac would be friendlier, a bit, but not really in the few apps she uses all the time, Firefox, Thunderbird, XMMS. Almost what was installed on her last Windows box (Mozilla, WinAmp...)
If you want to open a box and turn it on, get a Mac. If you want to run one script and have all your software installed and working, get Debian. If you want the worst user experience today, get Windows. Seriously, it's far from desktop ready!
But, in the sense that Slashdotters have probably been around longer (on the net at least) than Facebook and Myspace users, "we" probably have a good sense of what will kill a site.
These sites just don't offer much. Replacing MySpace could be a weekend project in RoR, for the technology. It's growing only because of the network effect - your friends are there and it seems that you should be too. But, when you've used one or two of these sites you quickly realize that they're all exactly the same and that MySpace doesn't offer anything over any other free web host.
I get that kids love chat, social networking, etc. But, MySpace is just LiveJournal with more sparkles and a much worse user interface. Kids don't love it because it's better than the alternative, but merely because it was the "first" with such a "Just post who you 'really' are" type of custom. But what distinguishes MySpace from other crappy networking sites? Nothing anymore. The only problem for these other sites is overcoming the network effect, getting people to use a smaller service.
Like with ICQ and then sixty other chat programs, then MSN, Jabber, and a handful of others that, because of smart clients (Trillian, etc) speak all the protocols. Eventually MySpace and Facebook are all going to have options to import any given other account onto their service - to have address books and chat lists across sites, etc. At that point, what's MySpace's draw going to be again? (Over all the identical services.)
There just isn't anything they can do to lock people in to using them. The kids don't like MySpace, they like their friends and currently use it to chat. Like you probably aren't an RFC(2)822 fanboi, but you use email because everyone uses it. When spam finally kills the unverified format you'll switch to something else, without losing all of your friends.
In the old net, with bad bookmarking and searching it was more important to have a set location. Now...? I think not.
I was going to address this, but cut it because I felt it was a bit off topic. I would like a system where we don't subsidize the self-inflicted injuries, but the issue of where we draw the line and how to do it would imho cause more problems than they're worth. In the way that a death penalty would be a great way to get rid of any truly vicious human criminal, but we can only be sure in a fraction of cases and the risk (killing an innocent) is too great for simply saving some money. Then there's the fact that the costs of implementing these painful solutions are often much higher than keeping the prisoner alive. I think the same would apply to a system that could, even remotely fairly, decide who lived and died.
Certainly, Harley riders with those Skullcaps aren't "worthy" uses of medical spending, but there are so many things that we think are harmful ranging from not getting enough exercise to eating too much red meat. This would require such a complex system of law to implement that I'd rather pay double for a friendly system that just accepted everyone.
That said, you're assuming that there's the slightest bit of reason behind drug laws. Heroin might be deadly, but it's classified the same as pot but you couldn't kill yourself with pot if you tried. It's also illegal in food and tincture, which goes to suggest that it isn't our health the government is concerned with.
What you said might make sense if I was talking about doing Crack, or drinking Moonshine, both of which actually killed/maimed people on a regular basis. I'm talking about Marijuana for the specific reason that it's banned for made-up reasons, but enforced as seriously as murder (long time in federal prison) plus they'll seize your house and car as well. Besides, if this was the issue, cigarettes, alcohol, fatty foods, etc would all be similarly illegal.
Would you honestly follow an EULA, or the DMCA in the privacy of your own home? If so, you're voluntarily a slave. These laws are passed specifically to make it easier to oppress you, taking away centuries of common-law rights (contract law), total abandonment of constitutional principles (copyright balance), and free speech, if you consider EULA's like Oracle's with a "can't comment on performance issues" NDA clause in it.
I'm willing to buy into a system of laws, even if they inconvenience me sometimes, but only when the system if rational as a whole and I'm represented within it. In our current system I'm *not* represented, have no recourse when I dislike the situation, and would be punished far beyond any fits-the-crime level for any infraction in the ever-growing list of crimes.
If you could possibly post easier to understand code stand does the same, in any language including English, I would be interested in seeing it. Try not to use any obfuscated function names like split or collect though, they're so hard to read.
I think that there is a higher morality that demands we ignore laws against "victimless crimes". I don't think any government should interfere in my life any more than strictly necessary for *your* safety. (My freedoms end at your nose.) I don't really drink, but I think alcohol prohibition was a horrible repressive policy - just like the current "War on Some Drugs".
As far as the age of the law goes, I can't see that it has any relevance. A stupid law is a stupid law, even if it's a really old stupid law. Had the government asked me to agree to the laws, in trade for tax money, and given me a realistic chance to refuse - then I might feel bound by them. As is, they're forced on me and aren't even useful for their stated purpose.
As for "civil" disobedience - that's what protesting by quietly breaking the law in my own home is. I speak out against laws I don't agree with, and I don't follow them if they're repressive and unfair, but I certainly won't turn my self in for punishment - I didn't do anything wrong.
If there was a chance for discussion, or alternatives, this would be different. If it wasn't forced on me by a system I already feel under-represented and over-taxed in, I might feel like a partner in the system instead of the victim. Never once has someone
And I got to write/test it interactively... I do agree about needless verbosity. Most programs would be better finished than optimized, code them in Ruby or Python and optimize any speed critical areas with C or anything else. C *is* premature optimization.
Did he say that people are *forced* to buy Pot, or did he suggest that because people like to, a law against it will make a criminal of people who do what was legal before the new law? By my reading of it, it seemed that he was saying that by picking things people like to do, you make it more likely that they will keep doing these things, thus being criminals.
After all, if heterosexual sex was made illegal, nobody would be forcing you into breaking that law with your wife, but I bet you would break it.
Laws against non-harmful substances are ridiculous. I feel absolutely no desire to comply with a law restricting my behavior in my own home, but to imply that I only have a right to civil disobedience when I volunteer my guilt to the government is ridiculous. That's the *worst* way to change policy, try it in China, they'll give you a free bullet. Try it in the USA and they'll only take everything you own away and toss you into the worst prisons in the first world.
The limit is ten, and they do *often* count as a single connection, but they take 15 minutes to recycle (ten people use shares on a server, then it's locked to the eleventh for 15 minutes) and this often fails to reset. I wrote an automated build system that checked the code out of Source Safe (this is probably the WORST pro-level product MS ever wrote!) and built on Linux. I'd have to reboot the Microsoft server every few days because the connection (which was properly terminated on Linux, and the Windows machine appeared to know was no longer connected) was still eating into the limit and pretty soon we'd get weird errors as apps developers had open (Source Safe, etc). We tried resetting the recovery time lower than 15 minutes but it lost connections faster... IMHO, Microsoft *couldn't* write a server OS that would run consistently - the 10 incoming connections limit is to make it look like XP could, if only for licensing.
Besides, I'll *never* spec *anything* for a company that won't run at 100% on any hardware and at any problem. I'll never spec anything limited to X connections, Y CPUs, Z memory, etc.
Oracle might be better, but if it's got code in it to limit its performance at any point, that's an unacceptable risk. As I mentioned above, WinXP loses track of this and breaks my apps. Oracle won't run on machines with more CPUs than purchased, meaning that one client had a day of downtime when they bought a dual-CPU machine and couldn't get Oracle to start without expensive Oracle support. Even if WinXP had a 1000-connection limit that never failed, it would be unacceptable in case we ever needed 1010 connections. A Linux box would do this, simple slowing under load, a proprietary solution never will. Oracle might as well be MySQL for its uptime at this place - Oracle's copy protection destroyed any benefits this company got from thousands of dollars of licensing and astronomical consulting fees. Amusingly, had they gone with the cheap solution and hired some geek to put PostgreSQL on a cheap beige-box they'd have gotten much better results. Instead, Larry Wall and Bill Gates got a bit richer by selling products inferior to free ones.
You are correct to question SCs because as password-generators (at heart) they offer only one type of authentication, and trade a shorter password for multiple longer ones, representing a security loss vs ideal memorization, but a theoretical real-world (heh) gain because the password wouldn't be rot-26 encoded on paper anymore. The gain is theoretical, as there are many ways to get past the best tamper-proof equipment and such - UV sensitive dust on the keypad and check for fingerprint on the PIN keys... It's a running battle.
As for MITM attacks though, the algorithms are what give you strength, not the device. Having a shared secret (a password) or a public key to their private key, allows you to write messages that only the other can understand. In this case the first message sent can be encrypted because the secret is already known - there is nothing plaintext for the MITM to overhear.
As for biometrics, they are usually bunk but in this case a biometric could be a free extra check - you have to put your fingers on it to use it anyways. It can't really reduce security as long as the same PIN is require, but it would introduce many modes of failure for the device and require bare-handed operation. Likely a loss.
runas - the Windows equivalent to sudo. Launch the compiler and debugger as admin. Alternatively, login as admin, and use runas to launch your executable as a low-priv user. The former is a "better" development platform, the latter is easier to get used to. Both are world better than developing an app that needs admin but shouldn't.
Even if part of the app needs admin the UI shouldn't, and the installer should use the least privilege possible for everything.
Perhaps then the OSx86 project streamlines installation a bit more, you'll install OS X on your PC. Piracy was Microsoft's big distribution channel, now Apple can take it away with a vengence.
Slashdot Mirror
That's my trick too. Works better than anything else because it's final, clear, puts pressure on them to not be recorded breaking the law, and is backed by a bigger company. (Visa wants me as a customer enough to help fight this crap.)
My cell phone company tried that for the phone I cancelled, I told them that it was illegal and that I'd stop payment with Visa over it. Moreover, I specifically told the Rep that I was recording this call and would use it as proof that I had notified the company of this and supplied to VIsa. He put me on hold for less than a minute and told me that there would be absolutely no charges.
The trick was putting his neck on the line. As long as he's anonymously holding me up, he's in the clear. As soon as he's the fall-guy in the scenario he starts playing nice. Must take a real creep to do this sort of job.
Everyone: Do many cell phones have good line-out for this recording? I'm using the phone in speaker-phone mode which is horrible for quality. I haven't see any mainstream phones that didn't require a proprietary cable to do this. Ideas?
If you buy into a franchise that is so corrupt it can't police its members, you're just paying into this corrupt organization... The "innocent" franchises are just the ones that are less blatant, and even a theoretical honest franchise is guilty by financial association.
I've never had it take more than 10 minutes to cancel unless I got talked into a lesser deal. My cell-phones went from $200/m to $30 (for a lesser plan, but one they didn't offer normally), at that point it wasn't worth canceling. For everything else I just absolutely refuse to listen to anything else and I tell them that I really don't care if they cancel the account or not, that I've stopped payment and I'm just calling making an honest effort to tell them this. I record these calls and intend to be able to use them as proof later, but this no-nonsense approach has always worked so far. Nobody wants a customer recording them nearly breaking the law...
Seriously though, what's the problem? Change the password to something random so nobody can ever log in again.
I never delete accounts on blogs/etc because it screws with history. Similarly, I never delete content just because someone doesn't like what they said last week.
This article is about companies who almost refuse to stop billing you. When I have a business that charges you, you have a reason to ask me to stop. You don't have a right to ask me to delete all records related to serving you and/or storing content related to you. Even under privacy laws you don't - you said/did something in virtual 'public' and have no expectation of privacy.
I hate people like you. Seriously Toby, you. Your attitude of flaunting the rules for a "good reason" without investigating it in the slightest is ignorance and you revel in it. As if your slack-jawed, instantly-formed opinion on the rights of a supposedly morally offended person justify the abuse of our legal system, outright fraud and provable lies.
If you actually tried to understand something before having your knee-jerk response to it, you might contribute something. As is, your random bleating is merely interfering with your betters having a real discussion of the societal implications of corruption and quashing free-speech.
Under US law, which this is, the recorder of the video owns the copyright, or if someone paid them to record the content, they hold the copyright unless contracted otherwise (which it virtually always is for photographers).
So, everyone at the event, by invite or not, against instructions or not, *owns* their screenshots of the event and is fully entitled to publish it and/or grant others (YouTube) the right to do so.
This is true unless everyone at the event was being paid to create/film it, in which the organizations which paid them would have the rights mentioned above.
As someone else points out, there are exceptions to the ownership of a picture you take. Usually, you own the copyright to your additions to the derivative work (If you take a picture of my sculpture I don't own your picture - you merely can't lawfully publish it). The picture becomes a non-derivative work when the interest is mainly not my sculpture, for its own artistic reasons. For instance, if my sculpture broke, you could sell a video of the breaking, but not the high-res stills you took while it was in one piece. Further, a photo of the sculpture again becomes publishable if it's newsworthy and people can see if from public property - the picture isn't the sculpture, it's the sculpture in the park, which is not just a blatant copy (depending on context).
The essence of this is that there are very few times when someone isn't able to video something, or own the content when they do. They might not be able to publish it without violating other copyrights, but this almost always goes in favor of the creator of the potentially derivative work.
No, why do people have this broken property metaphor? Virtual space is infinite, why buy into a system where it's artificially limited.
Why "rent" a tiny plot from some virtual landlord who thereby controls your server resources? Why are acreage and CPU power linked?
SL is a horribly designed system, imho because Linden Labs wanted to design a cash cow - have people paying maintenance fees on their creations when they total a few K in a database. If Ms Chung didn't exist they'd have invented her - someone to convince everyone else that "land" in the game has value.
And really, just being able to communicate with the server and change something is the important thing. This is what changes the "business logic", the rest is just window dressing. When there's an implementation difficulty in an area it's usually better if the developer avoid that feature instead of trying to make it work. Perhaps text won't rollover, or align in some way, but better than it looks a little clunky for everyone than not work for anyone.
Write in whatever style results in the easiest to understand code that works. If you're modeling physical things, OOP is often that paradigm, but you can do OOP in C - it's a philosophy as well, not just a technology. If you find it's a pain to make something fit OOP, maybe you examine it and it's not an analog of a thing but a non-concrete idea like security, perhaps it just isn't amenable to this abstraction.
Similarly, your object model should represent your data, not your programming hurdles. If you have five levels of class hierarchy for a Table, you're probably over-using inheritance.
Short understandable code - the "right way" is whatever the fastest way to achieve this is.
AJAX is a bit slower, per K of HTML, than straight HTML from the server because it receives XML and parses it into changes it makes to the DOM. That's the only technical limitation of AJAX, really.
If you try to receive 60K of XML and do complicated parsing in the browser, UGH. If instead you receive back 10-50 bytes and render this into important status updates, you save a 50k load and a corresponding wait, with the convenience of having a single action on a single page, so that going back doesn't appear to undo your event.
If you change *any* UI element, you're probably doing something wrong, standards are good. Your AJAX app shouldn't change how clicking in textboxes works, I agree, but neither should all the local Windows apps that do this. An old company I worked for deployed a phone-status package that exactly fit a 1024x768 page with standard-size windows bar. Any changes in this and it started to look horrible. If we changed the system font size it was almost unreadable. Needless to say, this is just before the otherwise successful company tanked. This was all done windows native, with MFC code. Had my testing team gotten our way the status page would have been HTML and worked static, having AJAX only to provide a live view. The web interface would have been faster and better, even with AJAX.
It's not the tech, it's how you. If you think not, that proves it's you... Real experts can use dangerous tools sparingly and safely.
You laugh, but most of this thread is people saying how the bug didn't work, mocking the guy. I'd rather patch a theoretical bug than sit around laughing with the fanbois over how lame it is the expect to find a bug in Apple software right until I contract my first virus. Mac users have drunk the "Unix is always secure" kool-aid. Heh.
Just keep laughing, and please totally ignore all bug reports. If it was important, Steve Jobs would have called you personally - seriously, Apple service is just *that* good.
Quite right. For all the talk of how Windows and Mac just work, it takes at least a full day to install a Windows machine with a full developer's suite of tools, virus scanners, etc. If I'd just had all the software made into a slipstreamed disk it would have been one thing, but you can't SSH from Windows, can't write Perl or Ruby, can't play any non-WMV video format more recent than MPEG2 without a special codec pack you have to download from a Russian site... Of course, you don't have the benefit of public-key signatures on the packages and a consistent installer interface to use to do this either.
I know that the Linux GUI might not have all the glitz of a Mac, but I can setup a new Debian box with everything I want in half an hour, including custom apps. Sound works, most videos work. (I can rarely play all my movies in any one OS or player, they're a mix of old and new and rarely use one nice set of codecs.)
My mom is currently using Linux and whenever someone sends her an attachment she can't open I just SSH in, open the desktop via VNC, and fix the problem with her watching. A properly setup Mac would be friendlier, a bit, but not really in the few apps she uses all the time, Firefox, Thunderbird, XMMS. Almost what was installed on her last Windows box (Mozilla, WinAmp...)
If you want to open a box and turn it on, get a Mac. If you want to run one script and have all your software installed and working, get Debian. If you want the worst user experience today, get Windows. Seriously, it's far from desktop ready!
But, in the sense that Slashdotters have probably been around longer (on the net at least) than Facebook and Myspace users, "we" probably have a good sense of what will kill a site.
These sites just don't offer much. Replacing MySpace could be a weekend project in RoR, for the technology. It's growing only because of the network effect - your friends are there and it seems that you should be too. But, when you've used one or two of these sites you quickly realize that they're all exactly the same and that MySpace doesn't offer anything over any other free web host.
I get that kids love chat, social networking, etc. But, MySpace is just LiveJournal with more sparkles and a much worse user interface. Kids don't love it because it's better than the alternative, but merely because it was the "first" with such a "Just post who you 'really' are" type of custom. But what distinguishes MySpace from other crappy networking sites? Nothing anymore. The only problem for these other sites is overcoming the network effect, getting people to use a smaller service.
Like with ICQ and then sixty other chat programs, then MSN, Jabber, and a handful of others that, because of smart clients (Trillian, etc) speak all the protocols. Eventually MySpace and Facebook are all going to have options to import any given other account onto their service - to have address books and chat lists across sites, etc. At that point, what's MySpace's draw going to be again? (Over all the identical services.)
There just isn't anything they can do to lock people in to using them. The kids don't like MySpace, they like their friends and currently use it to chat. Like you probably aren't an RFC(2)822 fanboi, but you use email because everyone uses it. When spam finally kills the unverified format you'll switch to something else, without losing all of your friends.
In the old net, with bad bookmarking and searching it was more important to have a set location. Now...? I think not.
I was going to address this, but cut it because I felt it was a bit off topic. I would like a system where we don't subsidize the self-inflicted injuries, but the issue of where we draw the line and how to do it would imho cause more problems than they're worth. In the way that a death penalty would be a great way to get rid of any truly vicious human criminal, but we can only be sure in a fraction of cases and the risk (killing an innocent) is too great for simply saving some money. Then there's the fact that the costs of implementing these painful solutions are often much higher than keeping the prisoner alive. I think the same would apply to a system that could, even remotely fairly, decide who lived and died.
Certainly, Harley riders with those Skullcaps aren't "worthy" uses of medical spending, but there are so many things that we think are harmful ranging from not getting enough exercise to eating too much red meat. This would require such a complex system of law to implement that I'd rather pay double for a friendly system that just accepted everyone.
That said, you're assuming that there's the slightest bit of reason behind drug laws. Heroin might be deadly, but it's classified the same as pot but you couldn't kill yourself with pot if you tried. It's also illegal in food and tincture, which goes to suggest that it isn't our health the government is concerned with.
What you said might make sense if I was talking about doing Crack, or drinking Moonshine, both of which actually killed/maimed people on a regular basis. I'm talking about Marijuana for the specific reason that it's banned for made-up reasons, but enforced as seriously as murder (long time in federal prison) plus they'll seize your house and car as well. Besides, if this was the issue, cigarettes, alcohol, fatty foods, etc would all be similarly illegal.
Would you honestly follow an EULA, or the DMCA in the privacy of your own home? If so, you're voluntarily a slave. These laws are passed specifically to make it easier to oppress you, taking away centuries of common-law rights (contract law), total abandonment of constitutional principles (copyright balance), and free speech, if you consider EULA's like Oracle's with a "can't comment on performance issues" NDA clause in it.
I'm willing to buy into a system of laws, even if they inconvenience me sometimes, but only when the system if rational as a whole and I'm represented within it. In our current system I'm *not* represented, have no recourse when I dislike the situation, and would be punished far beyond any fits-the-crime level for any infraction in the ever-growing list of crimes.
If you could possibly post easier to understand code stand does the same, in any language including English, I would be interested in seeing it. Try not to use any obfuscated function names like split or collect though, they're so hard to read.
id10t
I think that there is a higher morality that demands we ignore laws against "victimless crimes". I don't think any government should interfere in my life any more than strictly necessary for *your* safety. (My freedoms end at your nose.) I don't really drink, but I think alcohol prohibition was a horrible repressive policy - just like the current "War on Some Drugs".
As far as the age of the law goes, I can't see that it has any relevance. A stupid law is a stupid law, even if it's a really old stupid law. Had the government asked me to agree to the laws, in trade for tax money, and given me a realistic chance to refuse - then I might feel bound by them. As is, they're forced on me and aren't even useful for their stated purpose.
As for "civil" disobedience - that's what protesting by quietly breaking the law in my own home is. I speak out against laws I don't agree with, and I don't follow them if they're repressive and unfair, but I certainly won't turn my self in for punishment - I didn't do anything wrong.
If there was a chance for discussion, or alternatives, this would be different. If it wasn't forced on me by a system I already feel under-represented and over-taxed in, I might feel like a partner in the system instead of the victim. Never once has someone
You aren't property - stop acting like it.
Ruby:
"12,2a,3f".split(',').collect {|num| num.to_i 16 }
=> [18, 42, 63]
And I got to write/test it interactively... I do agree about needless verbosity. Most programs would be better finished than optimized, code them in Ruby or Python and optimize any speed critical areas with C or anything else. C *is* premature optimization.
Yeah. Heh. Posting distracted.
Did he say that people are *forced* to buy Pot, or did he suggest that because people like to, a law against it will make a criminal of people who do what was legal before the new law? By my reading of it, it seemed that he was saying that by picking things people like to do, you make it more likely that they will keep doing these things, thus being criminals.
After all, if heterosexual sex was made illegal, nobody would be forcing you into breaking that law with your wife, but I bet you would break it.
Laws against non-harmful substances are ridiculous. I feel absolutely no desire to comply with a law restricting my behavior in my own home, but to imply that I only have a right to civil disobedience when I volunteer my guilt to the government is ridiculous. That's the *worst* way to change policy, try it in China, they'll give you a free bullet. Try it in the USA and they'll only take everything you own away and toss you into the worst prisons in the first world.
The limit is ten, and they do *often* count as a single connection, but they take 15 minutes to recycle (ten people use shares on a server, then it's locked to the eleventh for 15 minutes) and this often fails to reset. I wrote an automated build system that checked the code out of Source Safe (this is probably the WORST pro-level product MS ever wrote!) and built on Linux. I'd have to reboot the Microsoft server every few days because the connection (which was properly terminated on Linux, and the Windows machine appeared to know was no longer connected) was still eating into the limit and pretty soon we'd get weird errors as apps developers had open (Source Safe, etc). We tried resetting the recovery time lower than 15 minutes but it lost connections faster... IMHO, Microsoft *couldn't* write a server OS that would run consistently - the 10 incoming connections limit is to make it look like XP could, if only for licensing.
Besides, I'll *never* spec *anything* for a company that won't run at 100% on any hardware and at any problem. I'll never spec anything limited to X connections, Y CPUs, Z memory, etc.
Oracle might be better, but if it's got code in it to limit its performance at any point, that's an unacceptable risk. As I mentioned above, WinXP loses track of this and breaks my apps. Oracle won't run on machines with more CPUs than purchased, meaning that one client had a day of downtime when they bought a dual-CPU machine and couldn't get Oracle to start without expensive Oracle support. Even if WinXP had a 1000-connection limit that never failed, it would be unacceptable in case we ever needed 1010 connections. A Linux box would do this, simple slowing under load, a proprietary solution never will. Oracle might as well be MySQL for its uptime at this place - Oracle's copy protection destroyed any benefits this company got from thousands of dollars of licensing and astronomical consulting fees. Amusingly, had they gone with the cheap solution and hired some geek to put PostgreSQL on a cheap beige-box they'd have gotten much better results. Instead, Larry Wall and Bill Gates got a bit richer by selling products inferior to free ones.
Use one you can run your own code on - it's the old problem of trusting a black box.
As for security problems, I'd imagine those things have to be as air-tight a voting machines. Proprietary code and all.
You are correct to question SCs because as password-generators (at heart) they offer only one type of authentication, and trade a shorter password for multiple longer ones, representing a security loss vs ideal memorization, but a theoretical real-world (heh) gain because the password wouldn't be rot-26 encoded on paper anymore. The gain is theoretical, as there are many ways to get past the best tamper-proof equipment and such - UV sensitive dust on the keypad and check for fingerprint on the PIN keys... It's a running battle.
As for MITM attacks though, the algorithms are what give you strength, not the device. Having a shared secret (a password) or a public key to their private key, allows you to write messages that only the other can understand. In this case the first message sent can be encrypted because the secret is already known - there is nothing plaintext for the MITM to overhear.
As for biometrics, they are usually bunk but in this case a biometric could be a free extra check - you have to put your fingers on it to use it anyways. It can't really reduce security as long as the same PIN is require, but it would introduce many modes of failure for the device and require bare-handed operation. Likely a loss.
runas - the Windows equivalent to sudo. Launch the compiler and debugger as admin. Alternatively, login as admin, and use runas to launch your executable as a low-priv user. The former is a "better" development platform, the latter is easier to get used to. Both are world better than developing an app that needs admin but shouldn't.
Even if part of the app needs admin the UI shouldn't, and the installer should use the least privilege possible for everything.
Perhaps then the OSx86 project streamlines installation a bit more, you'll install OS X on your PC. Piracy was Microsoft's big distribution channel, now Apple can take it away with a vengence.