If Stuxnet is designed to prevent the total destruction of Israel and Duqu is intended to do something similar
They are designed to attack industrial complexes. And as any weapon, they can also be used for bad were someone with malicious intent copy them. Thus, owners of vulnerable hardware should have the information necessary to defend themselves. The researchers are doing their job, it wouldn't be independent research if they let politics into it.
There's nothing to be nervous about, the system has a safety switch. Whenever you feel that the robot might have gone out of control, you just put your hand on the switch and press...oh, wait.
So publishers are allowed to sell copies of CDs, but the people who bought them are not? Besides, I don't think there is much money lost here, people won't sell music they actually like.
The study seems to be based on few actual measurements, it is mostly a modeling of how the material spread. Additional measurements are needed in the areas where the model predicted high dosage.
Light pollution is mostly a problem in the presence of smog which reflects the light. So the real problem in my opinion is not light but air pollution.
We shouldn't get lost in words. They are paying money for a domain they don't use just so that others can't use them. Which will make the whole TLD unusable.
I'm not sure copying from a friend is more legal than from an alien. The legal reasoning I've heard is that it's to compensate for backup copies. You know, cuz if you break your CD and then restore it from backup instead of buying it again you are robbing the publishers of their profits. But in public they always just blame it on piracy instead of this.
This is really sick, and sadly the same here in Hungary. A specific rightsholder group is granted legal monopoly on all the music business, and there is no way for art to exist outside them. They also have the right to tax all storage media because "they would be used for piracy anyway".
I'm sorry, why do all the suckers have to buy.xxx domains just to be safe? What exactly is the damage in someone else buying a.xxx domain with a similar name? Because I honestly can't see how it can be confusing, as those searching the.xxx domain were most likely not looking for the original site anyway.
TLDs are imperfect, but we couldn't do without them. There are just too many domains to fit in one namespace. If anything, we should try to reform them, which will not be easy.
Why would trademarks be related to what domains someone has? Why would you risk losing a trademark even if you don't register any domain for it? But yeah, all the "let them protect their name" people are essentially suggesting to get rid of TLDs.
This is the biggest bullshit ever. Domains are meant to be used. Buying up huge ranges of domains just so that others can't use them should be discouraged, not helped. What many people still don't get is that you only own a domain name+TLD. Handing over all TLDs to a trademark owner would make TLDs completely pointless. The defamation claims are idiotic, I can guarantee you that those searching in the.xxx domain are not searching for schools. And are you suggesting forcing ISPs to block domains if ICANN doesn't give them to those you wanted? You, sir, have lost your right to be an Internet citizen, now get the fuck out of it.
This is a matter of definition, a lot of people use meat only for the flesh of a mammal, for example Catholics don't count fish as meat. Also, for dietary purposes fish is a lot healthier than meat.
Slashdot Mirror
If Stuxnet is designed to prevent the total destruction of Israel and Duqu is intended to do something similar
They are designed to attack industrial complexes. And as any weapon, they can also be used for bad were someone with malicious intent copy them. Thus, owners of vulnerable hardware should have the information necessary to defend themselves. The researchers are doing their job, it wouldn't be independent research if they let politics into it.
Stuxnet has leaked to the public, someone could just copy and modify it.
There's nothing to be nervous about, the system has a safety switch. Whenever you feel that the robot might have gone out of control, you just put your hand on the switch and press...oh, wait.
There are other problems with electric cars such as limited range or that half of the car is occupied by the batteries.
No education and no occupation, ha?
So who is working for NASA then, that this 'no-education and no-occupation' individual is able to break into their systems?
This is Eastern Europe. He might have a job and just evading taxes.
The neural network is much more than just the brain. Repairing nerves of paralised people is a much easier task than interfacing with the brain.
If we use an eink-like display with 30fps frequency would it still use less power?
So publishers are allowed to sell copies of CDs, but the people who bought them are not? Besides, I don't think there is much money lost here, people won't sell music they actually like.
The study seems to be based on few actual measurements, it is mostly a modeling of how the material spread. Additional measurements are needed in the areas where the model predicted high dosage.
It was the music industry that started calling copyright infringers "pirates".
By that logic a company could claim the car you use to get to work, or your laptop you use in your workplace. He didn't develop anything.
If the company has a contract stating that the account is theirs, then it is. If they don't then on what grounds are they claiming it?
Light pollution is mostly a problem in the presence of smog which reflects the light. So the real problem in my opinion is not light but air pollution.
You underestimate the finacial sources of Greenpeace. The fossil lobby has deep pockets.
RTFA please, two people got jail for this. Contrary to Greenpeace that can get away with causing real damage like chaining themselves to shit.
To gain an edge on the competition. Similar ketchup bottles already exist, just imperfect.
We shouldn't get lost in words. They are paying money for a domain they don't use just so that others can't use them. Which will make the whole TLD unusable.
I'm not sure copying from a friend is more legal than from an alien. The legal reasoning I've heard is that it's to compensate for backup copies. You know, cuz if you break your CD and then restore it from backup instead of buying it again you are robbing the publishers of their profits. But in public they always just blame it on piracy instead of this.
This is really sick, and sadly the same here in Hungary. A specific rightsholder group is granted legal monopoly on all the music business, and there is no way for art to exist outside them. They also have the right to tax all storage media because "they would be used for piracy anyway".
I'm sorry, why do all the suckers have to buy .xxx domains just to be safe? What exactly is the damage in someone else buying a .xxx domain with a similar name? Because I honestly can't see how it can be confusing, as those searching the .xxx domain were most likely not looking for the original site anyway.
TLDs are imperfect, but we couldn't do without them. There are just too many domains to fit in one namespace. If anything, we should try to reform them, which will not be easy.
Why would trademarks be related to what domains someone has? Why would you risk losing a trademark even if you don't register any domain for it? But yeah, all the "let them protect their name" people are essentially suggesting to get rid of TLDs.
This is the biggest bullshit ever. Domains are meant to be used. Buying up huge ranges of domains just so that others can't use them should be discouraged, not helped. What many people still don't get is that you only own a domain name+TLD. Handing over all TLDs to a trademark owner would make TLDs completely pointless. The defamation claims are idiotic, I can guarantee you that those searching in the .xxx domain are not searching for schools. And are you suggesting forcing ISPs to block domains if ICANN doesn't give them to those you wanted? You, sir, have lost your right to be an Internet citizen, now get the fuck out of it.
In my experiences idealist vegetarians are a minority, most of them just want to eat healthy/lose weight. In which case fish is acceptable.
This is a matter of definition, a lot of people use meat only for the flesh of a mammal, for example Catholics don't count fish as meat. Also, for dietary purposes fish is a lot healthier than meat.