You haven't seen people save sugar packets, or other kinds of condiments they pick up at a restaurant? Most people seem to have a bowl or drawer full of things like sugar, salt, ketchup, mustard, soy sauce, &c., in their kitchen.
You carefully examine what the sugar looks like as it pours out of the sugar packet to make sure it looks exactly like sugar? If everyone did this, then, yes, you wouldn't need warnings like this, because they'd just see it said "Silica Gel" and not "Sugar" on the packet. Not to mention that some silica gel is crushed into a finer powder that looks remarkably like granulated sugar.
You don't think someone might drop one of these gel packets on their counter/table/floor, and then pick it up later and just think to themselves it's a sugar packet they accidentally left out?
It doesn't take a complete retard to confuse a generic-looking little white packet of gel on their counter with a generic-looking little white packet of sugar.
Data that's encrypted for transport through a text-only environment (e.g., email), and to be decrypted by a piece of software supporting multiple ciphers, looks like that -- a header describing what kind of encryption you're using, followed by the encrypted data, which is encoded using the base64 algorithm.
But the encrypted data itself, after stripping the header and de-base64ing it, just looks like random binary noise.
If your recipient knew what encryption algorithm you were going to use to encrypt, you could just leave the header off, and if you're hiding the encrypted data in an image format that allows binary data (SVG, being XML, doesn't, but most image formats, such as JPEG, GIF, PNG, are binary), you wouldn't even need to base64 it.
I'd like to see how running as root is going to allow you to modify a CD-R, or a ROM chip, once it's been burnt. If your OS is running off of physically read-only media (not just marked as read-only, say, in the fs tables), no amount of privileges are going to break through it.
Except the probe will be cutting through that ten kilometres of ice, which certainly shields Europa's water from most, if not all, of the Jovian radiation.
To anyone who says this is government interfering with private business, or the free market, or whatever, let's remember that "intellectual property" is a government-granted "right" to begin with. If the government wasn't already regulating the market in favor of these companies, with copyrights, patents, and trade secret laws, they wouldn't have any protections against anyone getting hold of their secrets in the first place.
You can turn SafeSearch off by adding "safe=off", by hand, to the URL. "filter=0" is also useful; this prevents Google from hiding multiple images originating from the same host.
Here's what I use. If you use Mozilla, make a bookmark out of the following (fix the spaces Slashdot inserted):
Give the bookmark a keyword such as "gis". Now, when you type "gis foo" into the address bar, it goes to this URL, replacing the "%s" in the URL with "foo".
[Those other parameters are language, input encoding, and output encoding, respectively.]
This document specifies an
Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
(Emphasis added.) Not all RFCs are standards, but many, such as this one, document protocols meant to be or become standards. Some even do become standards whereupon they are relabeled "STD" and renumbered (for example, STD7 is TCP).
Those comments are just the strings that strerror() outputs for each of these error numbers. Other than extremely minor differences (The only one I've seen vary a great deal is ENOTTY: older systems have "Not a typewriter" whereas newer systems have "Inappropriate ioctl for device"), those strings are pretty standardized.
The FCC doesn't enforce censorship by installing filters on your TV or on the cameras. If a broadcaster violates FCC regs, they get fined.
The cops don't enforce speeding laws by putting devices in cars that limit their maximum speed to the posted limit. If they catch you speeding, they give you a ticket.
Just because you're dealing with a computer or the Internet, doesn't mean "enforcement" is going to be necessarily technological. They'll enforce it the same way they enforce other laws; if they catch you doing something illegal, you'll be punished for it.
(Although I wouldn't doubt that they'll use technological means to find out who's breaking the regulations - they could employ a webspider that checks every page on every page under the domain to make sure no anchors point outward.)
The `sync` program simply executes the fsync system call, which is what does the actual work (tells the kernel to flush its filesystem buffers to disk). The thing is, `umount` is also supposed to call fsync but apparently in this EXT3 configuration it isn't calling it properly.
Running `sync` before a `umount` should be redundant -- if `umount` is working correctly.
The symptoms are that any file data which was written within the thirty seconds prior to the unmount may not make it to disk. A workaround is to run `sync' before unmounting
So I guess you posted this story twice just in case the last one didn't get synced to disk properly, eh? *ducks*
Unmounts happen at shutdown. You also need to unmount before scanning/fixing a filesystem. The whole bug here pertains to the fact that it isn't flushing ("syncing") the last 30 seconds of cached data to the disk beforehand. A cold reboot without unmounting could potentially cause all kinds of other data inconsistency problems to pop up.
The temporary fix seems to be to run sync manually. Stick "sync" in your/etc/rc.d/init.d/mountfs (or whatever it's called on your system) script right before the "umount" line.
I don't see the difference here. If an individual publishes a similar disclaimer for their own address, how is that not enforceable whereas if an organization publishes the disclaimer for their address, it is?
One of the key principles of fair use is that it should do no harm to the value of the work to the author.
"Fair use" is what allows people to review and criticise works. By this argument a movie critic giving a work a "thumbs down" (many people would decline to see the movie if it was rated poorly, thus lowering its value) suddenly revokes their right to review it.
Um, no, the parent post is correct. The act of sending the letter is the "explicit action" that you mention.
Magazines that accept submissions have a simple disclaimer: Any letters sent to us become the property of $FOOBAR corporation. Usually they follow this with and may be published or edited at our discretion or and cannot be returned or whatever else is relevant. This disclaimer has been around for as long as I can remember, and I'm sure there are court cases to back up its enforceability. I don't see a reason this disclaimer couldn't be extended to email, especially if you don't publish the email address without the disclaimer attached.
I think the sender would have to see the notice before sending the initial email for it to be even remotely possibly enforceable. (Sort of like click-thrus come up before you install, not after?) Thus, the solution would be to create a junk account, publish it all over your website and in Usenet, with a "EULA" attached, something like:
Any email sent to this address becomes the property of the recipient. By sending email to this address you agree to these terms.
Of course a spammer could claim that he snarfed the address with a harvester-bot and thus didn't read the message. But, remember, software EULAs are considered, at least by the author, binding even if you don't read them and just click "Accept."
Slashdot Mirror
"Return the documents"? "Hold the documents"? Has this newspaper ever heard of something called a photocopier?
You haven't seen people save sugar packets, or other kinds of condiments they pick up at a restaurant? Most people seem to have a bowl or drawer full of things like sugar, salt, ketchup, mustard, soy sauce, &c., in their kitchen.
You carefully examine what the sugar looks like as it pours out of the sugar packet to make sure it looks exactly like sugar? If everyone did this, then, yes, you wouldn't need warnings like this, because they'd just see it said "Silica Gel" and not "Sugar" on the packet. Not to mention that some silica gel is crushed into a finer powder that looks remarkably like granulated sugar.
You don't think someone might drop one of these gel packets on their counter/table/floor, and then pick it up later and just think to themselves it's a sugar packet they accidentally left out?
It doesn't take a complete retard to confuse a generic-looking little white packet of gel on their counter with a generic-looking little white packet of sugar.
Considering how closely some of the silica gel packets resemble restaurant sugar or salt packets, it's not really a superfluous warning.
Data that's encrypted for transport through a text-only environment (e.g., email), and to be decrypted by a piece of software supporting multiple ciphers, looks like that -- a header describing what kind of encryption you're using, followed by the encrypted data, which is encoded using the base64 algorithm.
But the encrypted data itself, after stripping the header and de-base64ing it, just looks like random binary noise.
If your recipient knew what encryption algorithm you were going to use to encrypt, you could just leave the header off, and if you're hiding the encrypted data in an image format that allows binary data (SVG, being XML, doesn't, but most image formats, such as JPEG, GIF, PNG, are binary), you wouldn't even need to base64 it.
Shouldn't that be (pluto|sedna), if you were thinking of regexps, or {pluto,sedna} if you were thinking of shell expansions?
I'd like to see how running as root is going to allow you to modify a CD-R, or a ROM chip, once it's been burnt. If your OS is running off of physically read-only media (not just marked as read-only, say, in the fs tables), no amount of privileges are going to break through it.
Except the probe will be cutting through that ten kilometres of ice, which certainly shields Europa's water from most, if not all, of the Jovian radiation.
To anyone who says this is government interfering with private business, or the free market, or whatever, let's remember that "intellectual property" is a government-granted "right" to begin with. If the government wasn't already regulating the market in favor of these companies, with copyrights, patents, and trade secret laws, they wouldn't have any protections against anyone getting hold of their secrets in the first place.
There actually is a national sales tax initiative, but not to eliminate state sales taxes -- to eliminate the national income tax.
Here's what I use. If you use Mozilla, make a bookmark out of the following (fix the spaces Slashdot inserted):Give the bookmark a keyword such as "gis". Now, when you type "gis foo" into the address bar, it goes to this URL, replacing the "%s" in the URL with "foo".
[Those other parameters are language, input encoding, and output encoding, respectively.]
Radically reforming the US tax code.
...Or setting it up as an encrypted filesystem (first step being wiping the whole thing with /dev/urandom).
Those comments are just the strings that strerror() outputs for each of these error numbers. Other than extremely minor differences (The only one I've seen vary a great deal is ENOTTY: older systems have "Not a typewriter" whereas newer systems have "Inappropriate ioctl for device"), those strings are pretty standardized.
The FCC doesn't enforce censorship by installing filters on your TV or on the cameras. If a broadcaster violates FCC regs, they get fined.
The cops don't enforce speeding laws by putting devices in cars that limit their maximum speed to the posted limit. If they catch you speeding, they give you a ticket.
Just because you're dealing with a computer or the Internet, doesn't mean "enforcement" is going to be necessarily technological. They'll enforce it the same way they enforce other laws; if they catch you doing something illegal, you'll be punished for it.
(Although I wouldn't doubt that they'll use technological means to find out who's breaking the regulations - they could employ a webspider that checks every page on every page under the domain to make sure no anchors point outward.)
The `sync` program simply executes the fsync system call, which is what does the actual work (tells the kernel to flush its filesystem buffers to disk). The thing is, `umount` is also supposed to call fsync but apparently in this EXT3 configuration it isn't calling it properly.
Running `sync` before a `umount` should be redundant -- if `umount` is working correctly.
Unmounts happen at shutdown. You also need to unmount before scanning/fixing a filesystem. The whole bug here pertains to the fact that it isn't flushing ("syncing") the last 30 seconds of cached data to the disk beforehand. A cold reboot without unmounting could potentially cause all kinds of other data inconsistency problems to pop up.
/etc/rc.d/init.d/mountfs (or whatever it's called on your system) script right before the "umount" line.
The temporary fix seems to be to run sync manually. Stick "sync" in your
"Hey, I voted for Tom Reilly and deliberately so."
Considering he ran unopposed, I'd hope there really wasn't much deliberation involved.
The original "stab at thee" quote was Ahab, by the way. ("With my last breath, I spit at thee; for hate's sake, I stab at thee! ...")
I don't see the difference here. If an individual publishes a similar disclaimer for their own address, how is that not enforceable whereas if an organization publishes the disclaimer for their address, it is?
One of the key principles of fair use is that it should do no harm to the value of the work to the author.
"Fair use" is what allows people to review and criticise works. By this argument a movie critic giving a work a "thumbs down" (many people would decline to see the movie if it was rated poorly, thus lowering its value) suddenly revokes their right to review it.
Um, no, the parent post is correct. The act of sending the letter is the "explicit action" that you mention.
Magazines that accept submissions have a simple disclaimer: Any letters sent to us become the property of $FOOBAR corporation. Usually they follow this with and may be published or edited at our discretion or and cannot be returned or whatever else is relevant. This disclaimer has been around for as long as I can remember, and I'm sure there are court cases to back up its enforceability. I don't see a reason this disclaimer couldn't be extended to email, especially if you don't publish the email address without the disclaimer attached.
I think the sender would have to see the notice before sending the initial email for it to be even remotely possibly enforceable. (Sort of like click-thrus come up before you install, not after?) Thus, the solution would be to create a junk account, publish it all over your website and in Usenet, with a "EULA" attached, something like:
Any email sent to this address becomes the property of the recipient. By sending email to this address you agree to these terms.
Of course a spammer could claim that he snarfed the address with a harvester-bot and thus didn't read the message. But, remember, software EULAs are considered, at least by the author, binding even if you don't read them and just click "Accept."
When I filled out an application they didn't ask to see a bloody driver's license or anything - I just gave them a bogus name and address.