National Geographic covered this a few years back. The gist of the piece was that Ducks Unlimited has saved, preserved, recreated, or otherwise done right by more acres of wetland in one year than any other organization has done, ever.
Some enterprise users have internal apps that they need to test, and some of them are upset about such a 'big' change. In reality they shouldn't be looking at version numbers, they should be looking at a list of potential impacts, to make their testing easier.
But that would require thought and effort. They could also use a testing tool like Selenium, set up tests for their applications once, and then just change the browser type as new versions are released/supported. Again that would require some thought and effort from the devs/sysops and backing from management.
Perhaps the browser should do something to keep a leash on its plugins? We expect a modern browser to sandbox and contain misbehaving pages, why not the same for plugins?
What about some sort of testing tool that plugin developers can use to vet/verify their plugins? A few levels of confidence from plugin devs would be useful to me: 1. Unverified - just some Sourceforge page with a download 2. Listed - plugin submitted to and listed in the official (or a trusted) FF plugin repo 3. Worksforme - verified by some process (users? automated test? self-certified?) that it has $features and the plugin generally works as expected. 4. Hardcore - Verified by a detailed process that code is solid (approval of development process and testing), that the plugin has each feature verified and proven as working, that the plugin has acceptable user documentation, and that configurable options are documented. This obviously has a cost, but the benefit to the users is that its a solid piece of software. The benefit to devs would be higher visibility and trust in the plugin repositories.
Or just use Chrome, Chromium, RockMelt, or one of the other variants which update themselves without requiring me to do anything except restart my browser once in a while.
By separating the rich hedonists from their money you can then employ waiters, pool cleaners, construction people, and pool designers plus hundreds of useless people in government to get the required permits.
So yes, that is the point. To get people to spend money.
Now of course we're both assuming that this will be a private pool and privately funded. What will really happen is that someone will make it a public project and build this instead of hiring a few more cops, repairing roads, or performing some other necessary function of government.
What I'm getting at is that despite being in it for the lulz, LulzSec has actually accomplished something that activists have been working on for years, in a very short period of time. They've made these providers accountable for securing their customers information. They've made consumers somewhat aware of the risks.
This is an opportunity for less aggressive activists to step in and be the reasonable voices in the room. Point out that this is what they've been harping on for years and that there are solutions out there that don't involve the digital equivalent of smashing windows.
I'm assuming my Mac stable is going to start like my gun collection did. You get one. Then you get two. Then one day you pause and realize you have many.
I have a small, but growing stable of Macs in my house. I read on Engadget that, "it will run you just $29.99 for all of your authorized Macs." Does this mean that its $30 or $60 to upgrade the two Macs I have that are tied to my iTunes account?
So whats the typical process for getting data like this? What data do the internal people have access to? What data is filtered out before being given to the requester?
Slashdot Mirror
Theres a dolphin with an implant that lets it talk and Roy Scheider *not* killing sharks!
National Geographic covered this a few years back. The gist of the piece was that Ducks Unlimited has saved, preserved, recreated, or otherwise done right by more acres of wetland in one year than any other organization has done, ever.
Would I be allowed to buy a rat, for example, if I promised to do drugs with it?
This is SF, so FTFY.
Some enterprise users have internal apps that they need to test, and some of them are upset about such a 'big' change. In reality they shouldn't be looking at version numbers, they should be looking at a list of potential impacts, to make their testing easier.
But that would require thought and effort. They could also use a testing tool like Selenium, set up tests for their applications once, and then just change the browser type as new versions are released/supported. Again that would require some thought and effort from the devs/sysops and backing from management.
Perhaps the browser should do something to keep a leash on its plugins? We expect a modern browser to sandbox and contain misbehaving pages, why not the same for plugins?
What about some sort of testing tool that plugin developers can use to vet/verify their plugins? A few levels of confidence from plugin devs would be useful to me:
1. Unverified - just some Sourceforge page with a download
2. Listed - plugin submitted to and listed in the official (or a trusted) FF plugin repo
3. Worksforme - verified by some process (users? automated test? self-certified?) that it has $features and the plugin generally works as expected.
4. Hardcore - Verified by a detailed process that code is solid (approval of development process and testing), that the plugin has each feature verified and proven as working, that the plugin has acceptable user documentation, and that configurable options are documented. This obviously has a cost, but the benefit to the users is that its a solid piece of software. The benefit to devs would be higher visibility and trust in the plugin repositories.
Or just use Chrome, Chromium, RockMelt, or one of the other variants which update themselves without requiring me to do anything except restart my browser once in a while.
I don't have numbers but oil for heating is more popular in the northeast/New England than it is anywhere else.
It's called the BBC.
Agreed. Redirect the cops to solve crimes that have victims.
By separating the rich hedonists from their money you can then employ waiters, pool cleaners, construction people, and pool designers plus hundreds of useless people in government to get the required permits.
So yes, that is the point. To get people to spend money.
Now of course we're both assuming that this will be a private pool and privately funded. What will really happen is that someone will make it a public project and build this instead of hiring a few more cops, repairing roads, or performing some other necessary function of government.
How am I going to enforce that on an encrypted file possessed by someone who is trying to decrypt it against my wishes?
Also some places like bathrooms where you would not want cameras to work
The admins of http://ratemypoo.com/ will be coming over to speak with you shortly.
I think we already have one of those. It rises in the east every morning.
I'd have an armed guard and an air-gap.
Always make sure you're better armed and trained than your guard. They're only human and are corruptible.
What I'm getting at is that despite being in it for the lulz, LulzSec has actually accomplished something that activists have been working on for years, in a very short period of time. They've made these providers accountable for securing their customers information. They've made consumers somewhat aware of the risks.
This is an opportunity for less aggressive activists to step in and be the reasonable voices in the room. Point out that this is what they've been harping on for years and that there are solutions out there that don't involve the digital equivalent of smashing windows.
... giving activists a bad name, and will probably provoke the creation of more draconian laws or harsher penalties.
Which is a hallmark of activists that are actually close to achieving something.
The wealthy are at war with the working class, and they are kicking our asses.
Tell me again how WalMart selling a wide variety of goods at low prices in poor and rural areas is hurting the working class?
I'm assuming my Mac stable is going to start like my gun collection did. You get one. Then you get two. Then one day you pause and realize you have many.
I have a small, but growing stable of Macs in my house. I read on Engadget that, "it will run you just $29.99 for all of your authorized Macs." Does this mean that its $30 or $60 to upgrade the two Macs I have that are tied to my iTunes account?
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/os-x-lion-all-the-details/
Who the hell pays for porn?
I was almost ok with this until I read "says Jimmy Wales". That's like nominating yourself for a nobel peace prize.
Except Jimmy has actually done something to make Wikipedia a wonder.
Switch from chubby chasing to the asian stuff, takes up less space.
You claim old-school credentials and have the 4-digit UID to back them up. That does not mesh with the email stationery advert your sig.
Are you one of the rare old-schoolers that is paying the bills by giving shiny things to the noobs?
If you can move that fast you can just wet your pants and walk away before your britches get damp.
So whats the typical process for getting data like this? What data do the internal people have access to? What data is filtered out before being given to the requester?