Perhaps you could shed a little more light on things.
The average person sees a deadline as something you don't want to miss, but can be early on. So the typical response here is "Verizon was ordered to do by the 12th, they did 5 days early, what's the problem?".
Now, I've done a little digging around, and apparently the defendant normally has the right to submit a motion for the subpoena to be modified or quashed, if their motion is submitted prior to the returnable date of the subpoena. So how exactly does this work? Is there an unspoken, unwritten rule that you aren't supposed to deliver documents ordered by a subpoena prior to the subpoena's returnable date, to allow for it to be contested?
And then the motion to quash was filed by a pro se litigant - not by Verizon. The subpoena ordered Verizon to provide the data and Verizon happily complied. So where did this John Doe pro se litigant come from? And why were they able to file a motion to quash? Was the John Doe implicated prior to the information being handed over? or after? Do we know if Verizon knew of the motion to quash? Do we know if Verizon knew that the pro se litigant even existed and had the right to file a motion to quash?
I think I had more questions, but I've forgotten them now...
FTFY. It is a work in progress. Nothing called "HTML5" has been agreed upon by all parties.
those sites are just HTML5, that will work with Chrome
Because Google paid to have them work with Chrome. And since HTML5 isn't a standard, other browsers don't act exactly the same as Chrome, so it won't work quite the same. Not that it couldn't, if someone paid to have it developed for the other browser.
The sites will also run on other browsers if they support HTML5; it's hardly Google's fault if other browsers do not support HTML5, is it?
It's hardly other browsers' fault if Google decides to make Chrome slightly different, since there's no standard for HTML5 yet. Other browsers will support HTML5 once HTML5 actually exists. Right now it's a mish-mash of features that everyone calls "HTML5" but aren't standard across-the-board.
The cost of installing new outlets is not all that's involved. All of your household appliances have regular 2 or 3-prong plugs and you'd need to change them or get adapters. Then you'd need to start universally shifting to the new style so that anything you buy will come with the correct plug already.
Anyway, what "largish boxes"? Outlet boxes are always largish. They're recessed. Do they not have hollow walls? Or are these things just so large that they won't fit?
We live in a global society. While you could feasibly attempt to outlaw those deals domestically, you couldn't force the rest of the world to follow suit.
When a company is looking to open a new factory, those sort of deals are often the only thing that make U.S. locations competitive with much of the rest of the world. Even if you could outlaw the deals domestically, you'd just upset the balance and all the jobs end up in India.
I'm aware. I'm just saying that hindsight being 20/20, I can see both why we ended up where we are, and where I'd like to have been instead. And I fully realize it would be prohibitively expensive to try to change things now.
EXCEPT for the AC electric motor and the florescent light bulb -- two of the most common uses of power even today
AC motor? Ick, moving parts. My cell phone charger doesn't have any moving parts. For those few appliance where moving parts are unavoidable, yeah, wire for AC.
Fluorescent light bulbs (good ones) convert your 60 Hz AC to a few k Hz, anyway, so it's not like it makes a difference whether they're using AC or DC. (And we might be headed toward LED lighting anyway.)
If I had it to do over today, houses would be wired with AC for appliances and have a single, high-efficiency, AC-to-DC converter which produces a variety of different voltages in a standard (invertible!) plug configuration which all devices would be standardized toward. It would be slightly more expensive because you'd need more than 3 conductors in the cable, but you could probably get away with using smaller gauge wire since many devices don't draw as much power as their ancestors did. Fuse each outlet box, naturally. And come up with a sane outlet that doesn't spark when you insert the plug. (I.e. outlet goes "hot" after all pins have made contact.) Europeans have them; the only reason we don't is because the cost to retro-fit would be too high.
Speaking of do-overs, I'd make the USB plug invertible too. I'm not sure how a simple up-or-down plug can take 3 tries at minimum to find the correct orientation, but for some reason it does...
There are these things you can buy called cloth diapers. They save money, because when they get dirty, you wash them. In a washing machine. (Which also saves money, by the way. You save up and buy it, and you don't spend lots of money at the laundromat.)
Employers pay for the enterprise editions because they have the enterprise features. Since GP originally said that the Express version was free and good enough for "hobbyist development/basic development", I think you're the one who's the troll here.
1. The beams will diffuse and overlap. Two separate wavelengths are easy to separate at the remote end of the link with a couple of cheap optical filters.
2. To repair the connection if the signal drops below a certain acceptable error rate. Once the receiver adjusts you can resume transmitting useful data.
Bookmarks with https: links seem to work fine for me.
If I had to take a wild guess, I would say that your bookmark is linking to
https://example.org/index.htm which is redirecting to
http://example.org/index.html which doesn't work, but when you change it to "https" it works, because the correct URL is
https://example.org/index.html
Or something similar to that. Double check the bookmark. Try copying the bookmark's location and paste it into the Location bar. See what happens.
The earliest known use of the word was in the 1600s. "Gimp" was a coarse, sometimes flat, braid or cord, sometimes strenghtened by weaving wire into the cord, which was used for ornamental trim. It is still used in this manner, e.g. a "gimp" lanyard, an ornamental cord or strap (lanyard) made from plastic "gimp" thread ( photos).
In the late 1800s, the word meant energetic spirit ("spunk" has a similar meaning, as a matter of fact; "pluck" also). Webster's suggests that this might stem from referring to "gimp" fishing line which had a wire woven in for strength, similar to the decorative cord. Since the line had extra strength, it might have followed that someone with a little extra fortitude was described to have "gimp".
In the early 1900s it began to be used unrelatedly to its original meaning, as a verb to mean a limp or a hobble (perhaps because it rhymes with "limp"), and as a noun to mean someone who walked with a gimp. This use still exists and may or may not be perceived as perjorative (offensive).
Lastly, and possibly most recognizably in the current culture, "the gimp" was used in the movie Pulp Fiction to refer to a cripple who was a sex slave and wore a leather bondage suit. Though the word "gimp" was used because the man was crippled, many people failed to realize this (being unaware of the word's actual meaning) and instead associated the word "gimp" to a leather bondage suit and/or sex slaves.
His public disclosure would have never occurred if the banks had moved on his first warning.
He gave them a warning shot over their heads, they ignored it, and now you're getting all pissy because his next shot hit a leg. How many more warning shots should he have given them? Should he have just given up and said "ah, nobody else will ever find this vulnerability, so I guess it's not worth the trouble"?
This IS Iran that we're talking about. If they did, in fact, have the guy, why would they keep that a secret? They probably wouldn't hesitate to hold a public trial and execution.
Wow, I like the way my comment was quickly up-modded to +4 Interesting and has been dropping ever since.
For what it's worth, I don't really think the guy is a "hero" (quite). I do disagree with OP's comment, and I thought it'd be interesting (yes, I was aiming for interesting) to postulate a radically opposed viewpoint and see how well it could be supported or refuted.
Whoever did this is a hero, for demonstrating that the electronic voting process was broken, and in particular for doing a proof of concept attack on a "party leadership" election which doesn't really matter very much.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, for a more interesting question:
IFF this sentence was a headline, would the answer be "no"?
Yes.
If your question was a headline, the answer would be "no".
Also, if the moon is made of green cheese, then pigs would fly.
And if I am Albert Einstein, then 2+2 = 5.
All true statements. Lrn2 classical Boolean algebra.
F IMP __ = T
Perhaps you could shed a little more light on things.
The average person sees a deadline as something you don't want to miss, but can be early on. So the typical response here is "Verizon was ordered to do by the 12th, they did 5 days early, what's the problem?".
Now, I've done a little digging around, and apparently the defendant normally has the right to submit a motion for the subpoena to be modified or quashed, if their motion is submitted prior to the returnable date of the subpoena. So how exactly does this work? Is there an unspoken, unwritten rule that you aren't supposed to deliver documents ordered by a subpoena prior to the subpoena's returnable date, to allow for it to be contested?
And then the motion to quash was filed by a pro se litigant - not by Verizon. The subpoena ordered Verizon to provide the data and Verizon happily complied. So where did this John Doe pro se litigant come from? And why were they able to file a motion to quash? Was the John Doe implicated prior to the information being handed over? or after? Do we know if Verizon knew of the motion to quash? Do we know if Verizon knew that the pro se litigant even existed and had the right to file a motion to quash?
I think I had more questions, but I've forgotten them now...
There is no such thing as "HTML5"
FTFY. It is a work in progress. Nothing called "HTML5" has been agreed upon by all parties.
those sites are just HTML5, that will work with Chrome
Because Google paid to have them work with Chrome. And since HTML5 isn't a standard, other browsers don't act exactly the same as Chrome, so it won't work quite the same. Not that it couldn't, if someone paid to have it developed for the other browser.
The sites will also run on other browsers if they support HTML5; it's hardly Google's fault if other browsers do not support HTML5, is it?
It's hardly other browsers' fault if Google decides to make Chrome slightly different, since there's no standard for HTML5 yet. Other browsers will support HTML5 once HTML5 actually exists. Right now it's a mish-mash of features that everyone calls "HTML5" but aren't standard across-the-board.
The cost of installing new outlets is not all that's involved. All of your household appliances have regular 2 or 3-prong plugs and you'd need to change them or get adapters. Then you'd need to start universally shifting to the new style so that anything you buy will come with the correct plug already.
Anyway, what "largish boxes"? Outlet boxes are always largish. They're recessed. Do they not have hollow walls? Or are these things just so large that they won't fit?
We live in a global society. While you could feasibly attempt to outlaw those deals domestically, you couldn't force the rest of the world to follow suit.
When a company is looking to open a new factory, those sort of deals are often the only thing that make U.S. locations competitive with much of the rest of the world. Even if you could outlaw the deals domestically, you'd just upset the balance and all the jobs end up in India.
I'm aware. I'm just saying that hindsight being 20/20, I can see both why we ended up where we are, and where I'd like to have been instead. And I fully realize it would be prohibitively expensive to try to change things now.
EXCEPT for the AC electric motor and the florescent light bulb -- two of the most common uses of power even today
AC motor? Ick, moving parts. My cell phone charger doesn't have any moving parts. For those few appliance where moving parts are unavoidable, yeah, wire for AC.
Fluorescent light bulbs (good ones) convert your 60 Hz AC to a few k Hz, anyway, so it's not like it makes a difference whether they're using AC or DC. (And we might be headed toward LED lighting anyway.)
If I had it to do over today, houses would be wired with AC for appliances and have a single, high-efficiency, AC-to-DC converter which produces a variety of different voltages in a standard (invertible!) plug configuration which all devices would be standardized toward. It would be slightly more expensive because you'd need more than 3 conductors in the cable, but you could probably get away with using smaller gauge wire since many devices don't draw as much power as their ancestors did. Fuse each outlet box, naturally. And come up with a sane outlet that doesn't spark when you insert the plug. (I.e. outlet goes "hot" after all pins have made contact.) Europeans have them; the only reason we don't is because the cost to retro-fit would be too high.
Speaking of do-overs, I'd make the USB plug invertible too. I'm not sure how a simple up-or-down plug can take 3 tries at minimum to find the correct orientation, but for some reason it does...
You work as an airliner? That's cool, I work as a oscilloscope. Long hours, though.
Long hours? You can drop a few cycles per second, but no fewer seconds in an hour, bro...
Hey, this one time I asked an oscilloscope "how's life treating ya?" He replied "it hertz".
I told him he should turn away from sine and repaint. He's had a DC bias ever since...
mkay I'll stop now.
Yes, and how much of that is disposable diapers?
There are these things you can buy called cloth diapers. They save money, because when they get dirty, you wash them. In a washing machine. (Which also saves money, by the way. You save up and buy it, and you don't spend lots of money at the laundromat.)
Employers pay for the enterprise editions because they have the enterprise features. Since GP originally said that the Express version was free and good enough for "hobbyist development/basic development", I think you're the one who's the troll here.
Yes, one question. Who said anything about smplayer?
WMP still isn't the worst. Remember RealPlayer and Quicktime?
People said the same thing when Apple stopped making computers with floppy disk drives.
1. The beams will diffuse and overlap. Two separate wavelengths are easy to separate at the remote end of the link with a couple of cheap optical filters.
2. To repair the connection if the signal drops below a certain acceptable error rate. Once the receiver adjusts you can resume transmitting useful data.
Bookmarks with https: links seem to work fine for me.
If I had to take a wild guess, I would say that your bookmark is linking to
https://example.org/index.htm
which is redirecting to
http://example.org/index.html
which doesn't work, but when you change it to "https" it works, because the correct URL is
https://example.org/index.html
Or something similar to that. Double check the bookmark. Try copying the bookmark's location and paste it into the Location bar. See what happens.
I bet it would be very helpful if someone would upload a Wireshark capture showing a download that failed.
FWIW I've never encountered this bug.
The earliest known use of the word was in the 1600s. "Gimp" was a coarse, sometimes flat, braid or cord, sometimes strenghtened by weaving wire into the cord, which was used for ornamental trim. It is still used in this manner, e.g. a "gimp" lanyard, an ornamental cord or strap (lanyard) made from plastic "gimp" thread ( photos).
In the late 1800s, the word meant energetic spirit ("spunk" has a similar meaning, as a matter of fact; "pluck" also). Webster's suggests that this might stem from referring to "gimp" fishing line which had a wire woven in for strength, similar to the decorative cord. Since the line had extra strength, it might have followed that someone with a little extra fortitude was described to have "gimp".
In the early 1900s it began to be used unrelatedly to its original meaning, as a verb to mean a limp or a hobble (perhaps because it rhymes with "limp"), and as a noun to mean someone who walked with a gimp. This use still exists and may or may not be perceived as perjorative (offensive).
Lastly, and possibly most recognizably in the current culture, "the gimp" was used in the movie Pulp Fiction to refer to a cripple who was a sex slave and wore a leather bondage suit. Though the word "gimp" was used because the man was crippled, many people failed to realize this (being unaware of the word's actual meaning) and instead associated the word "gimp" to a leather bondage suit and/or sex slaves.
1. There is no such thing as a "process monitor" in Linux.
What?
His public disclosure would have never occurred if the banks had moved on his first warning.
He gave them a warning shot over their heads, they ignored it, and now you're getting all pissy because his next shot hit a leg. How many more warning shots should he have given them? Should he have just given up and said "ah, nobody else will ever find this vulnerability, so I guess it's not worth the trouble"?
This IS Iran that we're talking about. If they did, in fact, have the guy, why would they keep that a secret? They probably wouldn't hesitate to hold a public trial and execution.
The world needs a villian now and then. It keeps people on their toes.
I'd love to see the brainfuck that ensues when you're tasked with figuring out whether 192.168.0.1 comes before or after 192.168.0.10.
I'm hoping for something on a similar level to that video that went viral of the blonde trying to figure out miles per hour.
Wow, I like the way my comment was quickly up-modded to +4 Interesting and has been dropping ever since.
For what it's worth, I don't really think the guy is a "hero" (quite). I do disagree with OP's comment, and I thought it'd be interesting (yes, I was aiming for interesting) to postulate a radically opposed viewpoint and see how well it could be supported or refuted.
Whoever did this is a hero, for demonstrating that the electronic voting process was broken, and in particular for doing a proof of concept attack on a "party leadership" election which doesn't really matter very much.