Actually, right now I'm not browsing with Flash, and it then falls back gracefully to display GIF graphs instead. They aren't interactive, but at least it's not replaced by empty boxes asking me to install Flash.
It's probably CodeProject. Beginner to very advanced projects alike, usually with relaxed licenses as well. You can find gold nuggets like the best tutorial I know for the lightweight Windows Template Library, along with a free vastly improved memory leak detector there. They also supports plenty of languages for Windows development, with a big share of articles and code on C++. A message board is added for each code project listed where you can discuss them, along with project unrelated forums for general coding discussion.
But copyrighting the very idea of having entities that are capable of executing extraordinary feats
That's not what's copyrighted from what I can see, just the term "super hero".
The concept of superheros goes back to Gilgamesh and Enkidu.
Assuming this trademark would hold well (which I hope it doesn't), these would still exist, as well as their deeds. They would just have to be called "heroes" or maybe "legendary heroes".
Would this have been news for nerds if it didn't have Google doing behind the scenes work?
Is Google still geeky enough for it to "matter" for us, even when their products and services doesn't mean anything at all besides that their servers are rolling?
Nudism wasn't illegal in any modern country I know.
Sorry, I should've written "modern and democratic country". This was those I was thinking of, not well industrialized and "modern" dictatorships etc.;-)
Does anybody know how they do this. What is the difference between a nipple and a cherry (the fruit) to a computer.
And more interestingly, what's the difference between a nipple on a nudist shot and not? Nudism wasn't illegal in any modern country I know.
There are plenty of even less grey area cases like these that would be problematic, mentioned by a poster above. Art, both as for paintings and photography, etc. If we simply forbid the human body out of religious reasons and whatever, isn't that admitting Satan got what he wanted?
So does it filter out Rubens Would Michelangelo's David be filtered out How about anatomy/autopsy pictures ?
This excerpt answers these pretty well:
A Google Images search on "breast self-examination" was correctly allowed. On a page dedicated to the artistic nudes of Alberto Vargas, it inexplicably decided to tile the text-only links menu with hundreds of tiny shield images; Guardware confirmed this is a bug.
So it's business as usual. If PC Mag's quick checks revealed innocent sites being blocked, I hope this never sees the light as anything with a mandatory use anywhere. I think missing to spread information is worse than actually even showing human intercourse. Yes, even if there's a vagina there. I hope the kids aren't traumatized for life if they'd stumble over such things and the dirtiness of our anatomy.
Oh, also watch out for the new Pumpk1n Pr0n:
And we found that some oddly innocent imagesin particular, "head shots" of pumpkins from last Halloweenwere blocked.
The article says IE would crash more with this tool in use too, but I'm not sure anyone would notice the difference from before and after.;-)
I would RTFA but it is 404, perhaps my ISP filters out stories about filtering.
The complaint accuses Google, as the dominant provider of Web searches, of violating KinderStart's constitutional right to free speech by blocking search engine results showing Web site content and other communications.
Hmm... Is there even any free speech to talk about here?
I mean, Google owns their index.
Isn't this like complaining about free speech once a moderator kills your post on a forum?
As for Windows security, I honestly think there should be exceptions of what Microsoft can bundle or not to maintain a good security. Yes, one can joke all day about security problems requiring tools like these in the first place, but Windows is a common OS, a huge hacker target, and now that this is the situation, I think MS should be allowed to include these kind of tools as an exception to software competition regulations.
I really don't mind if Microsoft would similarly put Windows antivirus companies "out of business" either. Yes, sucks to be them, but security is among the most important aspects of an operating system, and as important to me when I use an OS as basically the GUI itself.
This may be some interesting reading about this matter.
"Across the board, among those who are both successful and struggling, the artists and musicians we surveyed are more likely to say that the internet has made it possible for them to make more money from their art than they are to say it has made it harder to protect their work from piracy or unlawful use. "
Well, there's no super strange cards in use; e.g. the iMac uses an ATI Radeon X1600. Sure, they may have somehow modified the graphics card for their needs, but I doubt it.
That can't be too far away now, given that there was already solutions to boot Linux. It's just that with a closed source OS like Windows things got a lot trickier.
Why waste time re-implementing something that already works fine?
Microsoft has given one of the major reasons for developing in.NET being improved security due to running in a sandbox and with fine grained security rules. With.NET apps, even the common buffer overruns would be caught, and not require special CPU hardware either. Sure, critics may say it makes programmers "sloppier", but Microsoft themselves never said this.
Why they think it was unattended I don't know, TFA doesn't say exactly...
Yes, TFA says the guy had been watching movies during this because his character was owning the enemies anyway. That counts as unattended gaming and is strictly prohibited in WoW due to unfair advantages it grants the botter.
Now, how Blizzard pictured this may be up for debate, but Blizzard has in the past been monitored suspicious accounts if the strange behavior goes on over long periods of time and aren't just flukes. That's probably how they can say this, and if pressured could maybe even say for how long he did it.
... "while I was training my different weapon skills by pressing the macro keys and healing myself every now and then, I watched some movies on my TV, because fighting a level 25 healing mob doesn't require much attention if you're a level 60 priest. "
That is the key problem in what he did. If he used macros while watching TV, I can only guess at how long these repeated actions went on.
This isn't about Linux, not about WINE, not even about programmable Logitech keyboards! This is about: watching TV while letting your computer play the game. And... "playing" the game unattended is most certainly against most MMO agreements, and usually equalled with botting, much like Blizzard indeed told him.
I can only guess at why the Blizzard Boards once told him that it was OK to use keyboards with basic programmability, but a guess was that Blizzard didn't mean it was OK to fucking abuse them to play WoW while watching TV. Yeah, maybe that's why.
If it in his eyes "doesn't require much attention" or not is completely irrelevant, and an "excuse" stupid enough to just worsen his case. It's the very same excuse used by "true" botters. Blizzard has most likely monitored his account over some period of time and seen, "hey, this guy is doing identical actions all over". The follow up reply from Blizzard shows they were listening to his complaints and clarified the problem once again.
He then went on saying:
"I have also apoligised in advance if using a programmable keyboard violates the TOS - but your TOS does not say anything about using such keyboards."
No, but a TOS doesn't detail every individual piece of hardware or software disallowed either. That would be impossible. Instead, they try to explain what's allowed or not. Not that Logitech G15 Gaming Keyboards are disallowed when used to exploit game mechanics. Whether Logitech says they're OK or not is also irrelevant as they don't have a say in the WOW ToS anyway.
And I'm sure they are right too that using their keyboard is allowed, but do Logitech say "using our keyboards to 'play' WoW with during TV watching is in agreement with Blizzard ToS"?
So that's flaw number two in his argument, after trying to excuse himself with "but *I* thought it was OK to play the game in an unattended way, because... my level 60 char is so powerful anyway!"
Come on, just because he's using WINE and this stupid keyboard doesn't excuse his actions.
"However I suspect their 3rd party detection software saw a very strange enviroinment in which WoW was running"
Nah, that's just him trying to find ways of blaming his behavior on Linux and WINE.
"that combined with the repetitive task of healing myself, switching weapons, and casting Hex of Weakness programmed in my keyboard"
Yes! That's why though! You know, stuff botters write Windows software to do Does it really matter that much how you do it? This guy need to understand what botting implies (= tools to enable game play automation) and that botting isn't allowed.
"Now to the advantage gained. What exactly did I gain? All I did is train my weapon skills. I did not gain any gold, did not gain any experience at level 60, no honor, not even any loot whatsoever."
This argument is beyond comprehension for me. He gained trained skills! That's what he gained. Gee.
From the videos I've seen, it's nowhere near Sim Earth (that was a lot about controlling climate) or Sim Life (that wasn't about organisms evolving to anything else than other organisms).
Patent crap from totally unknown companies, but being against Sony and this:
But, according to the report, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken was unhappy with Thorner's testimony supporting Sony, given that he had also been paid by Sony, and so dismissed this line of defence.
This is true, but all he proved was that you can lie to media so they get fooled, not that they generalize that shut down Chinese blogs is automatically being censored or anything like that. His own lies destroyed that possibility.
If all he made was show that journalism can be sloppy, then what's new here and why even bother? It's hard fact that in today's competition among newspapers, being out with news first is the only thing that counts. This has very little to do with free speech as well, so I don't really know what he's going on about there. Sure, freedom of speech can make people spread false information, but does even harming freedom of speech laws help against that? Hell no!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, right now I'm not browsing with Flash, and it then falls back gracefully to display GIF graphs instead. They aren't interactive, but at least it's not replaced by empty boxes asking me to install Flash.
Hmm, Wiki code support on Slash *would* be pretty cool! :-)
It's probably CodeProject. Beginner to very advanced projects alike, usually with relaxed licenses as well. You can find gold nuggets like the best tutorial I know for the lightweight Windows Template Library, along with a free vastly improved memory leak detector there. They also supports plenty of languages for Windows development, with a big share of articles and code on C++. A message board is added for each code project listed where you can discuss them, along with project unrelated forums for general coding discussion.
XHTML 1.0 Transitional is even the default for ASP .NET at least under VS 2005.
But copyrighting the very idea of having entities that are capable of executing extraordinary feats
That's not what's copyrighted from what I can see, just the term "super hero".
The concept of superheros goes back to Gilgamesh and Enkidu.
Assuming this trademark would hold well (which I hope it doesn't), these would still exist, as well as their deeds. They would just have to be called "heroes" or maybe "legendary heroes".
Would this have been news for nerds if it didn't have Google doing behind the scenes work?
Is Google still geeky enough for it to "matter" for us, even when their products and services doesn't mean anything at all besides that their servers are rolling?
Bah.. Silly Blackjack fans!
RTFA. "It didn't block department-store lingerie ads but covered up a few scantily clad models at the Victoria's Secret site.
Since Victoria's Secret isn't a porn site, there's even more evidence it doesn't work right there.
Nudism wasn't illegal in any modern country I know.
;-)
Sorry, I should've written "modern and democratic country".
This was those I was thinking of, not well industrialized and "modern" dictatorships etc.
Does anybody know how they do this. What is the difference between a nipple and a cherry (the fruit) to a computer.
And more interestingly, what's the difference between a nipple on a nudist shot and not?
Nudism wasn't illegal in any modern country I know.
There are plenty of even less grey area cases like these that would be problematic, mentioned by a poster above. Art, both as for paintings and photography, etc. If we simply forbid the human body out of religious reasons and whatever, isn't that admitting Satan got what he wanted?
Would Michelangelo's David be filtered out
How about anatomy/autopsy pictures ?
This excerpt answers these pretty well:
So it's business as usual. If PC Mag's quick checks revealed innocent sites being blocked, I hope this never sees the light as anything with a mandatory use anywhere. I think missing to spread information is worse than actually even showing human intercourse. Yes, even if there's a vagina there. I hope the kids aren't traumatized for life if they'd stumble over such things and the dirtiness of our anatomy.
Oh, also watch out for the new Pumpk1n Pr0n:
The article says IE would crash more with this tool in use too, but I'm not sure anyone would notice the difference from before and after.
I would RTFA but it is 404, perhaps my ISP filters out stories about filtering.
Just use the Mirrordot version.
The complaint accuses Google, as the dominant provider of Web searches, of violating KinderStart's constitutional right to free speech by blocking search engine results showing Web site content and other communications.
Hmm... Is there even any free speech to talk about here?
I mean, Google owns their index.
Isn't this like complaining about free speech once a moderator kills your post on a forum?
As for Windows security, I honestly think there should be exceptions of what Microsoft can bundle or not to maintain a good security. Yes, one can joke all day about security problems requiring tools like these in the first place, but Windows is a common OS, a huge hacker target, and now that this is the situation, I think MS should be allowed to include these kind of tools as an exception to software competition regulations.
I really don't mind if Microsoft would similarly put Windows antivirus companies "out of business" either. Yes, sucks to be them, but security is among the most important aspects of an operating system, and as important to me when I use an OS as basically the GUI itself.
How is it not?
Ohh... He jokes about deaths! WARNING: UNFUNNY!
What do you currently use? Because installing Windows isn't this easy.
:-)
But nothing wrong in looking for new standards of ease-of-use though, right?
Well, there's no super strange cards in use; e.g. the iMac uses an ATI Radeon X1600. Sure, they may have somehow modified the graphics card for their needs, but I doubt it.
That can't be too far away now, given that there was already solutions to boot Linux. It's just that with a closed source OS like Windows things got a lot trickier.
Why waste time re-implementing something that already works fine?
.NET being improved security due to running in a sandbox and with fine grained security rules. With .NET apps, even the common buffer overruns would be caught, and not require special CPU hardware either. Sure, critics may say it makes programmers "sloppier", but Microsoft themselves never said this.
Microsoft has given one of the major reasons for developing in
Why they think it was unattended I don't know, TFA doesn't say exactly ...
Yes, TFA says the guy had been watching movies during this because his character was owning the enemies anyway. That counts as unattended gaming and is strictly prohibited in WoW due to unfair advantages it grants the botter.
Now, how Blizzard pictured this may be up for debate, but Blizzard has in the past been monitored suspicious accounts if the strange behavior goes on over long periods of time and aren't just flukes. That's probably how they can say this, and if pressured could maybe even say for how long he did it.
No. As Blizzard told him, and as this guy agreed he had done, he had let his keyboard play WoW while watching some "TV and movies".
... "while I was training my different weapon skills by pressing the macro keys and healing myself every now and then, I watched some movies on my TV, because fighting a level 25 healing mob doesn't require much attention if you're a level 60 priest. "
... my level 60 char is so powerful anyway!"
That is the key problem in what he did. If he used macros while watching TV, I can only guess at how long these repeated actions went on.
This isn't about Linux, not about WINE, not even about programmable Logitech keyboards! This is about: watching TV while letting your computer play the game. And... "playing" the game unattended is most certainly against most MMO agreements, and usually equalled with botting, much like Blizzard indeed told him.
I can only guess at why the Blizzard Boards once told him that it was OK to use keyboards with basic programmability, but a guess was that Blizzard didn't mean it was OK to fucking abuse them to play WoW while watching TV. Yeah, maybe that's why.
If it in his eyes "doesn't require much attention" or not is completely irrelevant, and an "excuse" stupid enough to just worsen his case. It's the very same excuse used by "true" botters. Blizzard has most likely monitored his account over some period of time and seen, "hey, this guy is doing identical actions all over". The follow up reply from Blizzard shows they were listening to his complaints and clarified the problem once again.
He then went on saying:
"I have also apoligised in advance if using a programmable keyboard violates the TOS - but your TOS does not say anything about using such keyboards."
No, but a TOS doesn't detail every individual piece of hardware or software disallowed either. That would be impossible. Instead, they try to explain what's allowed or not. Not that Logitech G15 Gaming Keyboards are disallowed when used to exploit game mechanics. Whether Logitech says they're OK or not is also irrelevant as they don't have a say in the WOW ToS anyway.
And I'm sure they are right too that using their keyboard is allowed, but do Logitech say "using our keyboards to 'play' WoW with during TV watching is in agreement with Blizzard ToS"?
So that's flaw number two in his argument, after trying to excuse himself with "but *I* thought it was OK to play the game in an unattended way, because
Come on, just because he's using WINE and this stupid keyboard doesn't excuse his actions.
"However I suspect their 3rd party detection software saw a very strange enviroinment in which WoW was running"
Nah, that's just him trying to find ways of blaming his behavior on Linux and WINE.
"that combined with the repetitive task of healing myself, switching weapons, and casting Hex of Weakness programmed in my keyboard"
Yes! That's why though! You know, stuff botters write Windows software to do Does it really matter that much how you do it? This guy need to understand what botting implies (= tools to enable game play automation) and that botting isn't allowed.
"Now to the advantage gained. What exactly did I gain? All I did is train my weapon skills. I did not gain any gold, did not gain any experience at level 60, no honor, not even any loot whatsoever."
This argument is beyond comprehension for me. He gained trained skills! That's what he gained. Gee.
From the videos I've seen, it's nowhere near Sim Earth (that was a lot about controlling climate) or Sim Life (that wasn't about organisms evolving to anything else than other organisms).
Patent crap from totally unknown companies, but being against Sony and this:
:-(
But, according to the report, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken was unhappy with Thorner's testimony supporting Sony, given that he had also been paid by Sony, and so dismissed this line of defence.
Who to side for?? Help me!!
This is true, but all he proved was that you can lie to media so they get fooled, not that they generalize that shut down Chinese blogs is automatically being censored or anything like that. His own lies destroyed that possibility.
If all he made was show that journalism can be sloppy, then what's new here and why even bother? It's hard fact that in today's competition among newspapers, being out with news first is the only thing that counts. This has very little to do with free speech as well, so I don't really know what he's going on about there. Sure, freedom of speech can make people spread false information, but does even harming freedom of speech laws help against that? Hell no!