It's more about "user experience" than anything else. They don't want to allow OSX to run on anything other than their hardware, because some cheap chipset might make the whole thing malfunction and users would be fast to blame apple for a bad product.
I'm sure a bunch of Atom fan-boyz are trying to mod you into oblivion, while a bunch of Apple fan-boyz are doing the same with their fucking echo chamber ("APPLE IS A HARDWARE COMPANY") but the fact remains, the Atom is a truly pathetic platform for OSX. Anemic doesn't even start to describe it. Anemic, with a low blood-sugar level and a bad case of gout would be closer to the truth.
"Waaah! Why won't the big bad Apple let me install OSX on my Timex Sinclair-1000?"
"Did you know Apple has specific code to prevent OSX from running on a Commodore VIC-20? IT'S TRUE!"
The citizen can make copies of the ordinances from those sources.
Yeah sure. At ten cents a page.
Also seen previously, a guy in California scanned thousands of pages of law and put them online for free after CA tried to copyright their laws. The story was from '08, so I'm not sure what the resolution was (or if there's even been one).
The entire A,B,C,D column is @ 1633hz. Ergo, the 'C' key is 1633 Hz (column) + 852 Hz (row) -- two tones because of the D (dual) in DTMF. The full list is available here.
It's a contract. Breaking a contract is something where both parties agree what the response should be.
Uh, changing a contract is something both parties have to agree to. And that's precisely what Verizon is trying to pull. You sign a contract, then a few months later, Verizon says, "Well, actually, this is what we meant."
Thankfully, any time a company does this you have the legal option to say NO. And happily keep any promotional items that came along with the deal (like... oh, I don't know... THE PHONE!)
If Verizon was serious about contracts they'd try sticking to one for a change.
And he's seriously saying that in order to "fix" this, web site owners must simply disallow users from uploading files. Period. (Not through Flash, but all file uploading.) That's a spectacular answer.
A spectacularly stupid answer. If the only person able to view that content is the user that uploaded the file in the first place, the only attack vector is the initial perpetrator. If, on the other hand, a website blindly allows user content to be served to the world without sanitizing it beforehand, well... all bets are off.
Suppose I'm an attacker, and I upload a malicious javascript file to www.victimsite.example. I then reference it in a site I control www.seemingly-innocuous.example
Ah, well there's your problem. Suppose I upload an infected EXE, and then I link to it in another website. In the grand scope of "things I should worry about," the fact that bad-EXE runs with the security credentials of other site should be the least of my concerns.
Any user content that can be publicly served should be automatically suspect.
It's a more complex problem than just serving user-generated SWF files.
Blinding serving user-generated content is precisely the problem.
As a developer, I'd rather be responsible for sanitizing data than Adobe implementing a half-assed work-around to satisfy the internet ninnies that don't understand that you can't trust your users.
It's broken and needs to be fixed. The server just holds an infected item, like say a Gif.
Gmail lets me upload Microsoft.DOC files. DOC files can contain malicious ActiveX content. According to your awesome reasoning, Gmail is busted.
There's nothing wrong with servers letting their users upload their own content. The problem is if you then open that content to all users without any sanitation.
This only affects sites stupid enough to re-serve a particular user's content to everyone.
If, for example, you are a Flex developer and allow users to upload images (or even... GASP! SWF files!) to the server, but only allow that particular user to see the file, you're completely safe. In fact, you're just ensuring the malicious parties are the only ones who might ever be affected by their malicious software. It's almost poetic.
I still have my original USR HST. Back in '89 they were running a beta program for selected BBSs to test out their brand-spankin'-new 14.4k technology. If memory serves, they only worked at 14.4 when connecting to other HSTs. Now those were fuckin' L33T!
Once those came out most of the decent pirate hubs went 9600+ only. Ahh... the slow-ol-days.
Even so, Copyright infringment is depriving some entity of a right: the government-granted right of exclusive distribution.
The appropriateness of the word hinges precisely upon this point. Unfortunately, people who pirate data are not intrinsically distributing data. Thus they are not necessarily thieves in your bastardized usage.
Illegally pirate, perhaps (though most TV shows are available on DVD). But steal? No. Might as well say pirates are committing rape against the entertainment industry. It's an inappropriate word used to garner support from the ignorant.
And just to preemptively stop you from changing the subject, your comment was "The northern claim to moral ascendancy on the slavery issue is a load of crap." The northern claim most certainly had a moral foundation for a lot of people.
His zeal in the cause of freedom was infinitely superior to mine... Mine was as the taper light; his was as the burning sun. I could live for the slave; John Brown could die for him.
The trawlers rake scoops across the ocean beds to catch shrimp. Which annihilate the corral reefs.
More than just coral reefs. There's an interesting article from the NYT about commercial trawlers features some incredible images from Google Maps.
Trawling is the ecological equivalent of strapping a thick wire cable between two jeeps and driving at high speeds across the fields. You'll kill every animal in your path, as well as most of the shrubs and trees. Look at the paths left behind the trawlers and compare to the areas in front of them. They leave behind a veritable wasteland.
The problem with farmed fish is that most of the meat is contaminated with parasites [wikipedia.org], such as sea lice [wikipedia.org].
The wikipedia article you link to does not say that most of the meat is contaminated. If you're going to make outrageous statements like this, please pick sources that actually back your claim.
The goal is prevention rather than punishment, reflecting the purpose of civil law in setting things right rather than that of criminal law. The typical sanction is to order the advertiser to stop its illegal acts, or to include disclosure of additional information that serves to avoid the chance of deception. Corrective advertising may be mandated. But there are no fines or prison time except for the infrequent instances when an advertiser refuses to stop despite being ordered to do so. [emphasis added]
So, kind of like a police officer running after a purse-snatcher yelling, "Stop! Or I'll yell stop again!"
Slashdot Mirror
Now I don't have to append -site:fox.com to my search results to filter out the lies. Thank you for going to all this trouble.
Why does the electronic voting machine have to be
Why does the voting machine even have to be electronic?
Even one good reason would be nice.
Lets put that into terms every slashdotter will understand.
And then you go using centimeters instead of inches. FOR SHAME.
Me: Here's the prototype. It's black and white, but the finished product will be in full color.
Them: This menu item is supposed to be green.
Jesus Christ this is so painfully true.
It's more about "user experience" than anything else. They don't want to allow OSX to run on anything other than their hardware, because some cheap chipset might make the whole thing malfunction and users would be fast to blame apple for a bad product.
I'm sure a bunch of Atom fan-boyz are trying to mod you into oblivion, while a bunch of Apple fan-boyz are doing the same with their fucking echo chamber ("APPLE IS A HARDWARE COMPANY") but the fact remains, the Atom is a truly pathetic platform for OSX. Anemic doesn't even start to describe it. Anemic, with a low blood-sugar level and a bad case of gout would be closer to the truth.
"Waaah! Why won't the big bad Apple let me install OSX on my Timex Sinclair-1000?"
"Did you know Apple has specific code to prevent OSX from running on a Commodore VIC-20? IT'S TRUE!"
The citizen can make copies of the ordinances from those sources.
Yeah sure. At ten cents a page.
Also seen previously, a guy in California scanned thousands of pages of law and put them online for free after CA tried to copyright their laws. The story was from '08, so I'm not sure what the resolution was (or if there's even been one).
Poverty now becomes the ultimate trump card! This should change prison demographics a little.
nobody will care about this because all communications will be encrypted end-to-end and wiretaps will be useless
Useless? I think not. Just because the message is encrypted doesn't mean the calling and receiving party information isn't useful.
I work for the FBI and see that Special Agent Trusted Dude makes an encrypted phone call to Known Terrorist...
I work for the CIA and see that Dr. Intelligence Specialist made an encrypted call to Comrade Foreign Agent...
I work for the DEA and see that Mr. Fine Upstanding Citizen made a 20-second encrypted phone call to Known Drug Dealer...
Etc.
The entire A,B,C,D column is @ 1633hz. Ergo, the 'C' key is 1633 Hz (column) + 852 Hz (row) -- two tones because of the D (dual) in DTMF. The full list is available here.
It's a contract. Breaking a contract is something where both parties agree what the response should be.
Uh, changing a contract is something both parties have to agree to. And that's precisely what Verizon is trying to pull. You sign a contract, then a few months later, Verizon says, "Well, actually, this is what we meant."
Thankfully, any time a company does this you have the legal option to say NO. And happily keep any promotional items that came along with the deal (like... oh, I don't know... THE PHONE!)
If Verizon was serious about contracts they'd try sticking to one for a change.
And he's seriously saying that in order to "fix" this, web site owners must simply disallow users from uploading files. Period. (Not through Flash, but all file uploading .) That's a spectacular answer.
A spectacularly stupid answer. If the only person able to view that content is the user that uploaded the file in the first place, the only attack vector is the initial perpetrator. If, on the other hand, a website blindly allows user content to be served to the world without sanitizing it beforehand, well... all bets are off.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Suppose I'm an attacker, and I upload a malicious javascript file to www.victimsite.example. I then reference it in a site I control www.seemingly-innocuous.example
Ah, well there's your problem. Suppose I upload an infected EXE, and then I link to it in another website. In the grand scope of "things I should worry about," the fact that bad-EXE runs with the security credentials of other site should be the least of my concerns.
Any user content that can be publicly served should be automatically suspect.
It's a more complex problem than just serving user-generated SWF files.
Blinding serving user-generated content is precisely the problem.
As a developer, I'd rather be responsible for sanitizing data than Adobe implementing a half-assed work-around to satisfy the internet ninnies that don't understand that you can't trust your users.
It's broken and needs to be fixed. The server just holds an infected item, like say a Gif.
Gmail lets me upload Microsoft .DOC files. DOC files can contain malicious ActiveX content. According to your awesome reasoning, Gmail is busted.
There's nothing wrong with servers letting their users upload their own content. The problem is if you then open that content to all users without any sanitation.
Sorry, but that's not Adobe's problem.
+1 Absolutely correct.
This only affects sites stupid enough to re-serve a particular user's content to everyone.
If, for example, you are a Flex developer and allow users to upload images (or even... GASP! SWF files!) to the server, but only allow that particular user to see the file, you're completely safe. In fact, you're just ensuring the malicious parties are the only ones who might ever be affected by their malicious software. It's almost poetic.
Uh, yes they do. Actually.
Does that make me old? :(
I still have my original USR HST. Back in '89 they were running a beta program for selected BBSs to test out their brand-spankin'-new 14.4k technology. If memory serves, they only worked at 14.4 when connecting to other HSTs. Now those were fuckin' L33T!
Once those came out most of the decent pirate hubs went 9600+ only. Ahh... the slow-ol-days.
Nice!
Even so, Copyright infringment is depriving some entity of a right: the government-granted right of exclusive distribution.
The appropriateness of the word hinges precisely upon this point. Unfortunately, people who pirate data are not intrinsically distributing data. Thus they are not necessarily thieves in your bastardized usage.
Illegally pirate, perhaps (though most TV shows are available on DVD). But steal? No. Might as well say pirates are committing rape against the entertainment industry. It's an inappropriate word used to garner support from the ignorant.
The northern claim to moral ascendancy on the slavery issue is a load of crap.
Tell that to John Brown.
And just to preemptively stop you from changing the subject, your comment was "The northern claim to moral ascendancy on the slavery issue is a load of crap." The northern claim most certainly had a moral foundation for a lot of people.
His zeal in the cause of freedom was infinitely superior to mine...
Mine was as the taper light;
his was as the burning sun.
I could live for the slave;
John Brown could die for him.
-Frederick Douglass
The trawlers rake scoops across the ocean beds to catch shrimp. Which annihilate the corral reefs.
More than just coral reefs. There's an interesting article from the NYT about commercial trawlers features some incredible images from Google Maps.
Trawling is the ecological equivalent of strapping a thick wire cable between two jeeps and driving at high speeds across the fields. You'll kill every animal in your path, as well as most of the shrubs and trees. Look at the paths left behind the trawlers and compare to the areas in front of them. They leave behind a veritable wasteland.
The problem with farmed fish is that most of the meat is contaminated with parasites [wikipedia.org], such as sea lice [wikipedia.org].
The wikipedia article you link to does not say that most of the meat is contaminated. If you're going to make outrageous statements like this, please pick sources that actually back your claim.
Yes, the Federal Trade Commission. Their teeth are about as sharp and fearsome as an earthworm:
The goal is prevention rather than punishment, reflecting the purpose of civil law in setting things right rather than that of criminal law. The typical sanction is to order the advertiser to stop its illegal acts, or to include disclosure of additional information that serves to avoid the chance of deception. Corrective advertising may be mandated. But there are no fines or prison time except for the infrequent instances when an advertiser refuses to stop despite being ordered to do so. [emphasis added]
So, kind of like a police officer running after a purse-snatcher yelling, "Stop! Or I'll yell stop again!"
steal
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.