Lumping all that share characteristics under a label is a pretty good definition of "adjective", and "noun". It's what those words are for. It's only dumb to use that label in invalid ways. We have lists of invalid ways.
Criticizing a group for characteristics its members actually share is one thing.
It's an entirely different thing to condemn an entire culture based on its most contemptible products.
Why waste your life making up for their shortfalls, especially when your efforts harm people who could make your life much easier.
Rubbing your pet puppy's nose in it is training. Doing it to a feral dog in front of its pack is suicide. There are an awful lot of MS thralls who make their living perpetually de-stinking MS's shit, and the ignorant are grateful for the arcane rituals. Why should anyone involved actually improve things? I mean, beside for self-respect.
I've paid many thousands of dollars for this DVD collection. I want backups.
The house has a media server. I keep *everything* on there.
What crime, pray tell, am I committing when I do either of those?
Me. Not the usual "what crime could somebody else commit" question, answer my question: what crime is involved in those two increasingly cheap and easily achievable uses?
Lift the cat who was amongst the pigeons up and put him back on his pedestal for now. (remove requirement on ogg for now)
... and the replacement text doesn't name ogg, it merely lists codec desiderata that only the oggs (afaik) can meet.
That said, I can easily imagine that companies are in exclusive-licensing binds and have promised not to support other media formats in exchange for, say, massive price breaks.
Because you want an honest party to verify the "good" one, sign its MD5 with their trusted key, and actually distribute the good one.
Then you can in chosen circumstances replace it with the bad one (on, say, specific installs), and an ordinary audit will see the trusted signature on the package you thoughtfully provided on DVD.
Or think contracts: any signed-MD5 signature for a document in a format that ordinarily includes random-looking garbage is now untrustworthy, because what that person signed may have nothing in common with what you're being shown.
TFA points out specifically that no one knows how to target a specific hash code. All they can do is make two files converge on the same hash code by inserting data into *each* of them.
In California, at least, a person is presumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his voluntary act. The presumption is so strong we're willing to outlaw speech based only on that -- fighting words in a bar, "fire!" in a theater, criminal, because you know damn well what will follow, no matter it's other people doing it.
It was a big fat security hole and no one in their right mind will argue against that. [...] They went ahead and picked ease of use over security [...]. We all know how that worked out
We knew it at the time.
They knew it at the time.
It wasn't just ActiveX.
You could hit F1 in Word and read for fifteen minutes and discover exactly how to write an email virus. They knew that, too. Microsoft knowingly dropped the security holes and really good documentation on how to use them in front of a large fraction of the computer-literate and -semi-literate teenage boys on the planet.
If Vista's actually does work that well, then you've asked a very interesting question.
Somehow, though, I don't think Microsoft suddenly woke up and figured out how to actually be fanatic about making minor hassles vanish. I'm betting Vista's feature works that well *after* you mutter the right keyboard and mouse incantation, with a lot of "well, of course"ing from people who just overwhelm them (the hassles) with competence, from the user side of the equation, and simply cannot comprehend the notion of doing it from the software end.
Anyone whose bullshit meter doesn't instantly redline on hearing the ~I have here a list of (pick a number) (pick a bad thing)~ argument form has something mentally wrong with him. SCO tried to maintain that line, with what both judges in the Novell and IBM cases called a "complete lack" of evidence to back it, despite repeated and increasingly acerbic orders to produce, for years. And Lyons still acted as if he believed SCO. Nobody but a child caught in a loyalty bind is actually that blind.
I watched a game once on IGS, 9p (jujo, I think) against 8d from korea, a few minutes a move.
The 9p lit off a corner battle, early, and lost utterly. He kept fighting that battle, never just moved on, and was left with one stone on the edge of the ruins, out around the 6-8 point or something like that, all alone, butted up against a solid wall. Nothing else, or nothing accessible anyway. Something like 40 moves, with that one stone to show for it.
He then proceeded to use that as a lever on everything that happened on the rest of the board. Every move he made, you could see a threat if that stone got in on the action.
He won, of course.
I really don't think any evaluation-pruned search is ever going to be able to do that to an IGS 8d.
Just like Microsoft's Java corruptions set that standard, and their C corruptions set that one, and their HTML corruptions set that one, and (as pointed out above) their TCP/IP alternative set that one, and... um. In their dreams. They haven't corrupted the language that far yet. Standards, see, standards are written documents everyone can consult to implement products that meet them. Microsoft's entire business model fails in the presence of actual standards.
Slashdot Mirror
Python (and especially Stackless).
Perl.
Tcl.
Ruby.
Lua.
TeX.
Mediawiki.
Slashcode.
USENET.
Every fucking internet protocol on the planet.
Boost.
sqlite.
mach.
Kerberos.
IHBT.
IHL.
IWNHAND.
Lumping all that share characteristics under a label is a pretty good definition of "adjective", and "noun". It's what those words are for. It's only dumb to use that label in invalid ways. We have lists of invalid ways.
Criticizing a group for characteristics its members actually share is one thing.
It's an entirely different thing to condemn an entire culture based on its most contemptible products.
gak. replying to wipe unintentional mod.
So, Kind of Blue hasn't recouped its production cost yet?
Or Then Play On?
Oh, Well.
Rubbing your pet puppy's nose in it is training. Doing it to a feral dog in front of its pack is suicide. There are an awful lot of MS thralls who make their living perpetually de-stinking MS's shit, and the ignorant are grateful for the arcane rituals. Why should anyone involved actually improve things? I mean, beside for self-respect.
What, not even explicitly predicting the form of your response is enough to shame you into silence?
Ok, here are multiple legitimate reasons:
What crime, pray tell, am I committing when I do either of those?
Me. Not the usual "what crime could somebody else commit" question, answer my question: what crime is involved in those two increasingly cheap and easily achievable uses?
you cannot be jailed or convicted for not testifying against yourself but you can be punished for failing to
... say something that will get you convicted?
You advocate punishing people for not confessing a crime?
Get a grip.
Lift the cat who was amongst the pigeons up and put him back on his pedestal for now. (remove requirement on ogg for now)
... and the replacement text doesn't name ogg, it merely lists codec desiderata that only the oggs (afaik) can meet.
That said, I can easily imagine that companies are in exclusive-licensing binds and have promised not to support other media formats in exchange for, say, massive price breaks.
"Apple" isn't a descriptive acronym.
O, the Lord of Law on the Throne of Thought
Because you want an honest party to verify the "good" one, sign its MD5 with their trusted key, and actually distribute the good one.
Then you can in chosen circumstances replace it with the bad one (on, say, specific installs), and an ordinary audit will see the trusted signature on the package you thoughtfully provided on DVD.
Or think contracts: any signed-MD5 signature for a document in a format that ordinarily includes random-looking garbage is now untrustworthy, because what that person signed may have nothing in common with what you're being shown.
TFA points out specifically that no one knows how to target a specific hash code. All they can do is make two files converge on the same hash code by inserting data into *each* of them.
Nice dodge.
They left run-on-open macros enabled by default.
Just opening your email would run arbitrary, sender-written code.
It wasn't oversight. It wasn't accident.
They knew damned well what they were doing.
In California, at least, a person is presumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his voluntary act. The presumption is so strong we're willing to outlaw speech based only on that -- fighting words in a bar, "fire!" in a theater, criminal, because you know damn well what will follow, no matter it's other people doing it.
We knew it at the time.
They knew it at the time.
It wasn't just ActiveX.
You could hit F1 in Word and read for fifteen minutes and discover exactly how to write an email virus. They knew that, too. Microsoft knowingly dropped the security holes and really good documentation on how to use them in front of a large fraction of the computer-literate and -semi-literate teenage boys on the planet.
When it comes to computers, anything older than IBM is obsolete.
Somehow I don't think the company that decided to invest a billion dollars in GPL'd Linux is suffering an excess of NIH.
If Vista's actually does work that well, then you've asked a very interesting question.
Somehow, though, I don't think Microsoft suddenly woke up and figured out how to actually be fanatic about making minor hassles vanish. I'm betting Vista's feature works that well *after* you mutter the right keyboard and mouse incantation, with a lot of "well, of course"ing from people who just overwhelm them (the hassles) with competence, from the user side of the equation, and simply cannot comprehend the notion of doing it from the software end.
A "funny" mod won't cut it. Thank you for the best laugh I've had in a week.
Anyone whose bullshit meter doesn't instantly redline on hearing the ~I have here a list of (pick a number) (pick a bad thing)~ argument form has something mentally wrong with him. SCO tried to maintain that line, with what both judges in the Novell and IBM cases called a "complete lack" of evidence to back it, despite repeated and increasingly acerbic orders to produce, for years. And Lyons still acted as if he believed SCO. Nobody but a child caught in a loyalty bind is actually that blind.
Ok, let's talk about Mickey Mouse.
Nobody who thought up Mickey Mouse is still working.
The people who currently own the copyright had absolutely nothing to do with his creation.
The people who currently own the copyright paid for twenty-eight years of copyright.
What they say they own now, they did not create, did not subsidize, did not pay for.
But they want to raise their kids on it.
I think it's dangerous for their defenders to use words like "freeloader". It might get people thinking.
I watched a game once on IGS, 9p (jujo, I think) against 8d from korea, a few minutes a move.
The 9p lit off a corner battle, early, and lost utterly. He kept fighting that battle, never just moved on, and was left with one stone on the edge of the ruins, out around the 6-8 point or something like that, all alone, butted up against a solid wall. Nothing else, or nothing accessible anyway. Something like 40 moves, with that one stone to show for it.
He then proceeded to use that as a lever on everything that happened on the rest of the board. Every move he made, you could see a threat if that stone got in on the action.
He won, of course.
I really don't think any evaluation-pruned search is ever going to be able to do that to an IGS 8d.
ssia
Just like Microsoft's Java corruptions set that standard, and their C corruptions set that one, and their HTML corruptions set that one, and (as pointed out above) their TCP/IP alternative set that one, and ... um. In their dreams. They haven't corrupted the language that far yet. Standards, see, standards are written documents everyone can consult to implement products that meet them. Microsoft's entire business model fails in the presence of actual standards.
I just heard that in the Myth II tutorial voice. Time to see if 1.6'll run on Wine. That was a great game.