I think I started it as a way to save my place in walls of words while my eyes wandered or I scrollwheeled, and now it's just part of the browsing motion. Though it's definitely found my OCD neurons and they amplify the effect.
So my mouse is almost never where I'm looking, and it's often selecting the wrong words.
There's a stat (this is original research but this isn't the wikipedia so fuck it) that 3,000 bullets are expended for each enemy killed.
This has been fairly constant for all wars since at least the Civil War (don't have data on the Revolution or earlier euro wars that had bullets in them; but the CW and both world wars and Viet Nam followed this model; can't remember if I saw data for the first Gulf War (i mean, it lasted a couple of days and we were cluster-bombing cars and rounding up prisoners more than shooting), but I did see one snippet that suggests the current wars are following suit).
The stat comes from logistical reports, so it includes all the bullets used in training, covering fire, diversion, yada, yada.
You can do the math on whether 3,000 bullets to kill someone to stop them from standing in the wrong place is cheaper than zapping them with a heat ray. Don't forget the cost of the paperwork if you use your weapon on the wrong person.
This isn't an ordinary war. It's a house-to-house search for malefactors. Or at least it should be. Clear an area, leave a presence to prevent it from being taken again and to cap anything that was hiding, then move your main force on to the next one. Tile the country with your wins, and the war ends.
Unless in the process you turn good guys in your pwned sectors into bad guys by acting like the bad guys they once helped you exterminate.
Regardless, in the process you don't allow yourself at any time to fall victim to medieval tactics like pincer moves. Unless you're a stupid cunt.
If you're really a whitehat, tell the vendor first. This will keep the exploit away from blackhats while the vendor fixes the hole. Security through obscurity works, up until the time it doesn't. So if the vendor does not fix the hole quickly, and you suspect the blackhats are about to discover it, then you need to inform the people who are vulnerable to it. If possible without broadcasting it to the blackhats and script-kiddies. Yes, that's rarely possible, but if it's possible it's the right thing to do first. The only reason to broadcast a hole is that you know the blackhats are using it and it affects people you can not contact any other way.
Any other protocol leaves you open to questions of character and intent. Either you're an attention whore or you're a blackhat looking to cause trouble.
I'm hopeful this post will get the shit modded out of it, preferably as "-1 Redundant".
Something comes up from the back of your brain to the middle, and the middle says "yeah that's right" or "wait a second, that can't be right" and if it thinks it's right the front of your brain makes it come out your face.
In the hive-mind we do the same thing, only journalists are the back of the brain and the rest of us are the middle and there is no real front. So there's lots of uncoordinated data coming from the back and we're in the middle judging its quality and it pretty much just recirculates, with each of us collecting his own little satchel of things that made sense as they flew past.
And then someone does a survey and cocks up the binning and a lot of the middle doesn't know what is right or wrong any more, but buys an iPhone because that's all the article was purposed to tell them to do, even after the correction was made.
Those are acts for which the people who are liable are liable.
They may not be Southwest's fault, but they're certainly the responsibility of someone who should pay for the delays.
The air travel system didn't sell me a lottery ticket, it sold me a takeoff and landing time at two identified airports. If any of those things is wrong, it's on their heads.
The Arabs didn't spend a trillion dollars developing numbers and algebra.
We did spend a trillion dollars developing the Internet. And it produced a boom economy.
So American shipped the jobs related to it overseas for, in some cases, our enemies to earn even more of our trade deficit.
Your melodrama about people in other countries becoming revolting extremists is silly. We've been centuries ahead of them for, well, centuries. Someone found a way to fill their own pockets with that, while raping our domestic economy in the process. Destroy a trillion dollars in value to make a billion dollars. That's the plutocratic way.
"You see the jobs going out, but you don't see the money that comes back by these people, the money generated by American companies."
The money comes back to a few people who control the cashflow in the multinationals that sold the jobs overseas, not to the millions of people who lost their jobs here. Your ability to get a high-paying job was cut in half, and you're saying it's a great thing.
"I know for a fact, that this country - USA - still rewards people for their hard work and skill."
You've been watching too much sports. This country still lays off people who work their asses off and have PhD's, and then cuts off their unemployment benefits unless the right people's backs get scratched in Congress.
You're either a treason-monkey just like Carly Fiorina is, or you've drunk the Laissez-Faire kool-aid and ignored the hundred times it's caused nothing but Jonestown.
Your reason for their being idiotic is idiotically narrow-minded.
Chrome is my third-most-used browser, and may soon be fourth. (Yes, I have all 4 installed on my home box.)
Firefox gets the most use. Things just all seem to be where they should be and operate as they should. Though the 4.0 beta tabs are a bit unsettling. I switched off the tabs-on-top, because that's just a fucking stupid place to put them, but they still extend all the way to the left border of the browser, instead of to the left border of the webpage pane. When a sidebar is open, it's got 3/4ths of a tab across it. They misassociated the tabs with the browser window instead of the webpage window, and misassociated the sidebars with the webpage window instead of the browser window. Jarring to the logic of the thing.
IE gets the next-most use. I have its security features cranked way up. It doesn't even play Flash now unless I go into the configs and enable the right button. I use it for sites where I suspect risky business.
I recently DL'ed safari, and I use it only to see how it operates in standards tests (http://acid3.acidtests.org/ and http://html5test.com/).
Chrome gets that, plus the occasional check to see if it handles some pages different from IE and FF. But really, it and Safari are curiosities, and IE is a rubber glove, while FF is the actual browser I go to when I go online.
Someone already mentioned, if the guy thought he owned it, and Zuckerberg never indicated otherwise, then the offense didn't occur until Zuckerberg told him he didn't. At the time Ceglia paid Zuckerberg the money, according to the contract Zuckerberg ceded 50% of the company. He owned it until Zuckerberg told him he didn't. I doubt that was only a few months after the contract was signed, and probably wasn't until recently.
This is simply an example of countries trying to develop themselves and their resources.
Well, no. They're developing resources that were handed to them by us. Not actually by all of us, but by those of us who had nominal control of those resources, whose job was to preserve their value, who instead realized they could be tossed over the wall to someone else who would make them more money. Not us. We lost money, jobs, and competitive advantage.
It's as though India and China won a war, and took a couple of $trillion out of us in the process. But it wasn't a war. It was more like treason, since our CEOs gave us up rather than fighting for us.
The second-worst quality-control aspect in that story is the headline. "Tata Nano Goes Up in Flames With Passenger and Driver Inside" very strongly implies they were immolated along with the vehicle. You'd have to somehow show me that "goes up in flames" has been used as a synonym for "catches fire" rather than "is consumed by fire", which is the only sense I've ever seen, to rationalize that sensationalistic usage. Article goes up in flames with author inside.
It's not a statement that Google are going to push the 3.0 ROM out to Nexus One handsets themselves.
I may have to do it manually, which at the least a pain in my ass, and at most a risk of bricking the unit. I wanted this phone to be fairly seamless (compared to the several Palm handsets I had before it, and their retarded computer-based programming systems), and it's going to turn out not to be.
In fact, most of his wealth is equity in his own company.
He's only got so much cash, then he has to start paying in stock.
And lawyers, as I've said, can work on contingency. They can even borrow money from speculators to pay themselves and their expenses, and promise to pay it back with interest when they get their (hefty) cut of the settlement.
Zuckerberg and Ceglia can sit back and not expense a dime until its done.
I wouldn't mind putting my own money into Ceglia's campaign and getting a couple of points of his equity when it all works out. Because it sure sounds like Zuckerberg fucked himself here.
Wikipedia is not an authority on anything, but I didn't have the list of 7 elements of a contract in my head, so I referenced it. It had 8; the bit about "vitiating" is someone's wikipedial add-on that clumsily comprises all the arguments you can make even if the 7 elements are present.
If you read the wikipedia entry, you do see that they boil contracts down to a short latin phrase, similar to the german one you quoted. It's the basis for all contracts and includes oral contracts. But even an oral contract has to fit the 7-layer-cake model.
It is a sort of checklist, and it isn't notional. If one of the elements is missing or borked it's usually indication that the contract was not valid: mental or chemical incapacitation; not actually having legal authority to contract away the consideration; not actually promising consideration or misrepresenting value of the consideration; etc. You can trace these elements to solid, even prehistoric precedents that can be cited to back up your case. Judges are loath to buck precedent, so your adversary had better have some good vitiation if the element is satisfied.
And that's what I said, really, not that the lawyers will just tie it up, but that they can dig into every available cranny to find things to argue and hope the other side bollixes the counter-argument.
Or the judge could take one look, realize it's going to be a common brawl, and make a summary judgement because there's really nothing indistinct about the contract that could be construed as changing the result.
Slashdot Mirror
I ODC-ishly select things randomly onscreen.
I think I started it as a way to save my place in walls of words while my eyes wandered or I scrollwheeled, and now it's just part of the browsing motion. Though it's definitely found my OCD neurons and they amplify the effect.
So my mouse is almost never where I'm looking, and it's often selecting the wrong words.
Back of my mind (low-reliability recollection) says they actually did that.
It also tells me they're using them on boats off the east coast of Africa to deter pirates.
There's a stat (this is original research but this isn't the wikipedia so fuck it) that 3,000 bullets are expended for each enemy killed.
This has been fairly constant for all wars since at least the Civil War (don't have data on the Revolution or earlier euro wars that had bullets in them; but the CW and both world wars and Viet Nam followed this model; can't remember if I saw data for the first Gulf War (i mean, it lasted a couple of days and we were cluster-bombing cars and rounding up prisoners more than shooting), but I did see one snippet that suggests the current wars are following suit).
The stat comes from logistical reports, so it includes all the bullets used in training, covering fire, diversion, yada, yada.
You can do the math on whether 3,000 bullets to kill someone to stop them from standing in the wrong place is cheaper than zapping them with a heat ray. Don't forget the cost of the paperwork if you use your weapon on the wrong person.
This isn't an ordinary war. It's a house-to-house search for malefactors. Or at least it should be. Clear an area, leave a presence to prevent it from being taken again and to cap anything that was hiding, then move your main force on to the next one. Tile the country with your wins, and the war ends.
Unless in the process you turn good guys in your pwned sectors into bad guys by acting like the bad guys they once helped you exterminate.
Regardless, in the process you don't allow yourself at any time to fall victim to medieval tactics like pincer moves. Unless you're a stupid cunt.
If you're really a whitehat, tell the vendor first. This will keep the exploit away from blackhats while the vendor fixes the hole. Security through obscurity works, up until the time it doesn't. So if the vendor does not fix the hole quickly, and you suspect the blackhats are about to discover it, then you need to inform the people who are vulnerable to it. If possible without broadcasting it to the blackhats and script-kiddies. Yes, that's rarely possible, but if it's possible it's the right thing to do first. The only reason to broadcast a hole is that you know the blackhats are using it and it affects people you can not contact any other way.
Any other protocol leaves you open to questions of character and intent. Either you're an attention whore or you're a blackhat looking to cause trouble.
I'm hopeful this post will get the shit modded out of it, preferably as "-1 Redundant".
Well, no, this is how thinking works.
Something comes up from the back of your brain to the middle, and the middle says "yeah that's right" or "wait a second, that can't be right" and if it thinks it's right the front of your brain makes it come out your face.
In the hive-mind we do the same thing, only journalists are the back of the brain and the rest of us are the middle and there is no real front. So there's lots of uncoordinated data coming from the back and we're in the middle judging its quality and it pretty much just recirculates, with each of us collecting his own little satchel of things that made sense as they flew past.
And then someone does a survey and cocks up the binning and a lot of the middle doesn't know what is right or wrong any more, but buys an iPhone because that's all the article was purposed to tell them to do, even after the correction was made.
No dice. This year they're all getting turkeys.
We are rendered awesome because we came up with the Fish Slapping Dance.
We are restored to mundanity because we see it as farce rather than satire.
I know! Require them to use their real names. That'll fix it.
If they are as intelligent as we think they are, won't they take one look at us and pretend they're not home?
Fear and Loathing in Saint-Genis-Pouilly...
Those aren't acts of god.
Those are acts for which the people who are liable are liable.
They may not be Southwest's fault, but they're certainly the responsibility of someone who should pay for the delays.
The air travel system didn't sell me a lottery ticket, it sold me a takeoff and landing time at two identified airports. If any of those things is wrong, it's on their heads.
Then I've probably already seen it, and need a good debugger to figure out where it went.
The Arabs didn't spend a trillion dollars developing numbers and algebra.
We did spend a trillion dollars developing the Internet. And it produced a boom economy.
So American shipped the jobs related to it overseas for, in some cases, our enemies to earn even more of our trade deficit.
Your melodrama about people in other countries becoming revolting extremists is silly. We've been centuries ahead of them for, well, centuries. Someone found a way to fill their own pockets with that, while raping our domestic economy in the process. Destroy a trillion dollars in value to make a billion dollars. That's the plutocratic way.
"You see the jobs going out, but you don't see the money that comes back by these people, the money generated by American companies."
The money comes back to a few people who control the cashflow in the multinationals that sold the jobs overseas, not to the millions of people who lost their jobs here. Your ability to get a high-paying job was cut in half, and you're saying it's a great thing.
"I know for a fact, that this country - USA - still rewards people for their hard work and skill."
You've been watching too much sports. This country still lays off people who work their asses off and have PhD's, and then cuts off their unemployment benefits unless the right people's backs get scratched in Congress.
You're either a treason-monkey just like Carly Fiorina is, or you've drunk the Laissez-Faire kool-aid and ignored the hundred times it's caused nothing but Jonestown.
Your reason for their being idiotic is idiotically narrow-minded.
Chrome is my third-most-used browser, and may soon be fourth. (Yes, I have all 4 installed on my home box.)
Firefox gets the most use. Things just all seem to be where they should be and operate as they should. Though the 4.0 beta tabs are a bit unsettling. I switched off the tabs-on-top, because that's just a fucking stupid place to put them, but they still extend all the way to the left border of the browser, instead of to the left border of the webpage pane. When a sidebar is open, it's got 3/4ths of a tab across it. They misassociated the tabs with the browser window instead of the webpage window, and misassociated the sidebars with the webpage window instead of the browser window. Jarring to the logic of the thing.
IE gets the next-most use. I have its security features cranked way up. It doesn't even play Flash now unless I go into the configs and enable the right button. I use it for sites where I suspect risky business.
I recently DL'ed safari, and I use it only to see how it operates in standards tests (http://acid3.acidtests.org/ and http://html5test.com/).
Chrome gets that, plus the occasional check to see if it handles some pages different from IE and FF. But really, it and Safari are curiosities, and IE is a rubber glove, while FF is the actual browser I go to when I go online.
And that makes IE 9 better than Chrome 5.
Someone already mentioned, if the guy thought he owned it, and Zuckerberg never indicated otherwise, then the offense didn't occur until Zuckerberg told him he didn't. At the time Ceglia paid Zuckerberg the money, according to the contract Zuckerberg ceded 50% of the company. He owned it until Zuckerberg told him he didn't. I doubt that was only a few months after the contract was signed, and probably wasn't until recently.
I'm not sure how it can get the cost down to $10.
They outsource manufacturing to China.
A tablet computer is just a smartphone with a bigger screen.
The majority of them are already in production.
This is simply an example of countries trying to develop themselves and their resources.
Well, no. They're developing resources that were handed to them by us. Not actually by all of us, but by those of us who had nominal control of those resources, whose job was to preserve their value, who instead realized they could be tossed over the wall to someone else who would make them more money. Not us. We lost money, jobs, and competitive advantage.
It's as though India and China won a war, and took a couple of $trillion out of us in the process. But it wasn't a war. It was more like treason, since our CEOs gave us up rather than fighting for us.
The second-worst quality-control aspect in that story is the headline. "Tata Nano Goes Up in Flames With Passenger and Driver Inside" very strongly implies they were immolated along with the vehicle. You'd have to somehow show me that "goes up in flames" has been used as a synonym for "catches fire" rather than "is consumed by fire", which is the only sense I've ever seen, to rationalize that sensationalistic usage. Article goes up in flames with author inside.
I saw the picture. It looks more like a touchscreen pin-pad for a POS terminal.
Those things are ubiquitous, and probably cost about $35 already. Making one into a Linux box doesn't seem to have been much trouble.
I'm not clicking on that.
I'm calling the FBI on yu.
That's a statement about Android.
It's not a statement that Google are going to push the 3.0 ROM out to Nexus One handsets themselves.
I may have to do it manually, which at the least a pain in my ass, and at most a risk of bricking the unit. I wanted this phone to be fairly seamless (compared to the several Palm handsets I had before it, and their retarded computer-based programming systems), and it's going to turn out not to be.
Zuckenberg is richer than God
Well, no, he isn't.
In fact, most of his wealth is equity in his own company.
He's only got so much cash, then he has to start paying in stock.
And lawyers, as I've said, can work on contingency. They can even borrow money from speculators to pay themselves and their expenses, and promise to pay it back with interest when they get their (hefty) cut of the settlement.
Zuckerberg and Ceglia can sit back and not expense a dime until its done.
I wouldn't mind putting my own money into Ceglia's campaign and getting a couple of points of his equity when it all works out. Because it sure sounds like Zuckerberg fucked himself here.
Wikipedia is not an authority on anything, but I didn't have the list of 7 elements of a contract in my head, so I referenced it. It had 8; the bit about "vitiating" is someone's wikipedial add-on that clumsily comprises all the arguments you can make even if the 7 elements are present.
If you read the wikipedia entry, you do see that they boil contracts down to a short latin phrase, similar to the german one you quoted. It's the basis for all contracts and includes oral contracts. But even an oral contract has to fit the 7-layer-cake model.
It is a sort of checklist, and it isn't notional. If one of the elements is missing or borked it's usually indication that the contract was not valid: mental or chemical incapacitation; not actually having legal authority to contract away the consideration; not actually promising consideration or misrepresenting value of the consideration; etc. You can trace these elements to solid, even prehistoric precedents that can be cited to back up your case. Judges are loath to buck precedent, so your adversary had better have some good vitiation if the element is satisfied.
And that's what I said, really, not that the lawyers will just tie it up, but that they can dig into every available cranny to find things to argue and hope the other side bollixes the counter-argument.
Or the judge could take one look, realize it's going to be a common brawl, and make a summary judgement because there's really nothing indistinct about the contract that could be construed as changing the result.