That's called "coop-etition". Figuring out where you can rake in extra money by fulfilling a competitor's need, while keeping it a net gain and not marginalizing your own business or letting the competitor put you out of business.
While the "different browser" idea would work, turning off JS would be marginal to harmful. This is a straight HTML/CSS exploit, and, actually, turning off JS could stop preventive framebusting scripts from running.
This attack makes it possible for third parties to trick you into performing actions on third-party sites, by overlaying them invisibly on something you think you want to click. An attacker could overlay a seemingly innocuous game, for instance, with an administrative panel from a common website. The settings panel would be invisible (zero or low alpha), but still would receive mouse clicks. When the "game" asks you to click two seemingly random points, you're actually clicking the "Delete my account" checkbox and "Continue" button, for instance.
Off the top of my head, it's not a world-ender, just another problem like XSS or XSRF to be vigilant against. Possible solutions (from the top of my head) would be for sensitive form pages to have a framebusting script (although this doesn't help if JS is off), and require a password or CAPTCHA (a password could be phished around, but a CAPTCHA could work, since the fake site still has no actual way to read or write the legit site).
Is derivative work is an infringement on a patent? Unless you verbatim-copy the mechanism that is patented (using the patented invention as part of a greater derivative), I believe you can innovate a new way around the same problem using the knowledge gained from examining the patented device.
So who's giving the kid the number for child protective services? It's up to you, as a parent, to control the types of information your child receives.
No, you need to quote Brazil whenever stories about paper-shuffling bureaucratic errors that result in improper police action come up. Then you'll be insightful.
Running 10,000 queries isn't a benchmark because it's a likely use of the library, it's a benchmark because 10,000 queries will create measurable timing differences where the difference in each one is too small to measure. An immeasurable timing difference might not seem like much, but for effects that have to run smoothly or synchronized, it can create undesirable visual effects. I've seen the difference in MooTools versus jQuery, for instance, in that a MT app often has smoother motion and fade effects than jQ.
The difference there is that an employer has the latitude to fire for any reason at all (save for labor laws), including things such as "personal conflicts" or slights outside the workplace. Schools do not, as they are a compulsory, government-provided service, and laws explicitly curb the rights of the government-- which is more powerful, universal, and paid for without choice by citizen taxes-- against citizens.
It's not that the school or its employees should-- or do-- have no recourse. It's just that in-school punishment is not the proper method for an out-of-school act.
Perhaps I'm missing something about the nature of container formats, but if all the individual codecs weren't on the player, wouldn't it just move the problem to being one of "my player doesn't support the codec" as opposed to "my player doesn't support the format?
One of the reasons that MP3 is so standardized is that dedicated MP3 decoding chips are pretty much dirt cheap, and don't require a general-purpose processor. With a variable format, you'd end up eating battery life and cost in music players by requiring a general-purpose processor that can handle decoding.
Granted, a lot of the mid/high-end hardware has general-purpose processors (hence firmware additions that allow new formats), but a varying format would prohibit cheaper hardware and likely not end up as the common standard.
I'm not sure if you can do this on the standard firmware, but on the Rockbox firmware, you can copy, move, and manage files on the player, which would make this a rather nice "pop it in, copy it over, and go" format. My problem has always been, though, how to keep my spare MicroSD cards on hand without losing them.
The purpose of free speech is to allow new ideas and eventually promote the best ones by not requiring adherence to past, possibly inferior ideas. However, absolute free speech-- without any repercussions against provable slanderous lies, incitement, or others' rights (meaning others' rights to private property and the like)-- would create a chaos of liars, with truth being dictated just as harshly by those with the highest soapbox and loudest megaphone.
However, the discipline was very small. Is it censorship, since there was no government order to remove the speech?
What is an "order", but a demand for a person to choose between an action or a worse consequence? By creating a negative consequence and tying it to the action, it was at least repressive to free speech, if not outright censorship.
That being said, the speech itself likely did not fall within the realm of "protected", as it was libelous.
That being said, the punishment went through the wrong channels entirely (school-administrative versus personal civil/legal).
Perhaps I'm veering off-topic-- this isn't a rebuttal to your entire argument-- but I've never understood how the "Driving is a privilege" idea was so self-evident. Ownership of property is a right*. Use of owned property, in general, augmented by specific restrictions where it interferes with others' rights or safety. There is nothing special about driving an automobile that implies that it is a privilege bestowed upon you by a benevolent overseer. You bought the car, and the roads are a commonly-supported public service. Saying driving is somehow a privilege just gives governments greater license to allow circumstances unrelated to safety or rights-collision to revoke one's right to drive.
Driving isn't a privilege, it's a right that is revocable if a person proves themselves to be a danger undertaking it. Now, I'm not saying that driving should be an irrevocable right, but the unfounded classification and citation of driving as a privilege just works to weaken the right.
For me, the excuse, "it's the Internet; who cares about spelling and grammar?" just doesn't cut it.
Here's what I've always said:
For hundreds... thousands of years, people have suffered undue inequality from prejudices based upon immutable and often arbitrary personal features. Things such as race, sex, beauty, appearance, accent, upbringing, heritage, location... things that are no direct indicator of a person's qualities or abilities. Now, the Internet-- especially the medium of pre-meditated text message boards-- gives a place where everyone can be judged entirely upon their actions, thoughts, insights, and accomplishments. Although prejudice based upon irrelevant details may still exist, there is (usually) no requirement whatsoever that a person disclose such details.
When a person is offhand derided, flamed, or ignored for exceptionally poor grammar, idea formation, or inability to research or ask a question correctly (among other things), oftentimes others will cry "censorship" or "prejudice", and claim that any idea should be heard, even if the idea is advanced by a person whose mental capacity looks to be exhausted merely keeping a heartbeat and steady breath, much less posting on the Internet. When a person given all these advantages-- a place free of most prejudices, where even poor writers can be mull and hone before posting-- still cannot produce a simple question or position that does not take two aspirins and a lobotomy to comprehend, then they deserve to be flamed, derided, or ignored.
If they are well-meaning newbies who don't understand, then a good flaming should set them right. If they are insistent upon being whiny and ignorant, we can only hope that a good flaming will drive them elsewhere. (If they are English-second-language... well, that's understandable.) Those who use all the tools given them just to look like an idiot have no inherent right to be seen or regarded as anything more.
Instead of stripping the rights of creators and throwing the idea of trade and monetary value on its head, why not exercise your own rights and monetarily or actively support the dissemination of these important pieces of culture yourself?
Buy copies and distribute them yourself. If you personally don't have enough money to do this on an effective level, take your "Spore for the poor" idea on the road, and see if enough other people find the idea valuable. If your idea has merit, you should be able to convince others to do the same.
Slashdot Mirror
That's called "coop-etition". Figuring out where you can rake in extra money by fulfilling a competitor's need, while keeping it a net gain and not marginalizing your own business or letting the competitor put you out of business.
That's a list, not a run-on.
3) Increased reliability/robustness of the device
Well... until the battery goes flat.
When the "game" asks you to click two seemingly random points,
s/random/arbitrary/
While the "different browser" idea would work, turning off JS would be marginal to harmful. This is a straight HTML/CSS exploit, and, actually, turning off JS could stop preventive framebusting scripts from running.
This attack makes it possible for third parties to trick you into performing actions on third-party sites, by overlaying them invisibly on something you think you want to click. An attacker could overlay a seemingly innocuous game, for instance, with an administrative panel from a common website. The settings panel would be invisible (zero or low alpha), but still would receive mouse clicks. When the "game" asks you to click two seemingly random points, you're actually clicking the "Delete my account" checkbox and "Continue" button, for instance.
Off the top of my head, it's not a world-ender, just another problem like XSS or XSRF to be vigilant against. Possible solutions (from the top of my head) would be for sensitive form pages to have a framebusting script (although this doesn't help if JS is off), and require a password or CAPTCHA (a password could be phished around, but a CAPTCHA could work, since the fake site still has no actual way to read or write the legit site).
Considering that I just reiterated your argument, I get the sneaking suspicion that I posted that reply to the wrong window. Oops.
Is derivative work is an infringement on a patent? Unless you verbatim-copy the mechanism that is patented (using the patented invention as part of a greater derivative), I believe you can innovate a new way around the same problem using the knowledge gained from examining the patented device.
Of course, I might be mistaken.
Have you tried the OCR built into Acrobat? Or is that just a bundled-in version of the same OCR engine?
So who's giving the kid the number for child protective services? It's up to you, as a parent, to control the types of information your child receives.
No, you need to quote Brazil whenever stories about paper-shuffling bureaucratic errors that result in improper police action come up. Then you'll be insightful.
Running 10,000 queries isn't a benchmark because it's a likely use of the library, it's a benchmark because 10,000 queries will create measurable timing differences where the difference in each one is too small to measure. An immeasurable timing difference might not seem like much, but for effects that have to run smoothly or synchronized, it can create undesirable visual effects. I've seen the difference in MooTools versus jQuery, for instance, in that a MT app often has smoother motion and fade effects than jQ.
The difference there is that an employer has the latitude to fire for any reason at all (save for labor laws), including things such as "personal conflicts" or slights outside the workplace. Schools do not, as they are a compulsory, government-provided service, and laws explicitly curb the rights of the government-- which is more powerful, universal, and paid for without choice by citizen taxes-- against citizens.
It's not that the school or its employees should-- or do-- have no recourse. It's just that in-school punishment is not the proper method for an out-of-school act.
Okay. You care. Anyone else? Enough to make a difference?
Perhaps I'm missing something about the nature of container formats, but if all the individual codecs weren't on the player, wouldn't it just move the problem to being one of "my player doesn't support the codec" as opposed to "my player doesn't support the format?
One of the reasons that MP3 is so standardized is that dedicated MP3 decoding chips are pretty much dirt cheap, and don't require a general-purpose processor. With a variable format, you'd end up eating battery life and cost in music players by requiring a general-purpose processor that can handle decoding.
Granted, a lot of the mid/high-end hardware has general-purpose processors (hence firmware additions that allow new formats), but a varying format would prohibit cheaper hardware and likely not end up as the common standard.
I'm not sure if you can do this on the standard firmware, but on the Rockbox firmware, you can copy, move, and manage files on the player, which would make this a rather nice "pop it in, copy it over, and go" format. My problem has always been, though, how to keep my spare MicroSD cards on hand without losing them.
The purpose of free speech is to allow new ideas and eventually promote the best ones by not requiring adherence to past, possibly inferior ideas. However, absolute free speech-- without any repercussions against provable slanderous lies, incitement, or others' rights (meaning others' rights to private property and the like)-- would create a chaos of liars, with truth being dictated just as harshly by those with the highest soapbox and loudest megaphone.
However, the discipline was very small. Is it censorship, since there was no government order to remove the speech?
What is an "order", but a demand for a person to choose between an action or a worse consequence? By creating a negative consequence and tying it to the action, it was at least repressive to free speech, if not outright censorship.
That being said, the speech itself likely did not fall within the realm of "protected", as it was libelous.
That being said, the punishment went through the wrong channels entirely (school-administrative versus personal civil/legal).
It sounds like the purpose of the group had been obsoleted-- questions answered, job done, move along.
Perhaps I'm veering off-topic-- this isn't a rebuttal to your entire argument-- but I've never understood how the "Driving is a privilege" idea was so self-evident. Ownership of property is a right*. Use of owned property, in general, augmented by specific restrictions where it interferes with others' rights or safety. There is nothing special about driving an automobile that implies that it is a privilege bestowed upon you by a benevolent overseer. You bought the car, and the roads are a commonly-supported public service. Saying driving is somehow a privilege just gives governments greater license to allow circumstances unrelated to safety or rights-collision to revoke one's right to drive.
Driving isn't a privilege, it's a right that is revocable if a person proves themselves to be a danger undertaking it. Now, I'm not saying that driving should be an irrevocable right, but the unfounded classification and citation of driving as a privilege just works to weaken the right.
For me, the excuse, "it's the Internet; who cares about spelling and grammar?" just doesn't cut it.
Here's what I've always said:
For hundreds... thousands of years, people have suffered undue inequality from prejudices based upon immutable and often arbitrary personal features. Things such as race, sex, beauty, appearance, accent, upbringing, heritage, location... things that are no direct indicator of a person's qualities or abilities. Now, the Internet-- especially the medium of pre-meditated text message boards-- gives a place where everyone can be judged entirely upon their actions, thoughts, insights, and accomplishments. Although prejudice based upon irrelevant details may still exist, there is (usually) no requirement whatsoever that a person disclose such details.
When a person is offhand derided, flamed, or ignored for exceptionally poor grammar, idea formation, or inability to research or ask a question correctly (among other things), oftentimes others will cry "censorship" or "prejudice", and claim that any idea should be heard, even if the idea is advanced by a person whose mental capacity looks to be exhausted merely keeping a heartbeat and steady breath, much less posting on the Internet. When a person given all these advantages-- a place free of most prejudices, where even poor writers can be mull and hone before posting-- still cannot produce a simple question or position that does not take two aspirins and a lobotomy to comprehend, then they deserve to be flamed, derided, or ignored.
If they are well-meaning newbies who don't understand, then a good flaming should set them right. If they are insistent upon being whiny and ignorant, we can only hope that a good flaming will drive them elsewhere. (If they are English-second-language... well, that's understandable.) Those who use all the tools given them just to look like an idiot have no inherent right to be seen or regarded as anything more.
The suspense is killing me. What was the culprit?
It's not unrealistic. It's being done.
Instead of stripping the rights of creators and throwing the idea of trade and monetary value on its head, why not exercise your own rights and monetarily or actively support the dissemination of these important pieces of culture yourself?
Buy copies and distribute them yourself. If you personally don't have enough money to do this on an effective level, take your "Spore for the poor" idea on the road, and see if enough other people find the idea valuable. If your idea has merit, you should be able to convince others to do the same.