paypal is still operating in violation of a court order that states that their terms of service is illegal.
Citation please?
I loathe paypal, and won't use them because of their "terms" - I'd love some hard core reason to show to people who insist on 'sending' me money through them. (Yeah, like I'm gonna give PayPal my bank account information.)
Three options - either use a bookmarklet to strip the redirects; install the Mozilla Googlebar, which has an option to remove the redirects; or use GreaseMonkey to do it (I'd bet there's already a GM script somewhere to do this.)
My bookmarklet to remove redirects looks like this:
If you do, here's some logic for you (I know, I know, you don't believe in logic either.)
If belief in anything other than "Jesus is God" is Satan worship, then those who worship God but not "Jesus is God", must therefore be worshipping Satan. Therefore, God is Satan, and therefore, Jesus is Satan.
QED.
So by your own claim, worshipping of Jesus is the same as worshipping Satan.
That's like saying that Abraham Lincoln's estate is legally required to make all of his private journals available to you.
What the fuck is the colour of the sky in your world? You really think that private material is exactly the same as something that was written to be public, performed in public, and intended to be broadcast?!?!? You're a fucking moron.
think that it would be dangerous to Force people to make their out-of-copyright works available.
Only because you're a moron who has no concept of the purpose of copyright, which is to enhance our culture. It fucking says is right in your constitution, for fucks sake!
Copyright provides powerful tools to entities to control their creative works, but some protection is needed afterwards.
Bullshit. You're just a fucking moron who has no idea of what he's talking about.
The whole thing sounds like a cheap excuse for providing even LESS customer service than IT departments deliver already (and most IT depts I've worked with have already been FAR from customer-friendly/b>).
The whole point is that you're thinking about it the wrong way. There should be *NO* "customer" anything.
When I'm working on an important project, and need a critical piece of software or hardware upgrade, I certainly don't expect IT to drop everything and come running immediately.
What you *should* expect is for IT to be a part of the project from the beginning, rather than just being asked to provide something after the fact. They don't need to "come running" because they're already there.
And yet (as I said) - GOOGLE MANAGED TO GET A PATENT ON IT. And if Google could, then a patent troll could too. (Again, as I said before.)
If what Google patent was already known (and I'm not saying that it is because I didn't read the whole thing) then it can be challenged and overturned in court. It can be challenged in federal district court, appealed to the Federal Circuit, and appealed to the Supreme Court.
And what do you suppose that would cost? I can guarantee you it would be *significantly* higher than the $1300 Google spent at the USPTO.
I am irked by the phrase "advanced projective mathematics." This to me is a red flag warning me of some business school BS coming up.
Pff- you elitist ivory tower eggheads and your fancy-schmancy degrees think you know everything! If you had any sort of street-smarts, you'd realize that there's a reason people with MBAs run the world!
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm late for my MBA meeting - we've decided to solve the financial crisis by making the leaf the standard unit of currency - everybody will be rich beyond their wildest dreams!
The massive rewrite is in progress, and 12 (or 16) bits per channel will be fully supported with version 3.0.
What about 32-bit floating point? It would be nice to be able to do editing of OpenEXR images before tone-mapping takes place. Cinepaint is pretty crude for this - I'd like to be able to use GIMP.
It doesn't say it's the only one, it says it's the only usable one.
As any True Scotsman could tell you, that's a highly significant difference.
(seriously though, I'm a die-hard UFRaw user - it does everything I need it to, although it is a little slow... I've never tried RAWStudio, and I can't as it doesn't support my camera.)
They admitted they were powerless to solve their own problems without help from their victims.
Heh. It's another "damned if you do; damned if you don't" scenario.
Un, no. Not unless you're a rabid MS apologist.
Usually, people criticise Microsoft for developing software without bothering to consult or test with actual customers.
True.
Now we have a manager of a MS dev group that actually does communicate (though not exactly with "customers"), and acts on what they say, so he's criticised for needing help from his "victims".
Umm, exactly how did he act on what they said? According to the quote, they explicitly didn't act, which is the problem people are complaining about.
How is it "wrong", when you restated exactly what I said? I pointed out that if the first connection was not an intercepted one, the self-signed cert guarantees that subsequent ones are not either.
I apologize, I misread your statement.
However, your statement is a tautism. How do you know that the initial connection isn't intercepted?
To use the OB/. car analogy, it's the equivalent of saying "Summer tires are as good on icy roads as winter tires, as long as you don't lose traction."
it still greatly decreases the odds of a man-in-the-middle attack, since such an attack could only be made on the first ever connection.
Citation needed. MITM attacks on the initial connection were around years before the recent SSL-renegotiation bug was discovered. If someone can do SSL renegotiation MITM, then they can do initial-connection MITM, and you've gained nothing.
When I use https to read my own webmail on my own server, my primary goal is to keep someone from snooping on my data off the local wireless network, which a self-signed cert does just fine for.
Only if you verify the certificate yourself before you connect - otherwise anyone could be snooping and you'd never know.
even a self-signed cert will catch man-in-the-middle attacks as long as the first connection, when you save the cert, is not a compromised one
No, this is absolutely wrong. Without some OOB way to verify the certificate, it is impossible to know if the first connection is being intercepted or not.
what's wrong with a self-signed cert? The data is still encrypted, isn't it?
It's still encrypted, but the question is by whom? What's the point of encrypting something if you can't be sure that the person you're talking to is the same person who encrypted it?
As anyone who has ever read MS documentation can tell you, you need to read it, then implement a test, so you can see what it really expects, then adjust your test, then try it until it works.
Their problem is that they expected MS documentation to actually describe the expected behaviour.
The whole idea behind this question is to show that offering to pay someone to do something illegal is, in itself, illegal.
So in your world, telling someone about a company's products is the same as murder?
Now are they asking someone to do something illegal?
Such as?
Last time I checked, telling people about a company's product isn't illegal.
Now, they may *possibly* be asking people to break and NDA, but that would be a civil matter, not a criminal one, and therefore it wouldn't be illegal.
Wow, considering there are only 7 words there, it's amazing that you managed to fit at least four logic errors in there!
First of all, the text does not "belong" to anyone - Wired may (or may not, see point 2) have a limited legal right to prevent copying of the text, but that does not equate to ownership of the material - and it's dangerous to think that it does.
Second, the copyright doesn't necessarily belong to Wired - it could belong to one (or more) of their authors or contributors, or even one of their advertisers.
Third, this has nothing to do with copying. If you read the fscking summary, you'll see that this invasion of privacy takes place even if the text is never copied to the clipboard.
Fourth, as it has nothing to do with copying, it also has nothing to do with pasting.
Just remember that there was a crowd cheering Ballmer.
Well, you know the reason they were so enthusiastic, don't you? Because if they weren't, they'd be fired.
Seriously though, stories about Ballmer show that he's nothing but a giant bully. Managers like that ensure that their most talented people move to better companies, leaving the company with nothing but the borderline-incompetent who have nowhere else to go. It's not hard to imagine that the people who would be in that audience would play along to prevent being targetted by the bully with the security squad around him.
Those childlike morons clapping their hands represent what I resent in Microsoft fans: unquestioning devotion.
I think you just described Apple fans too.. and they're far more numerous.:)
Well, books can be typed in braille, the kindle cannot...
Sure it can
Can it? I didn't see any mention in that link of any Kindle models that use that device. Can you provide a link to a Kindle with a braille display?
Maybe The National Federation of the Blind and the American Council of the Blind should get off their asses and sponsor it.
Ahh... in other words you have no idea what you're talking about and you thought you'd post an irrelevant link and suggest that someone else should do Amazon's R&D work for them for free.
Removal of mechanical web shooters (and Peter's bug/trackers that key to his "spider sense") are examples of the shift of Spider Man's portrayal of science as a neutral force used by both good and evil, to an evil corrupting influence that only those of exceptional character can withstand.
In the comics (and 60's TV show) Peter is a budding scientist that becomes a superhero. His foes that use science/technology are already well on the path to "evil" long before they encounter the circumstances that turn them into supervillains. Science is portrayed as a neutral force that can be harnessed by good and evil alike.
In the movies, Peter is just a "nerd" who gets corrupted by science, and it's only by indirectly causing the death of his uncle that he gains the moral character to overcome the corrupting influence of science and become a force for good - although it's a battle he has to wage constantly. His foes? They are all good-natured individuals that become evil only because of the corrupting influence of science. Some are able to eventually fight the evil of science and become good again, and prove they are good by sacrificing themselves at the last minute.
I sincerely hope that any "reboot" of the series will bring back the tone of the comics.
Slashdot Mirror
paypal is still operating in violation of a court order that states that their terms of service is illegal.
Citation please?
I loathe paypal, and won't use them because of their "terms" - I'd love some hard core reason to show to people who insist on 'sending' me money through them. (Yeah, like I'm gonna give PayPal my bank account information.)
"We need someone who doesn't immediately poo-poo everything he eats."
"Well no, it usually takes a couple of hours."
Three options - either use a bookmarklet to strip the redirects; install the Mozilla Googlebar, which has an option to remove the redirects; or use GreaseMonkey to do it (I'd bet there's already a GM script somewhere to do this.)
My bookmarklet to remove redirects looks like this:
the thought of using bing makes me cringe
What happened to judging products on their merits?
Why are you assuming he's not judging it based on merit?
Maybe he likes his search engine to be unbiased?
You don't seriously believe that bullshit do you?
If you do, here's some logic for you (I know, I know, you don't believe in logic either.)
If belief in anything other than "Jesus is God" is Satan worship, then those who worship God but not "Jesus is God", must therefore be worshipping Satan. Therefore, God is Satan, and therefore, Jesus is Satan.
QED.
So by your own claim, worshipping of Jesus is the same as worshipping Satan.
The thing is that they never distributed them.
Irrelevant.
That's like saying that Abraham Lincoln's estate is legally required to make all of his private journals available to you.
What the fuck is the colour of the sky in your world? You really think that private material is exactly the same as something that was written to be public, performed in public, and intended to be broadcast?!?!? You're a fucking moron.
think that it would be dangerous to Force people to make their out-of-copyright works available.
Only because you're a moron who has no concept of the purpose of copyright, which is to enhance our culture. It fucking says is right in your constitution, for fucks sake!
Copyright provides powerful tools to entities to control their creative works, but some protection is needed afterwards.
Bullshit. You're just a fucking moron who has no idea of what he's talking about.
The whole thing sounds like a cheap excuse for providing even LESS customer service than IT departments deliver already (and most IT depts I've worked with have already been FAR from customer-friendly/b>).
The whole point is that you're thinking about it the wrong way. There should be *NO* "customer" anything.
When I'm working on an important project, and need a critical piece of software or hardware upgrade, I certainly don't expect IT to drop everything and come running immediately.
What you *should* expect is for IT to be a part of the project from the beginning, rather than just being asked to provide something after the fact. They don't need to "come running" because they're already there.
If the Google patent is truly for something that is already known then it should not have been issued.
Yeah, but how does that address your claim that nobody else would patent it? It's completely irrelevant.
Patents always have to be for something new that is not yet known by others: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics.jsp#novelty.
And yet (as I said) - GOOGLE MANAGED TO GET A PATENT ON IT. And if Google could, then a patent troll could too. (Again, as I said before.)
If what Google patent was already known (and I'm not saying that it is because I didn't read the whole thing) then it can be challenged and overturned in court. It can be challenged in federal district court, appealed to the Federal Circuit, and appealed to the Supreme Court.
And what do you suppose that would cost? I can guarantee you it would be *significantly* higher than the $1300 Google spent at the USPTO.
It is not true that if Google doesn't patent it, a troll will.
Really? Why?
MapReduce, is the property of the general public and is unpatentable
.. and yet it just got patented somehow!
I find it hard to believe that the PTO decided "Well, this isn't patentable, but we'll allow Google to patent it just because they're Google."
If Google was granted a patent on it, then a patent troll could have done the same.
I am irked by the phrase "advanced projective mathematics." This to me is a red flag warning me of some business school BS coming up.
Pff- you elitist ivory tower eggheads and your fancy-schmancy degrees think you know everything! If you had any sort of street-smarts, you'd realize that there's a reason people with MBAs run the world!
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm late for my MBA meeting - we've decided to solve the financial crisis by making the leaf the standard unit of currency - everybody will be rich beyond their wildest dreams!
The massive rewrite is in progress, and 12 (or 16) bits per channel will be fully supported with version 3.0.
What about 32-bit floating point? It would be nice to be able to do editing of OpenEXR images before tone-mapping takes place. Cinepaint is pretty crude for this - I'd like to be able to use GIMP.
It doesn't say it's the only one, it says it's the only usable one.
As any True Scotsman could tell you, that's a highly significant difference.
(seriously though, I'm a die-hard UFRaw user - it does everything I need it to, although it is a little slow... I've never tried RAWStudio, and I can't as it doesn't support my camera.)
They admitted they were powerless to solve their own problems without help from their victims.
Heh. It's another "damned if you do; damned if you don't" scenario.
Un, no. Not unless you're a rabid MS apologist.
Usually, people criticise Microsoft for developing software without bothering to consult or test with actual customers.
True.
Now we have a manager of a MS dev group that actually does communicate (though not exactly with "customers"), and acts on what they say, so he's criticised for needing help from his "victims".
Umm, exactly how did he act on what they said? According to the quote, they explicitly didn't act, which is the problem people are complaining about.
How is it "wrong", when you restated exactly what I said? I pointed out that if the first connection was not an intercepted one, the self-signed cert guarantees that subsequent ones are not either.
I apologize, I misread your statement.
However, your statement is a tautism. How do you know that the initial connection isn't intercepted?
To use the OB /. car analogy, it's the equivalent of saying "Summer tires are as good on icy roads as winter tires, as long as you don't lose traction."
it still greatly decreases the odds of a man-in-the-middle attack, since such an attack could only be made on the first ever connection.
Citation needed. MITM attacks on the initial connection were around years before the recent SSL-renegotiation bug was discovered. If someone can do SSL renegotiation MITM, then they can do initial-connection MITM, and you've gained nothing.
When I use https to read my own webmail on my own server, my primary goal is to keep someone from snooping on my data off the local wireless network, which a self-signed cert does just fine for.
Only if you verify the certificate yourself before you connect - otherwise anyone could be snooping and you'd never know.
even a self-signed cert will catch man-in-the-middle attacks as long as the first connection, when you save the cert, is not a compromised one
No, this is absolutely wrong. Without some OOB way to verify the certificate, it is impossible to know if the first connection is being intercepted or not.
what's wrong with a self-signed cert? The data is still encrypted, isn't it?
It's still encrypted, but the question is by whom? What's the point of encrypting something if you can't be sure that the person you're talking to is the same person who encrypted it?
It has nothing to do with the RTFA.
their own guidelines on their site
As anyone who has ever read MS documentation can tell you, you need to read it, then implement a test, so you can see what it really expects, then adjust your test, then try it until it works.
Their problem is that they expected MS documentation to actually describe the expected behaviour.
The whole idea behind this question is to show that offering to pay someone to do something illegal is, in itself, illegal.
So in your world, telling someone about a company's products is the same as murder?
Now are they asking someone to do something illegal?
Such as?
Last time I checked, telling people about a company's product isn't illegal.
Now, they may *possibly* be asking people to break and NDA, but that would be a civil matter, not a criminal one, and therefore it wouldn't be illegal.
Are these missionaries lying or somehow confused?
Neither - they're baptists. They're taught any belief other than "Jesus is god" is satan worship.
you are copying and pasting Wired's content
Wow, considering there are only 7 words there, it's amazing that you managed to fit at least four logic errors in there!
First of all, the text does not "belong" to anyone - Wired may (or may not, see point 2) have a limited legal right to prevent copying of the text, but that does not equate to ownership of the material - and it's dangerous to think that it does.
Second, the copyright doesn't necessarily belong to Wired - it could belong to one (or more) of their authors or contributors, or even one of their advertisers.
Third, this has nothing to do with copying. If you read the fscking summary, you'll see that this invasion of privacy takes place even if the text is never copied to the clipboard.
Fourth, as it has nothing to do with copying, it also has nothing to do with pasting.
Maybe it was submitted by William Shatner?
Just remember that there was a crowd cheering Ballmer.
Well, you know the reason they were so enthusiastic, don't you? Because if they weren't, they'd be fired.
Seriously though, stories about Ballmer show that he's nothing but a giant bully. Managers like that ensure that their most talented people move to better companies, leaving the company with nothing but the borderline-incompetent who have nowhere else to go. It's not hard to imagine that the people who would be in that audience would play along to prevent being targetted by the bully with the security squad around him.
Those childlike morons clapping their hands represent what I resent in Microsoft fans: unquestioning devotion.
I think you just described Apple fans too.. and they're far more numerous. :)
Well, books can be typed in braille, the kindle cannot...
Sure it can
Can it? I didn't see any mention in that link of any Kindle models that use that device. Can you provide a link to a Kindle with a braille display?
Maybe The National Federation of the Blind and the American Council of the Blind should get off their asses and sponsor it.
Ahh... in other words you have no idea what you're talking about and you thought you'd post an irrelevant link and suggest that someone else should do Amazon's R&D work for them for free.
that's Apple for you -- never doing the market research
Oh come on - as any Mac fanboy knows, Apple does market research all the time.
They only survey one person, and whatever he says goes - his name is Jobs.
I believe their Market Research division is called "You will like it because we said so."
It goes deeper than that.
Removal of mechanical web shooters (and Peter's bug/trackers that key to his "spider sense") are examples of the shift of Spider Man's portrayal of science as a neutral force used by both good and evil, to an evil corrupting influence that only those of exceptional character can withstand.
In the comics (and 60's TV show) Peter is a budding scientist that becomes a superhero. His foes that use science/technology are already well on the path to "evil" long before they encounter the circumstances that turn them into supervillains. Science is portrayed as a neutral force that can be harnessed by good and evil alike.
In the movies, Peter is just a "nerd" who gets corrupted by science, and it's only by indirectly causing the death of his uncle that he gains the moral character to overcome the corrupting influence of science and become a force for good - although it's a battle he has to wage constantly. His foes? They are all good-natured individuals that become evil only because of the corrupting influence of science. Some are able to eventually fight the evil of science and become good again, and prove they are good by sacrificing themselves at the last minute.
I sincerely hope that any "reboot" of the series will bring back the tone of the comics.