"Because it is impossible for a partial blowout of a tire to force a 5000lb SUV into a 1900lb compact?"
Not at all - but when the person purchased that 5000lb SUV, did they realize the impact this would have - on them and potentially others - should they have such a tire blowout? I'd imagine they should be, so why shouldn't they be held to a higher standard?
In NL all cars are required by law to get regular checkups, all trucks (by this I mean semis / 18 wheelers / whatever you want to call them) are required to get them more often, and more thoroughly, exactly because of the much greater danger such a truck (trailer or not) poses to the rest of the traffic should something go wrong.
I thought a parody would have to include, largely, parts of the original which are then distorted in one way or another so as to poke fun at it, society, or whatever.
Not the dictionary definition, so here's the dictionary one: -----
1.
1. A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. See synonyms at caricature.
2. The genre of literature comprising such works.
2. Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice.
3. Music. The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or madrigals. -----
I don't believe it qualifies under any of the above; though I'm guessing the case might have decided on that.
To me it looks like an original work (or a compilation of original works) that all unclude one thing: the name of an individual.
I'm going to guess that he would have gone with the 'Misappropriation' angle. That is: the authors are using Chuck Norris' name without his consent for commercial gain. Obviously.
This is different from using his name in sections of, say, a novel (where time and again it has been upheld that using real names is a-ok), as here the 'Chuck Norris' angle is practically the selling point*, whereas with a novel that is not likely to be the case.
* Then again, these jokes pre-existed as Hasselhoff jokes as well, I think? But if they were to have the book's 'Chuck Norris' replaced with 'David Hasselhoff' or 'John Doe', then it would very likely not sell nearly as well; thus the misappropriation angle.
"his wife was seeing, a guy that murdered several people"
Not to pick nits, but he has only claimed to murder 8 people, and possibly a ninth; so far, he has not even been charged with any murder, let alone 8. As far as I can tell from current reports (details are sealed), the authorities aren't taking him too particularly seriously. Time will tell if/when a case is filed against him, however.
That's the thing, though - that's starting the app for the first time. I consider that part of installation - it's where you ask the user the basic necessities on preferences.
But that's the first time / part of installation. Not the 2nd time you run it, not the 3rd time, not every. single. time. after that. If you want to change the preference later - yay, use the preferences menus available to you.
Personally I'm all for the SysAdmin, under direction of some higher-up, making FF the default (or not, again, it's an option during installation) whether it asks during the factual binaries installation procedure or as part of the installation finish-up on first run, rather than asking 'the user'... lest a SysAdmin ends up with half a dozen different browsers to support; surely a no-no in the 'corporations' you speak of. If a user changes it later, they can have a talk with the SysAdmin.
"the installation now has a checkbox that defaults to making Firefox your default browser"
It's an installation of a browser. Why would you -not- 1. Offer the option to make it the default browser and 2. Have that option pre-selected.
I would expect a browser to do this. I would expect an image viewer to present me with the option to change image file associations and have those checked by default, a music player to associate MP3s, etc. -On installation-.
I don't want this happening when you simply start the application (I'm looking at you, Outlook).
"unlike Safari, which misleadingly labeled the Safari install as an "update"(1) [but has] since correctly changed to an 'install.'". Great, so the Apple update checking thingy now has two sections(2). One for actual updates, and one below that for -completely unrelated applications- to be peddled onto your machine. Still selected by default.
No longer labeling it as an 'update' is a good step, but it's not the major gripe with this practice in the first place.
Please, please, please Mozilla... don't start peddling Thunderbird to Firefox users in the update checks; or if you do, make sure it's -not selected- by default.
Between people being quite apt at duplicating another's signature good enough for 'at a glance' acceptance
and
people's signatures changing over time (my bank just informed me that the last signature I gave them deviated too much from the one they had on file since 10 years ago, and so as to please put my signature on their form five times to get them a new basis. Guess what, the five looked alike, sure enough, but they could just as well have been forgery attempts from 5 different people...)
I'd say that signatures in general are relatively unacceptable. Except that they're usually 'good enough' for what we need them for. That's why we accept them in 'analog' writing, faxes and even e-mails. In the few cases where it was indeed forged, it's usually found out pretty easily. Oh, but wait, Bruce already said as much; not included in the summary, of course. So go RTFA, then come back here to complain about Slashdot's shoddy headline/summary policy.. it's too much like an actual newspaper.
Now... where's the discussion of alternatives? One of those one-time 2D barcodes that uniquely identifies -moi- when used with the recipient's public key.. or something.
Full Disclosure is great - but inform the vendor first.. if they don't take any action in, say, 3 days (I've used that number before - I'm sticking with it) to alleviate it, then hit the internets with it.
But too often these types are calling for Full Disclosure - immediately! Don't even bother to inform the vendor! RAR! Cry havoc, and let loose the scriptkiddies!
"The bad guy is already going to test and exploit these vulnerabilities long before the public even discovers them - the good guys ought to have a crack at verifying it too." That is an assumption. The assumption that bad guys know about the vulnerability -before- the 'public discoverer' went with full disclosure. Plus the assumption that the bad guys' work would be as bad, or worse than, what script kiddies would do in the time between your discovery and your disclosure. I don't think those are assumption that can be made, based on - admittedly anecdotal - evidence (crashing mIRC 6.something users' IRC application on large IRC networks using a malformed DCC command only became a problem once it was disclosed and everybody and their dog started doing it, while the developer was already in the process of fixing.)
There's a middle ground - I put it at 3 days. Where do you put it, Jonathan Zdziarski? Your article seems to indicate "0 day", but I can't imagine you being that irresponsible.
Supposedly it does this on OS X as well, but the a comment above says it's not doing it, but that as an aside..
If it -does- do this on OS X, then it is called a convenience?
What is the convenience in having a folder automatically stuffed with files, downloaded without your say-so, exactly? Regardless of whether they can then be arbitrarily executed by a second program, or whether the user can execute them without a warning dialog popping up or not, etc. What, in your opinion, is convenient about it?
I find alt+click in Firefox convenient to download a file that I want without clicking on it and then going through the download dialog. I find it even more convenient that Firefox -asks- me if I want to download a given file if some crazy redirect page pointed me to one; gives me the opportunity to say "Hell no!" before the file even ends up on my drive. But our opinions on convenience may differ.
A list of actual drive-by vulnerabilities in current Internet Explorer (name-calling went out of vogue when you reached the age of 15, man. You are at least 15, right?) that allow for code execution on the client to substantiate your claim, please.*
Now if you want to point fingers, visit that Dhanjani link and read about the vulnerability he's not disclosing, as a courtesy to Apple; "The third issue I reported to Apple is a high risk vulnerability in Safari that can be used to remotely steal local files from the user's file system [...] it is a high risk issue affecting Safari on OSX and Windows". There hasn't been an update to that in the past 2 weeks, implying that it has not yet been fixed.
The Slashdot headline is pure flamebait and you took it.
What.. because they've never wondered about the other flying machines passing overhead, from small flying machines transporting people around the area to the ones that paint white lines in the sky?
I'd be more interesting in learning how much they know about the world outside their tribe and how much they care. The UAV was attacked - but we don't know why. Perhaps they're just sending a message "We know you're out there, and that internet thing looks fun and all, but we prefer our way. Please leave us alone."
And I, for one, am glad that the people who discovered the tribe have decided not to go back there, not to send in a party of actual people, etc. and indeed leave them be. Let a tribe member, if they're curious about the world, venture out - they'll run into (as mentioned above) loggers eventually.
Unfortunately, -others- are likely to go and seek out this tribe (be it for research or for entertainment / exploitation) and muck things up. Let's see who gets there first... CBS? FOX? Endemol (Big Brother: Tribal Edition)?
There was a debate about this and the minister for traffic affairs (whatever the translation would be) pretty much just shrugged. His reasoning was that cyclists simply need to be seen clearly by other traffic. So whether that light is attached to a backpack or to an arm or beneath the seat or - where it's supposed to be - at the end of the luggage rack bit... doesn't matter as much as that there -is- a light there. Oh, and it should be red. Preferably not flashing, but as pointed out before, non-flashing red lights are typically assumed to be motorists (cars, motorcycle, moped) rather than bicyclists. In the same line of reasoning, attached to the arm works better than attached to the back, as it tends to move more. Ditto the front side should have a white light. Whether that's a proper headlight that actually illuminates the street or not so that a bicyclist can see where he's doing when cycling out of town with insufficient street lighting, or just a single white LED.. again, he doesn't care, as long as it's there to signify to oncoming traffic that there's a cyclist.
My own bicycle just has the standard white light / red light combo where they're supposed to be, but I also replaced my pedals with Pedalite-like pedals; I don't like the actual pedalites as they have additional white/red which I find confusing. Mine blink all-orange front, back and sides. It definitely makes me a lot more visible and, importantly, makes it -very- clear that I'm a bicyclist thanks to the motions of the lights with pedaling.
10 Restore the drive image, update that which needs updating and add/remove that which in the months between restores you've added/removed yourself*, and create a new image. 20 do stuff for several months 30 goto 10
* that's the 'difficult' part.. keeping track of what you've added that you really like and want to have on the new image, what you no longer use and can be tossed from the image, etc. For example, I updated my WiFi drivers for this notebook recently. It doesn't pop up in any automatic update, a system scan will tell me that all the drivers are up-to-date as from the notebook manufacturer, etc. But all the same, I had been getting bluescreens thanks to the wifi driver - though I still don't know what changed (it was fine for years) that caused this behavior - and the update straight from the wifi chipset manufacturer readily solved them. So I have to jot that down somewhere for when I do an image restore ( "- update wifi drivers. Local file: 'd:\_drivers\wifi\' inet: 'http://etc.'" ) or I'll probably have bluescreens again and I'd have to go through the annoyances of figuring out why it crashed (windbg loading the dump file) all over again.
No, I wasn't trying to change the meaning of a word for some kind of argument. But I'll bite.
No, I did not mean the -legal- definition, as in "I am a lawyer, and when I say guilty I mean...".
And yes, under the more 'common man' definition, you'd always be guilty - whether caught or not.
So I'll put it in less ambiguous terms.
If the authorities have on record that you were, according to them, speeding and they serve you with a ticket and you have the choice of A. signing that ticket and thereby accepting guilt-as-in-legal-guilt B. going through proceedings to prove that the records the authorities have are invalid in one way or another... Then even if you are not "guilty until proven innocent" by the legal definition, you sure are in the default state of being fucked (you either sign and pay up or... well if you don't, nor do you contest the charges, they'll just come after you in more direct ways) until YOU take action to show the authorities to be wrong.
Think of it like speed traps. You, presumably, sped. The speed trap captures this, takes that moment-in-time shot, and you get the bill in the mail. You are, at this point, guilty until proven innocent. Yes, you are guilty, you were speeding; (important) technicalities such as calibration times of the speed trap, etc. aside... you were speeding.
Now it's up to you to 1. challenge this and 2. provide evidence that either you were NOT speeding, or that you were speeding for a damned good reason which exempts you from getting a ticket.
---
So to get back on-topic... "How would border guards be able to tell an illegal song on an iPod" If it's in the AAC format with Apple's Fairplay DRM - which they license to nobody and all that.. then it's probably legit. If it's an MP3, it'll get added to the list of 'probably-illegal' bits of music.
"from a song ripped from your private CD collection" 1. Challenge it, 2. provide evidence that you, in fact, are in posession of that CD.
"(which as the RIAA would have us believe, is illegal too)" If that is indeed the law - which, last time I checked, it's not - yhen you're screwed even in the above case regardless.
"from a song bought from the iTunes store?" Presuming you purchased an unprotected MP3 - that purchase should be listed in your iTunes Account. 1. Challenge it, 2. provide the evidence - name Apple if you want.
-----
Now, personally, I don't think this will actually be checked all -that- actively. Lines at airports and the like are queued enough as it is and they're strapped for money just to check for things like, you know, actual terrorists, drug smugglers, etc. That's not to say I'm complacent - I already sent in my letter of protest several weeks back, but we're not exactly part of the G8 countries so that's probably going to do fook all good - but I don't think that the first kid with a few MP3s on his system is going to be shipped to Gitmo either.
Now, with that out of the way, the clauses regarding the restrictions of privacy tools use online (and, possibly, offline; that TrueCrypted drive you've got and such) I find far, far more unsettling (and was the majority of the body of my protest letter; personally I can't really justify saying "I'm only downloading a movie! What's the harm!?", but I did point out the ridiculousness of involving law enforcement officials in this, never mind the penance, and my disagreement with those clauses on those grounds). I'm still waiting for them to hook this into a "That way we'll get the terrorists, too!"-type defense argument.
But maybe they're not, and they're expecting people, to just fume at the worst bits, then blank those out and just leave it with the anti-piracy bits which might be grudgingly accepted.
And because it was funny to you...
on
I Will Derive
·
· Score: 1
...the rest of us should not have the option to filter it out?
How about the option to at least not see the thumbnail image that went with it; i.e. respecting my existing preferences NOT to see the stupid story images (borg Bill gets old quickly)
btw, why am I typing this in a form that seems squeeeeeeeezed together horizontally? (Firefox, thankyouverymuch)
okay, genuine question... who's got statistics on malware infections on windows that can be used to separate 'by trickery' versus 'by automated exploit'.
And 'by trickery' I would take anything from "double-click this exe in this e-mail to see a naked chicks!" to "you must download this program to play this audio file"; i.e. anything that actually requires the user to okay the action taken in one way or another.
Automated I would assume anything that either requires no user interaction whatsoever (somebody hacks into the machine remotely) OR happens as part of a drive-by (old outlook exploits, old IE activeX exploits), and throw in the "print list of links" exploit from a week or so ago that is an exploit of a non-default feature, but certainly a feature when enabled wouldn't give the user the impression that it might do Bad Things (as opposed to a checkbox saying "automatically load and execute any programs referenced from a web page".. or something of the sort).
IF those statistics show the latter category to outnumber the former by a large factor - yay, Go Linux/BSD/whathaveyou. If not - I'm sorry, but other operating systems would be affected just as well. Okay, perhaps the malware can't gain root; woop-dee-doo if the purpose of the malware is to simply connect to web servers / send e-mail / do anything the -user- might do, and is allowed to do, themselves.
okay, not exactly a dime - but let's face it.. if he said no, the next guy in line would likely say yes. So if, realistically, your choices are $100,000 or $0 - what would you go for? And unlike actors in movies (or even games*) - audiences are hardly going to be disappointed if the voice actor sounds a little different from before. (* say, if Valve replaced the well-known Barney model+textures with something completely different and still called him Barney.)
Unless there's a guild that you -have- to be a member of before you can apply for video game voice acting AND that guild says you cannot apply for a given job for under $x or x%, this will always be the case.
$100,000 for some voice acting is, imho, not bad money. Sure, the game brought in a lot more - but perhaps that money will allow them to make GTA5 and the company will come back to you for that... that's another $100k, but perhaps you can then try to negotiate it up a little; while keeping in mind that the next guy in line will probably STILL do it for the $100k. Or even $75k.
I dunno - how many non-viable fertilizations, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses and indeed 'babies' (stillborn) does it take to produce a successful one?
(Can you tell I am totally against human reproduction?)
...it gets that many visitors exactly -because- it's not moderated. Exactly -because- you can be the greatest douchebag on earth on there and neither 1. fear getting your identity exposed (which is accomplished on Slashdot via Anonymous posts) nor 2. your post getting moderated away.
Yeah, they'll delete posts if ordered to, but that's about it. Sit back, update the software once in a while to deal with vulnerabilities, and rake in the... well I'm not sure what they rake in... ad profits? popularity? But rake on, regardless, 2chan guy(s).
Yes, yes it has been. It doesn't matter whether you call it 'OTA' as in regular ol' 'analog' broadcast by airwaves, or by satellite ( http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=465518 ) or through your cable company. It's all broadcast.
Physical media is only slightly different anyway, mostly when it comes to rentals (as you pay the rental place for having the thing for a limited time, making a copy essentially has you break that contract.. but that's my view on it). The distinction, otherwise, is rather vague.
Title: YouTube Refuses To Remove Terrorist Videos Summary: YouTube [...] removed some of the videos
Did the same person actually write both, or what? New Title: YouTube Refuses To Remove Some Terrorist Videos
or...
New Title: YouTube Refuses To Remove Most Terrorist Videos
Then again, wth is a "terrorist video"? A video with terrorists in it? A video with a religious leader spouting extremist ideas in it? What?
Anyway... the ones that -were- removed where apparently removed for violating YouTube's own community 'rules'; "Senator Lieberman's staff identified numerous videos that they believed violated YouTube's Community Guidelines. In response to his concerns, we examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech. Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines." - http://www.axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/16037
Sounds 'sane' enough (not too sure about the hate speech thing, but if YouTube comments are any indication, I wouldn't want to see the insult-and-flamefest that youtube would become if every 13-year old could spout their hatred for another YouTube user in a video.
"if you get sick and the insurer wants to raise rates, fuck 'im in the ear." And how, exactly, would one do that? Presuming you're not talking about finding out the CEO's address, clubbing him over the head so that he'll hold still, then unzip and literally try to shove.. well, you know where that's going.
If they offer you the option of "either pay more, or leave", and "leave" means the option of having to get a -new- policy with another company (which you already say you shouldn't be able to get - except maybe at the high premium to begin with), then the only option left would supposedly be "pay more".
Are there laws/regulations in place that say insurance companies -can't- do this?
Are there laws/regulations in place that say that if you -change- insurance companies (when 'forced', such as in the above case), they must provide the same basic coverage for the same premium?
Is there, basically, any -actual- resolution to something like that happening that is actually reasonable and doable?
Just curious, really... personally I think healthcare and health insurance is f'ed up left-and-right (pretty much anywhere on the planet in one way or another), but the above is somewhat additionally troubling.
Slashdot Mirror
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
Especially illustrative is the butterfly diagram:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
There is indeed a relatively unusual lull in sunspots, but not too different from, say, the situation around 1900.
"Because it is impossible for a partial blowout of a tire to force a 5000lb SUV into a 1900lb compact?"
Not at all - but when the person purchased that 5000lb SUV, did they realize the impact this would have - on them and potentially others - should they have such a tire blowout? I'd imagine they should be, so why shouldn't they be held to a higher standard?
In NL all cars are required by law to get regular checkups, all trucks (by this I mean semis / 18 wheelers / whatever you want to call them) are required to get them more often, and more thoroughly, exactly because of the much greater danger such a truck (trailer or not) poses to the rest of the traffic should something go wrong.
I thought a parody would have to include, largely, parts of the original which are then distorted in one way or another so as to poke fun at it, society, or whatever.
Not the dictionary definition, so here's the dictionary one:
-----
1.
1. A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. See synonyms at caricature.
2. The genre of literature comprising such works.
2. Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice.
3. Music. The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or madrigals.
-----
I don't believe it qualifies under any of the above; though I'm guessing the case might have decided on that.
To me it looks like an original work (or a compilation of original works) that all unclude one thing: the name of an individual.
I'm going to guess that he would have gone with the 'Misappropriation' angle. That is: the authors are using Chuck Norris' name without his consent for commercial gain. Obviously.
This is different from using his name in sections of, say, a novel (where time and again it has been upheld that using real names is a-ok), as here the 'Chuck Norris' angle is practically the selling point*, whereas with a novel that is not likely to be the case.
* Then again, these jokes pre-existed as Hasselhoff jokes as well, I think? But if they were to have the book's 'Chuck Norris' replaced with 'David Hasselhoff' or 'John Doe', then it would very likely not sell nearly as well; thus the misappropriation angle.
"his wife was seeing, a guy that murdered several people"
Not to pick nits, but he has only claimed to murder 8 people, and possibly a ninth; so far, he has not even been charged with any murder, let alone 8. As far as I can tell from current reports (details are sealed), the authorities aren't taking him too particularly seriously. Time will tell if/when a case is filed against him, however.
...is that Barry Corbin ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0179224/ ) ad-libbed that line (source: DVD commentary)
That's the thing, though - that's starting the app for the first time. I consider that part of installation - it's where you ask the user the basic necessities on preferences.
But that's the first time / part of installation. Not the 2nd time you run it, not the 3rd time, not every. single. time. after that.
If you want to change the preference later - yay, use the preferences menus available to you.
Personally I'm all for the SysAdmin, under direction of some higher-up, making FF the default (or not, again, it's an option during installation) whether it asks during the factual binaries installation procedure or as part of the installation finish-up on first run, rather than asking 'the user'... lest a SysAdmin ends up with half a dozen different browsers to support; surely a no-no in the 'corporations' you speak of.
If a user changes it later, they can have a talk with the SysAdmin.
"the installation now has a checkbox that defaults to making Firefox your default browser"
It's an installation of a browser. Why would you -not-
1. Offer the option to make it the default browser
and
2. Have that option pre-selected.
I would expect a browser to do this. I would expect an image viewer to present me with the option to change image file associations and have those checked by default, a music player to associate MP3s, etc. -On installation-.
I don't want this happening when you simply start the application (I'm looking at you, Outlook).
"unlike Safari, which misleadingly labeled the Safari install as an "update"(1) [but has] since correctly changed to an 'install.'".
Great, so the Apple update checking thingy now has two sections(2). One for actual updates, and one below that for -completely unrelated applications- to be peddled onto your machine. Still selected by default.
No longer labeling it as an 'update' is a good step, but it's not the major gripe with this practice in the first place.
1) http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee248/msanto/One-Offs%202008/AppleUpdateSafari.jpg
2) http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee248/msanto/One-Offs%202008/AppleUpdateSafari2.jpg
Please, please, please Mozilla... don't start peddling Thunderbird to Firefox users in the update checks; or if you do, make sure it's -not selected- by default.
There, fixed it for you, Bruce.
Between people being quite apt at duplicating another's signature good enough for 'at a glance' acceptance
and
people's signatures changing over time (my bank just informed me that the last signature I gave them deviated too much from the one they had on file since 10 years ago, and so as to please put my signature on their form five times to get them a new basis. Guess what, the five looked alike, sure enough, but they could just as well have been forgery attempts from 5 different people...)
I'd say that signatures in general are relatively unacceptable. Except that they're usually 'good enough' for what we need them for. That's why we accept them in 'analog' writing, faxes and even e-mails. In the few cases where it was indeed forged, it's usually found out pretty easily.
Oh, but wait, Bruce already said as much; not included in the summary, of course. So go RTFA, then come back here to complain about Slashdot's shoddy headline/summary policy.. it's too much like an actual newspaper.
Now... where's the discussion of alternatives? One of those one-time 2D barcodes that uniquely identifies -moi- when used with the recipient's public key.. or something.
Full Disclosure is great - but inform the vendor first.. if they don't take any action in, say, 3 days (I've used that number before - I'm sticking with it) to alleviate it, then hit the internets with it.
But too often these types are calling for Full Disclosure - immediately! Don't even bother to inform the vendor! RAR! Cry havoc, and let loose the scriptkiddies!
"The bad guy is already going to test and exploit these vulnerabilities long before the public even discovers them - the good guys ought to have a crack at verifying it too."
That is an assumption. The assumption that bad guys know about the vulnerability -before- the 'public discoverer' went with full disclosure. Plus the assumption that the bad guys' work would be as bad, or worse than, what script kiddies would do in the time between your discovery and your disclosure. I don't think those are assumption that can be made, based on - admittedly anecdotal - evidence (crashing mIRC 6.something users' IRC application on large IRC networks using a malformed DCC command only became a problem once it was disclosed and everybody and their dog started doing it, while the developer was already in the process of fixing.)
There's a middle ground - I put it at 3 days. Where do you put it, Jonathan Zdziarski? Your article seems to indicate "0 day", but I can't imagine you being that irresponsible.
Supposedly it does this on OS X as well, but the a comment above says it's not doing it, but that as an aside..
If it -does- do this on OS X, then it is called a convenience?
What is the convenience in having a folder automatically stuffed with files, downloaded without your say-so, exactly? Regardless of whether they can then be arbitrarily executed by a second program, or whether the user can execute them without a warning dialog popping up or not, etc. What, in your opinion, is convenient about it?
I find alt+click in Firefox convenient to download a file that I want without clicking on it and then going through the download dialog. I find it even more convenient that Firefox -asks- me if I want to download a given file if some crazy redirect page pointed me to one; gives me the opportunity to say "Hell no!" before the file even ends up on my drive.
But our opinions on convenience may differ.
A list of actual drive-by vulnerabilities in current Internet Explorer (name-calling went out of vogue when you reached the age of 15, man. You are at least 15, right?) that allow for code execution on the client to substantiate your claim, please.*
Now if you want to point fingers, visit that Dhanjani link and read about the vulnerability he's not disclosing, as a courtesy to Apple; "The third issue I reported to Apple is a high risk vulnerability in Safari that can be used to remotely steal local files from the user's file system [...] it is a high risk issue affecting Safari on OSX and Windows". There hasn't been an update to that in the past 2 weeks, implying that it has not yet been fixed.
The Slashdot headline is pure flamebait and you took it.
What.. because they've never wondered about the other flying machines passing overhead, from small flying machines transporting people around the area to the ones that paint white lines in the sky?
I'd be more interesting in learning how much they know about the world outside their tribe and how much they care. The UAV was attacked - but we don't know why. Perhaps they're just sending a message "We know you're out there, and that internet thing looks fun and all, but we prefer our way. Please leave us alone."
And I, for one, am glad that the people who discovered the tribe have decided not to go back there, not to send in a party of actual people, etc. and indeed leave them be. Let a tribe member, if they're curious about the world, venture out - they'll run into (as mentioned above) loggers eventually.
Unfortunately, -others- are likely to go and seek out this tribe (be it for research or for entertainment / exploitation) and muck things up. Let's see who gets there first... CBS? FOX? Endemol (Big Brother: Tribal Edition)?
well then... in "the NL" :
There was a debate about this and the minister for traffic affairs (whatever the translation would be) pretty much just shrugged. His reasoning was that cyclists simply need to be seen clearly by other traffic. So whether that light is attached to a backpack or to an arm or beneath the seat or - where it's supposed to be - at the end of the luggage rack bit... doesn't matter as much as that there -is- a light there. Oh, and it should be red. Preferably not flashing, but as pointed out before, non-flashing red lights are typically assumed to be motorists (cars, motorcycle, moped) rather than bicyclists. In the same line of reasoning, attached to the arm works better than attached to the back, as it tends to move more.
Ditto the front side should have a white light. Whether that's a proper headlight that actually illuminates the street or not so that a bicyclist can see where he's doing when cycling out of town with insufficient street lighting, or just a single white LED.. again, he doesn't care, as long as it's there to signify to oncoming traffic that there's a cyclist.
My own bicycle just has the standard white light / red light combo where they're supposed to be, but I also replaced my pedals with Pedalite-like pedals; I don't like the actual pedalites as they have additional white/red which I find confusing. Mine blink all-orange front, back and sides. It definitely makes me a lot more visible and, importantly, makes it -very- clear that I'm a bicyclist thanks to the motions of the lights with pedaling.
Then you don't have to re-install.
10 Restore the drive image, update that which needs updating and add/remove that which in the months between restores you've added/removed yourself*, and create a new image.
20 do stuff for several months
30 goto 10
* that's the 'difficult' part.. keeping track of what you've added that you really like and want to have on the new image, what you no longer use and can be tossed from the image, etc. For example, I updated my WiFi drivers for this notebook recently. It doesn't pop up in any automatic update, a system scan will tell me that all the drivers are up-to-date as from the notebook manufacturer, etc. But all the same, I had been getting bluescreens thanks to the wifi driver - though I still don't know what changed (it was fine for years) that caused this behavior - and the update straight from the wifi chipset manufacturer readily solved them. So I have to jot that down somewhere for when I do an image restore ( "- update wifi drivers. Local file: 'd:\_drivers\wifi\' inet: 'http://etc.'" ) or I'll probably have bluescreens again and I'd have to go through the annoyances of figuring out why it crashed (windbg loading the dump file) all over again.
No, I wasn't trying to change the meaning of a word for some kind of argument. But I'll bite.
...
:)
No, I did not mean the -legal- definition, as in "I am a lawyer, and when I say guilty I mean...".
And yes, under the more 'common man' definition, you'd always be guilty - whether caught or not.
So I'll put it in less ambiguous terms.
If the authorities have on record that you were, according to them, speeding
and
they serve you with a ticket
and
you have the choice of
A. signing that ticket and thereby accepting guilt-as-in-legal-guilt
B. going through proceedings to prove that the records the authorities have are invalid in one way or another
Then even if you are not "guilty until proven innocent" by the legal definition, you sure are in the default state of being fucked (you either sign and pay up or... well if you don't, nor do you contest the charges, they'll just come after you in more direct ways) until YOU take action to show the authorities to be wrong.
But I do stand corrected - thanks, Anon
Think of it like speed traps. You, presumably, sped. The speed trap captures this, takes that moment-in-time shot, and you get the bill in the mail. You are, at this point, guilty until proven innocent. Yes, you are guilty, you were speeding; (important) technicalities such as calibration times of the speed trap, etc. aside... you were speeding.
Now it's up to you to 1. challenge this and 2. provide evidence that either you were NOT speeding, or that you were speeding for a damned good reason which exempts you from getting a ticket.
---
So to get back on-topic...
"How would border guards be able to tell an illegal song on an iPod"
If it's in the AAC format with Apple's Fairplay DRM - which they license to nobody and all that.. then it's probably legit.
If it's an MP3, it'll get added to the list of 'probably-illegal' bits of music.
"from a song ripped from your private CD collection"
1. Challenge it, 2. provide evidence that you, in fact, are in posession of that CD.
"(which as the RIAA would have us believe, is illegal too)"
If that is indeed the law - which, last time I checked, it's not - yhen you're screwed even in the above case regardless.
"from a song bought from the iTunes store?"
Presuming you purchased an unprotected MP3 - that purchase should be listed in your iTunes Account. 1. Challenge it, 2. provide the evidence - name Apple if you want.
-----
Now, personally, I don't think this will actually be checked all -that- actively. Lines at airports and the like are queued enough as it is and they're strapped for money just to check for things like, you know, actual terrorists, drug smugglers, etc. That's not to say I'm complacent - I already sent in my letter of protest several weeks back, but we're not exactly part of the G8 countries so that's probably going to do fook all good - but I don't think that the first kid with a few MP3s on his system is going to be shipped to Gitmo either.
Now, with that out of the way, the clauses regarding the restrictions of privacy tools use online (and, possibly, offline; that TrueCrypted drive you've got and such) I find far, far more unsettling (and was the majority of the body of my protest letter; personally I can't really justify saying "I'm only downloading a movie! What's the harm!?", but I did point out the ridiculousness of involving law enforcement officials in this, never mind the penance, and my disagreement with those clauses on those grounds).
I'm still waiting for them to hook this into a "That way we'll get the terrorists, too!"-type defense argument.
But maybe they're not, and they're expecting people, to just fume at the worst bits, then blank those out and just leave it with the anti-piracy bits which might be grudgingly accepted.
...the rest of us should not have the option to filter it out?
How about the option to at least not see the thumbnail image that went with it; i.e. respecting my existing preferences NOT to see the stupid story images (borg Bill gets old quickly)
btw, why am I typing this in a form that seems squeeeeeeeezed together horizontally? (Firefox, thankyouverymuch)
I don't know whether to laugh or cry :)
okay, genuine question... who's got statistics on malware infections on windows that can be used to separate 'by trickery' versus 'by automated exploit'.
And 'by trickery' I would take anything from "double-click this exe in this e-mail to see a naked chicks!" to "you must download this program to play this audio file"; i.e. anything that actually requires the user to okay the action taken in one way or another.
Automated I would assume anything that either requires no user interaction whatsoever (somebody hacks into the machine remotely) OR happens as part of a drive-by (old outlook exploits, old IE activeX exploits), and throw in the "print list of links" exploit from a week or so ago that is an exploit of a non-default feature, but certainly a feature when enabled wouldn't give the user the impression that it might do Bad Things (as opposed to a checkbox saying "automatically load and execute any programs referenced from a web page".. or something of the sort).
IF those statistics show the latter category to outnumber the former by a large factor - yay, Go Linux/BSD/whathaveyou.
If not - I'm sorry, but other operating systems would be affected just as well. Okay, perhaps the malware can't gain root; woop-dee-doo if the purpose of the malware is to simply connect to web servers / send e-mail / do anything the -user- might do, and is allowed to do, themselves.
okay, not exactly a dime - but let's face it.. if he said no, the next guy in line would likely say yes. So if, realistically, your choices are $100,000 or $0 - what would you go for?
And unlike actors in movies (or even games*) - audiences are hardly going to be disappointed if the voice actor sounds a little different from before.
(* say, if Valve replaced the well-known Barney model+textures with something completely different and still called him Barney.)
Unless there's a guild that you -have- to be a member of before you can apply for video game voice acting AND that guild says you cannot apply for a given job for under $x or x%, this will always be the case.
$100,000 for some voice acting is, imho, not bad money. Sure, the game brought in a lot more - but perhaps that money will allow them to make GTA5 and the company will come back to you for that... that's another $100k, but perhaps you can then try to negotiate it up a little; while keeping in mind that the next guy in line will probably STILL do it for the $100k. Or even $75k.
I dunno - how many non-viable fertilizations, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses and indeed 'babies' (stillborn) does it take to produce a successful one?
(Can you tell I am totally against human reproduction?)
...it gets that many visitors exactly -because- it's not moderated. Exactly -because- you can be the greatest douchebag on earth on there and neither 1. fear getting your identity exposed (which is accomplished on Slashdot via Anonymous posts) nor 2. your post getting moderated away.
Yeah, they'll delete posts if ordered to, but that's about it. Sit back, update the software once in a while to deal with vulnerabilities, and rake in the... well I'm not sure what they rake in... ad profits? popularity? But rake on, regardless, 2chan guy(s).
Yes, yes it has been. It doesn't matter whether you call it 'OTA' as in regular ol' 'analog' broadcast by airwaves, or by satellite ( http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=465518 ) or through your cable company. It's all broadcast.
Physical media is only slightly different anyway, mostly when it comes to rentals (as you pay the rental place for having the thing for a limited time, making a copy essentially has you break that contract.. but that's my view on it). The distinction, otherwise, is rather vague.
Title: YouTube Refuses To Remove Terrorist Videos
Summary: YouTube [...] removed some of the videos
Did the same person actually write both, or what?
New Title: YouTube Refuses To Remove Some Terrorist Videos
or...
New Title: YouTube Refuses To Remove Most Terrorist Videos
Then again, wth is a "terrorist video"? A video with terrorists in it? A video with a religious leader spouting extremist ideas in it? What?
Anyway... the ones that -were- removed where apparently removed for violating YouTube's own community 'rules';
"Senator Lieberman's staff identified numerous videos that they believed violated YouTube's Community Guidelines. In response to his concerns, we examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech. Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines." - http://www.axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/16037
Sounds 'sane' enough (not too sure about the hate speech thing, but if YouTube comments are any indication, I wouldn't want to see the insult-and-flamefest that youtube would become if every 13-year old could spout their hatred for another YouTube user in a video.
"if you get sick and the insurer wants to raise rates, fuck 'im in the ear."
And how, exactly, would one do that? Presuming you're not talking about finding out the CEO's address, clubbing him over the head so that he'll hold still, then unzip and literally try to shove.. well, you know where that's going.
If they offer you the option of "either pay more, or leave", and "leave" means the option of having to get a -new- policy with another company (which you already say you shouldn't be able to get - except maybe at the high premium to begin with), then the only option left would supposedly be "pay more".
Are there laws/regulations in place that say insurance companies -can't- do this?
Are there laws/regulations in place that say that if you -change- insurance companies (when 'forced', such as in the above case), they must provide the same basic coverage for the same premium?
Is there, basically, any -actual- resolution to something like that happening that is actually reasonable and doable?
Just curious, really... personally I think healthcare and health insurance is f'ed up left-and-right (pretty much anywhere on the planet in one way or another), but the above is somewhat additionally troubling.