I find that these filters are more often abused for control rather than used appropriately.
More specifically, there is no precise definition of pornography that filter companies can use, even if they wanted to try as hard as possible to do the right thing.
Would the filtering company be legally at fault if they used too permissive of criteria? Would they be at fault if they used too restrictive of criteria? Yes on either count, so the content-filtering requirement will be struck down as unconstitutional.
Stick at relay satellite at the Earth-Moon L4 or L5. That means the telescope couldn't be exactly opposite Earth, but if there's still a lot of room where it's shielded from Earth but still in view of L4 or L5.
Multi-megapixel displays are the future. For now though, having several displays connected together with "software-based KVM" allows you to 1) use multiple OSes at the same time, without virtualization issues, 2) allows for fault-tolerance, because most things are running on their own separate environment, and 3) modern window managers don't do very well with multi-monitor setups, but Synergy allows them to work in a more "native" environment, which allows for fewer glitches/side effects.
Nor did you RTFWikipedia. It's a held up by a weight at geosynchronous orbit. The only problem is that geosynchronous orbit is so far out there (the red dotted line is the International Space Station, the black dotted line is GEO), so it requires a WHOLE LOT of exotic material.
It's a totally orthogonal issue. If you're suggesting that Wikipedia hides information critical of itself, that's not true, there are many examples in project space. For article space though, it's proper to stick to the same criteria that's used for every other article. Otherwise you're arguing that Star Wars should mention how much it sucked in the movie itself (i.e. in its primary product) rather than just discussing it in the DVD extras.
Not really. A network admin should be able to track down the thing, but it will take a lot of work to scan network logs. From the network standpoint, it doesn't matter if the gateway is running on a PC, or running on a VM inside a PC... the network traffic looks the same.
Chrome wasn't the only browser mentioned; the piece also mentions KHTML, Safari, iCab, Omniweb, Shiira, and Epiphany. The point is to demonstrate just how popular WebKit is, not to focus on any one browser.
This new technology (Artemis) looks for suspicious PE files [EXEs, DLLs, etc], and when found it sends some kind of checksum (with no personal/sensitive data) to a central database server hosted by McAfee AVERT Labs. The central database server is constantly updated with new discovered malware, and is McAfee's malware queue for which no official DATs have been created so far. If a match is found in the central database, the scanner will report and handle the malware detection. The files in McAfee's queue have not been[sic] undergone any analysis, but they are crosschecked by McAfee's huge whitelists to avoid false alarms.
By having a remotely maintained blacklist it may be able to provide faster protection to new malware than vendors which release signature updates many times at[sic] day to cover the high amounts of new malware appearing every hour.
...
Update (May 2008): we re-tested Artemis over our clean-set in May 2008 and now that McAfee has expanded its whitelists, Artemis still produces relatively many false alarms, but at least no longer on very important/critical files.
It also opens them up wide to perjury charges, so it doesn't come without cost. Granted, there aren't a lot of people well-healed enough to take on Co$ lawyers, but when they use a scattershot approach like this, they have no idea who they might be shooting.
Didn't measure memory correctly
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
They measured the working set, not the private working set. One of the big reasons why Chrome's "spawn a bunch of different processes, all running the same code" strategy isn't a big deal is because Windows shares memory between copies of code when it can.
Most people don't have the money to risk being sued, which means that it does affect them somewhat even if previously unenforced. After all, there's nothing preventing someone new from coming in and suddenly deciding to enforce them.
Any time where you want to view content that's really all related, but the site makes you view 10 different pages to see it all. This way, the stuff downloads in the background, and you don't have to waste human time to solve what's really a technological problem.
A classic example of this is porn FHGs... why they don't let you see the full-size version of each image, all on one page, is beyond me. So just middle-click 12 times, then ctrl-F4 12 times, and you've seen the whole thing while minimizing download time.
Another example: 4chan's/b/... the pages move so fast that there's a lot of overlap if you wait to read each page before loading the "next" link. So just load all the pages at the same point in time, in multiple tabs.
Another reason: Sometimes people use tabs as a "queue of pages to read".
No, quality control on the charger is an important issue for engineering companies. On brand-name products, every single component (internal, as well as accessories) gets thoroughly tested, and they get updated in response to defects coming in from the field. The charger is no exception.
You're also right that accessories are a money maker.
In the long run, as we move to a more standardized charger (e.g. USB), companies won't be able to rely on heavy testing of the charger. They'll have to beef up the internal regulator a little to accommodate a much wider range of inputs.
Firefox ships with a decent percentage of its default functionality implemented in Javascript, and it's frequently heavily OO-based. If you're looking for real-world code to study, just unzip the.jars to be able to examine Firefox's javascript code.
The pendulum rocket fallacy relates to using gravity as a stabilising force. As the article notes, fins or a bottle rocket's stick allow a rocket to aerodynamically stabilise itself.
Mostly. The "unsuspend their account" is really a counter-notification, and it works on all websites. The thing that's intended to stop misuse of the DMCA is that takedown notifications and counter-notifications are done under penalty of perjury, and that if the accused believes they're in the right, that the default state before a court hearing is that the content stays up (because of the three steps 1) takedown notice, 2) counter-notice, 3) accuser files a lawsuit, #1 and #2 are very quick, so if it's ultimately headed to #3, the content is only taken offline for the brief time between #1 and #2).
There's a LARGE IMPORTANT difference between a takedown notice and arguing a case before court.
YouTube won't evaluate whether a takedown notice is likely to be legally valid in the long-term... as long as someone says that they swear under penalty of perjury that the takedown notice is valid, then YouTube will comply immediately. YouTube's role is not to judge the eventual legality of takedown notices, nor should it be.
Once in court, of course, issues get closely scrutinized by the two sides.
Put your ear buds on, slide one of these bad boys over your head and you're golden.
I was Google searching to see if a gas mask is even allowed on a plane (it wouldn't surprise me if they're classified as a weapon, since they could be used as one component in an attack), but lo and behold, this page actually has a picture of a guy flying American Airlines with a gas mask on. So, go for it!
I don't think those of use doing skilled IT labour have to worry about.
Except for the current management mindset that "code monkey" work can easily be moved overseas where labor is cheaper, while "skilled management" work is the only thing that needs to stay local.
Skilled people can shift to requirements/design work to try to stick around longer, but the whole mindset that "the corporate heads are in the U.S., so we need the people who report to them to be in the U.S., but everyone else can move elsewhere" means that that's no panacea either.
I think some of the recent user interface changes have only been experiments, run just because we're getting to the point where adding graphical overhead to every little widget isn't a big deal anymore. There's numerous examples in history where something became a fad for a short time, and within a few years either died out, or otherwise became accepted as normal.
For example, the mouse and the light pen. When they were first introduced, nobody knew if the mouse was just a gimmick, or if the light pen was something that was going to significantly improve productivity. The only way to find out was for large developers to develop the best interfaces they could using them to see whether people thought they were worthwhile.
Slashdot Mirror
More specifically, there is no precise definition of pornography that filter companies can use, even if they wanted to try as hard as possible to do the right thing.
Would the filtering company be legally at fault if they used too permissive of criteria? Would they be at fault if they used too restrictive of criteria? Yes on either count, so the content-filtering requirement will be struck down as unconstitutional.
Stick at relay satellite at the Earth-Moon L4 or L5. That means the telescope couldn't be exactly opposite Earth, but if there's still a lot of room where it's shielded from Earth but still in view of L4 or L5.
Obvious editing is obvious.
Multi-megapixel displays are the future. For now though, having several displays connected together with "software-based KVM" allows you to 1) use multiple OSes at the same time, without virtualization issues, 2) allows for fault-tolerance, because most things are running on their own separate environment, and 3) modern window managers don't do very well with multi-monitor setups, but Synergy allows them to work in a more "native" environment, which allows for fewer glitches/side effects.
Yeah, known-plaintext attacks work on it. The Gpcode author is generally really inexperienced, and is still making really basic mistakes (symmetric encryption, d'oh), but even persistent-but-dumb script kiddies are successful once in a while.
Nor did you RTFWikipedia. It's a held up by a weight at geosynchronous orbit. The only problem is that geosynchronous orbit is so far out there (the red dotted line is the International Space Station, the black dotted line is GEO), so it requires a WHOLE LOT of exotic material.
It's a totally orthogonal issue. If you're suggesting that Wikipedia hides information critical of itself, that's not true, there are many examples in project space. For article space though, it's proper to stick to the same criteria that's used for every other article. Otherwise you're arguing that Star Wars should mention how much it sucked in the movie itself (i.e. in its primary product) rather than just discussing it in the DVD extras.
Not really. A network admin should be able to track down the thing, but it will take a lot of work to scan network logs. From the network standpoint, it doesn't matter if the gateway is running on a PC, or running on a VM inside a PC... the network traffic looks the same.
Chrome wasn't the only browser mentioned; the piece also mentions KHTML, Safari, iCab, Omniweb, Shiira, and Epiphany. The point is to demonstrate just how popular WebKit is, not to focus on any one browser.
What could go wrong?
It also opens them up wide to perjury charges, so it doesn't come without cost. Granted, there aren't a lot of people well-healed enough to take on Co$ lawyers, but when they use a scattershot approach like this, they have no idea who they might be shooting.
They measured the working set, not the private working set. One of the big reasons why Chrome's "spawn a bunch of different processes, all running the same code" strategy isn't a big deal is because Windows shares memory between copies of code when it can.
Most people don't have the money to risk being sued, which means that it does affect them somewhat even if previously unenforced. After all, there's nothing preventing someone new from coming in and suddenly deciding to enforce them.
So instead of outsourcing government work to a private company... now they can just copy laws from the next town over. Everybody wins.
Any time where you want to view content that's really all related, but the site makes you view 10 different pages to see it all. This way, the stuff downloads in the background, and you don't have to waste human time to solve what's really a technological problem.
A classic example of this is porn FHGs... why they don't let you see the full-size version of each image, all on one page, is beyond me. So just middle-click 12 times, then ctrl-F4 12 times, and you've seen the whole thing while minimizing download time.
Another example: 4chan's /b/... the pages move so fast that there's a lot of overlap if you wait to read each page before loading the "next" link. So just load all the pages at the same point in time, in multiple tabs.
Another reason: Sometimes people use tabs as a "queue of pages to read".
No, quality control on the charger is an important issue for engineering companies. On brand-name products, every single component (internal, as well as accessories) gets thoroughly tested, and they get updated in response to defects coming in from the field. The charger is no exception.
You're also right that accessories are a money maker.
In the long run, as we move to a more standardized charger (e.g. USB), companies won't be able to rely on heavy testing of the charger. They'll have to beef up the internal regulator a little to accommodate a much wider range of inputs.
Firefox ships with a decent percentage of its default functionality implemented in Javascript, and it's frequently heavily OO-based. If you're looking for real-world code to study, just unzip the .jars to be able to examine Firefox's javascript code.
The best part of Portal had zero FX. (art and experience, sure, but FX wasn't integral)
The pendulum rocket fallacy relates to using gravity as a stabilising force. As the article notes, fins or a bottle rocket's stick allow a rocket to aerodynamically stabilise itself.
Mostly. The "unsuspend their account" is really a counter-notification, and it works on all websites. The thing that's intended to stop misuse of the DMCA is that takedown notifications and counter-notifications are done under penalty of perjury, and that if the accused believes they're in the right, that the default state before a court hearing is that the content stays up (because of the three steps 1) takedown notice, 2) counter-notice, 3) accuser files a lawsuit, #1 and #2 are very quick, so if it's ultimately headed to #3, the content is only taken offline for the brief time between #1 and #2).
There's a LARGE IMPORTANT difference between a takedown notice and arguing a case before court.
YouTube won't evaluate whether a takedown notice is likely to be legally valid in the long-term... as long as someone says that they swear under penalty of perjury that the takedown notice is valid, then YouTube will comply immediately. YouTube's role is not to judge the eventual legality of takedown notices, nor should it be.
Once in court, of course, issues get closely scrutinized by the two sides.
I was Google searching to see if a gas mask is even allowed on a plane (it wouldn't surprise me if they're classified as a weapon, since they could be used as one component in an attack), but lo and behold, this page actually has a picture of a guy flying American Airlines with a gas mask on. So, go for it!
Except for the current management mindset that "code monkey" work can easily be moved overseas where labor is cheaper, while "skilled management" work is the only thing that needs to stay local.
Skilled people can shift to requirements/design work to try to stick around longer, but the whole mindset that "the corporate heads are in the U.S., so we need the people who report to them to be in the U.S., but everyone else can move elsewhere" means that that's no panacea either.
I think some of the recent user interface changes have only been experiments, run just because we're getting to the point where adding graphical overhead to every little widget isn't a big deal anymore. There's numerous examples in history where something became a fad for a short time, and within a few years either died out, or otherwise became accepted as normal.
For example, the mouse and the light pen. When they were first introduced, nobody knew if the mouse was just a gimmick, or if the light pen was something that was going to significantly improve productivity. The only way to find out was for large developers to develop the best interfaces they could using them to see whether people thought they were worthwhile.