According to the article:
"It is possible that the procedure could lead to a medical breakthrough for people paralysed by spinal cord damage, such as Superman actor Christopher Reeve"
With cyborg implants connected to radio trancievers, I wonder how long it will be before the police will actually be able to make you "Freeze! Stop right there! Don't move or I'll shoot!"?
I thing the main goal was not to make the astronaut's energy uptake more efficient. They already get plenty of nutrition from the tubes of goo that they eat right now. The idea was to make their energy uptake more palatable, so that maybe dinner would bear some semblance to normalcy.
So, if he's planning in releasing the "raw footage", am I free to "recompile" (edit) it in any way I see fit?
Technically speaking it would be very simple to change the entire show 180deg. by simply editing to change the context of sentences, etc.
For instance, what if the "raw footage" contains the phrase "I hate abortion because I love babies.". Would I be free to "edit" this to say "I love abortion because I hate babies"? I'm using the same raw footage that was given to me...I'm just "editing" it.
Sometimes I wonder if, in the distant future, the creators of things like this will give them names like you said, simply because that's what history called them. Sort of like creating your own history, if you will.
Like creating a time machine, going back to the Bible's time, and walking around telling everyone I'm Jesus. Because of that, there really was a Jesus...me!
Then my brain starts to hurt from all of this time-travel paradox thought, and I think about something else
This wasn't the same AOL Email that consumers use.
According to the article:"The various types of e-mail software used by employees aren't the same as those used by America Online subscribers at home. Instead, the divisions customized AOL products, such as those from its Netscape unit".
So, while this really sucks for AOL, it's not as bad as some people think. On the other hand, I work L3 tech for a web host, and we hear almost daily from AOL (l)users about messages being forwarded to AOL accounts and being lost forever, or showing up weeks later.
Back in 1986 my mother owned a Dodge Daytona. This was the first car I saw that had a digital comapss. According to the owner's manual (if I remember correctly), in order to recallibrate the compass, you first had to move the car to position at least 10 miles from any metal object!
Exactly where can you go that's 10 miles from anything metal? Even in 1986 that would be difficult.
ORBZ sent messages with malformed headers to the domino servers, with the intent of relaying. The fact that they were going to use the server's response as evidence of an open relay is regardless. They also had knowledge of the bug in Domino, but did it anyway. How is this not intent?
Let me ask you a question: Say a circus knife thrower accidentally puts his knife through the heart of his beautiful assistant and kills her? Did he intend to kill her? No. Did he know that if his knife missed it's target, he *could* kill her? Yes. Should he be held liable for his actions, absolutely.
ORBZ may not have intended to DOS the Domino servers, but they did intend to relay messages through them with the knowledge that doing so on an incorrectly configured server would cause a mail loop. The BugTraq post is evidence of this knowledge. They should be held liable, no question.
Isn't it funny how you conveiently quote the entire first paragraph except for the last sentence?
Here is the entire first paragraph (note the last sentence):"Microsoft complained to the show organizers, Hannover Messe AG, that Sony was breaching show rules by letting people play on Sony PlayStation 2 game consoles. Technically, this was right and the Messe was forced to act on the complaint"
What is news here? There were rules, and Sony broke them. It's as simple as that. Microsoft had every right to complain to the organizers, as did every other vendor. The fact that nobody complained in the previous years has no bearing at all. If I commit a crime, and nobody knows and therefore nobody complains, is it ok to commit a second crime? Nobody complained about my prevoius crime, so it must be ok, right?
If you ask me, I say this entire post should be considered a troll and be removed from/. The lame final sentence of the post:"Microsoft was also displaying their XBOX console at the show." just shows the length some people go to in order to make Microsoft bad. Notice that this says "displaying", not "playing".
The only reason it's here is that it's a story about Microsoft doing something to protect themselves.
I haven't seen anyone else mention this, so here it is:
What about Microsoft's own PWS (Personal Web Server)?
According to the article:
"you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer...". Wouldn't this include web servers? I don't know if it's possible to run a full blown instance of IIS on WinXP, or why anyone would want to, but Microsoft advocates, and even recommends the installation of PWS when FrontPage is installed.
Say you had a CGI script or Java applet within the site served by PWS...Wouldn't that be considered running "other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer?
I don't use XP, and don't have it's EULA to check. Maybe someone can confirm this by posting exactly what is "permitted by the...features described below".
With all the technology and money being poured into this, why not just make better remote warfare technologies?
I mean why bother making a uniform that provides instant medical care for the soldier, when you can completely remove the soldier from the battlefield?
Some may argue, but the primary method for getting what you want in a war is to KILL, therefore people are necessary in a war.
I acknowledge this, but while someone must get killed, doesn't it make sense to let the enemy's soldiers get killed, while yours are sitting comfy drinking coca-cola and watching pr0n?
The whole premise seems like a massive waste of time.
Actually, it should be: The Company Therapist (dot com),
Not: The Company Therapist (dot.com)
This means: The Company Therapist (dot dot com)
Similar to: Windows 2000 - based on NT technology
According to Microsoft, NT stands for New Technology
So this means: Windows 2000 - based on New Technology technology
A small gripe, yes, but if we're expected to see monetary value in this website, someone should be doing simple quality assurance on it. It's a basic principle of good web design.
OK. I understand that, but is it really wise to set a sheet of glass vibrating? Weather or not the 400lb. pressure is applied directly to the object in question, in order to get that object to resonate, force has to be transferred to it.
This is the same reason that, with just the right note and amplitude, you can shatter a wine glass by moving your wet finger in circles around the rim of the glass. The resonation reaches a point where the structure of the glass just can't take any more, and it shatters.
François Carayol, chairman and chief executive of Canal Plus Technologies, said: "When it emerged that the most secure part of our smart card system had been invaded we immediately launched an investigation into why and how it happened.
Well, duh! Isn't it common secutity practice that users are untrusted? Is it really wise to put "the most secure part" in the hands of the users, who would like nothing more than to get your service for free?
This is like handing a burglar a padlock and telling him "this padlock is unbreakable", and then complaining when you see him taking a sledgehammer to it.
This is a basic tenet of strong security that is commonly ignored.
First of all, why would you want to put a speaker in a desk or table? I assume it's so that the ceiling can hear music, right? Speakers are usually placed vertically for a reason: To project the sound to your ears.
Second of all, is it really a good idea to put a transducer capable of point size 400lb. pressures on a piece of glass? In fact, pretty much all of the items they're talking about (desks, tables, windows, etc.) really weren't designed with this type of stress in mind.
Slashdot Mirror
heh!
I heard that the "bobbies" over there don't carry handgins, but they'l really beat the living sh!t out of you with their big wooden sticks.
According to the article:
"It is possible that the procedure could lead to a medical breakthrough for people paralysed by spinal cord damage, such as Superman actor Christopher Reeve"
With cyborg implants connected to radio trancievers, I wonder how long it will be before the police will actually be able to make you "Freeze! Stop right there! Don't move or I'll shoot!"?
Think about it...pretty scary.
I thing the main goal was not to make the astronaut's energy uptake more efficient. They already get plenty of nutrition from the tubes of goo that they eat right now. The idea was to make their energy uptake more palatable, so that maybe dinner would bear some semblance to normalcy.
The real question is:
What do you get if you let the meat continue to grow?
With 16% growth in 1 week, I wonder what you'd have in a year? A huge blob of "living" meat, or something similar to a complete fish?
The fear only comes from the fact that with modern video editing technologies, you can't tell what's real and what's not.
Even with today's technology, your average nightly news could (emphasis 'could') be entirely fabricated.
So, if he's planning in releasing the "raw footage", am I free to "recompile" (edit) it in any way I see fit?
Technically speaking it would be very simple to change the entire show 180deg. by simply editing to change the context of sentences, etc.
For instance, what if the "raw footage" contains the phrase "I hate abortion because I love babies.". Would I be free to "edit" this to say "I love abortion because I hate babies"? I'm using the same raw footage that was given to me...I'm just "editing" it.
I don't think this will fly at all.
Sometimes I wonder if, in the distant future, the creators of things like this will give them names like you said, simply because that's what history called them. Sort of like creating your own history, if you will.
Like creating a time machine, going back to the Bible's time, and walking around telling everyone I'm Jesus. Because of that, there really was a Jesus...me!
Then my brain starts to hurt from all of this time-travel paradox thought, and I think about something else
This wasn't the same AOL Email that consumers use.
According to the article:"The various types of e-mail software used by employees aren't the same as those used by America Online subscribers at home. Instead, the divisions customized AOL products, such as those from its Netscape unit".
So, while this really sucks for AOL, it's not as bad as some people think. On the other hand, I work L3 tech for a web host, and we hear almost daily from AOL (l)users about messages being forwarded to AOL accounts and being lost forever, or showing up weeks later.
According to the article, they thought the list was OK for direct marketing because the list was sold to them as such.
According to the article, they did "test the list" by sending an introductory confirmation email to the addresses on the list.
Did you bother to read the article?
This is just your opinion. Do you have any stats to back up exactly how many = "many"?
The article says "many", which should be considered equal to "a lot".
Back in 1986 my mother owned a Dodge Daytona. This was the first car I saw that had a digital comapss. According to the owner's manual (if I remember correctly), in order to recallibrate the compass, you first had to move the car to position at least 10 miles from any metal object!
Exactly where can you go that's 10 miles from anything metal? Even in 1986 that would be difficult.
How can you say there's no intent?
ORBZ sent messages with malformed headers to the domino servers, with the intent of relaying. The fact that they were going to use the server's response as evidence of an open relay is regardless. They also had knowledge of the bug in Domino, but did it anyway. How is this not intent?
Let me ask you a question: Say a circus knife thrower accidentally puts his knife through the heart of his beautiful assistant and kills her? Did he intend to kill her? No. Did he know that if his knife missed it's target, he *could* kill her? Yes. Should he be held liable for his actions, absolutely.
ORBZ may not have intended to DOS the Domino servers, but they did intend to relay messages through them with the knowledge that doing so on an incorrectly configured server would cause a mail loop. The BugTraq post is evidence of this knowledge. They should be held liable, no question.
...how sitting in a darkened theater with a [insert electronic gizmo] is *not* going to disturb his fellow patrons?
As far as I'm concerned, anyone doing anything other than watching the film is disturbing.
Why go to the theater if you're going to be busy doing [insert electronic activity]?
Isn't it funny how you conveiently quote the entire first paragraph except for the last sentence?
/. The lame final sentence of the post:"Microsoft was also displaying their XBOX console at the show." just shows the length some people go to in order to make Microsoft bad. Notice that this says "displaying", not "playing".
Here is the entire first paragraph (note the last sentence):"Microsoft complained to the show organizers, Hannover Messe AG, that Sony was breaching show rules by letting people play on Sony PlayStation 2 game consoles. Technically, this was right and the Messe was forced to act on the complaint"
What is news here? There were rules, and Sony broke them. It's as simple as that. Microsoft had every right to complain to the organizers, as did every other vendor. The fact that nobody complained in the previous years has no bearing at all. If I commit a crime, and nobody knows and therefore nobody complains, is it ok to commit a second crime? Nobody complained about my prevoius crime, so it must be ok, right?
If you ask me, I say this entire post should be considered a troll and be removed from
The only reason it's here is that it's a story about Microsoft doing something to protect themselves.
I haven't seen anyone else mention this, so here it is:
...features described below".
What about Microsoft's own PWS (Personal Web Server)?
According to the article: "you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer...". Wouldn't this include web servers? I don't know if it's possible to run a full blown instance of IIS on WinXP, or why anyone would want to, but Microsoft advocates, and even recommends the installation of PWS when FrontPage is installed.
Say you had a CGI script or Java applet within the site served by PWS...Wouldn't that be considered running "other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer?
I don't use XP, and don't have it's EULA to check. Maybe someone can confirm this by posting exactly what is "permitted by the
Tracking, no....wouldn't help.
Locking the car door, probably.
IMO you were asking for it. You can't trust anyone these days.
So you're telling me that current nanotechnology is up to par with your average CNN primetime war?
Excuse me, but that's just not true.
...that the female soldiers get Hentai themed uniforms?
With all the technology and money being poured into this, why not just make better remote warfare technologies?
I mean why bother making a uniform that provides instant medical care for the soldier, when you can completely remove the soldier from the battlefield?
Some may argue, but the primary method for getting what you want in a war is to KILL, therefore people are necessary in a war.
I acknowledge this, but while someone must get killed, doesn't it make sense to let the enemy's soldiers get killed, while yours are sitting comfy drinking coca-cola and watching pr0n?
The whole premise seems like a massive waste of time.
Actually, it should be:
The Company Therapist (dot com),
Not:
The Company Therapist (dot.com)
This means:
The Company Therapist (dot dot com)
Similar to:
Windows 2000 - based on NT technology
According to Microsoft, NT stands for New Technology
So this means:
Windows 2000 - based on New Technology technology
A small gripe, yes, but if we're expected to see monetary value in this website, someone should be doing simple quality assurance on it. It's a basic principle of good web design.
Interesting...I hadn't thought of that.
Thanks for the info.
OK. I understand that, but is it really wise to set a sheet of glass vibrating? Weather or not the 400lb. pressure is applied directly to the object in question, in order to get that object to resonate, force has to be transferred to it.
This is the same reason that, with just the right note and amplitude, you can shatter a wine glass by moving your wet finger in circles around the rim of the glass. The resonation reaches a point where the structure of the glass just can't take any more, and it shatters.
François Carayol, chairman and chief executive of Canal Plus Technologies, said: "When it emerged that the most secure part of our smart card system had been invaded we immediately launched an investigation into why and how it happened.
Well, duh! Isn't it common secutity practice that users are untrusted? Is it really wise to put "the most secure part" in the hands of the users, who would like nothing more than to get your service for free? This is like handing a burglar a padlock and telling him "this padlock is unbreakable", and then complaining when you see him taking a sledgehammer to it. This is a basic tenet of strong security that is commonly ignored.
First of all, why would you want to put a speaker in a desk or table? I assume it's so that the ceiling can hear music, right? Speakers are usually placed vertically for a reason: To project the sound to your ears.
Second of all, is it really a good idea to put a transducer capable of point size 400lb. pressures on a piece of glass? In fact, pretty much all of the items they're talking about (desks, tables, windows, etc.) really weren't designed with this type of stress in mind.
Hurry up...we all need to chip in and buy this guy a computer & pr0nsite subscription before he hurts himself or others.
He obvoiusly has wwwwaaayyy to much time on his hands.