Ok, great. I'm like the guys in Office Space who don't know how to launder money.
So. Wanna illuminate me or are you satisfied with being merely cryptic? Because if you make that kind of info public maybe The Community can figure out a way to bring these assholes to justice.
I am well aware of the treachery some people are capable of. For example: calling me naive is an ad hominum attack designed to undermine my credibility based only on personal opinion.
Oh good grief. I don't care about your credibility. Your position seemed naive, so I said so. I'm not entitled to an opinion?
Should her claims of injustice be ignored because of the "greater good"?
Of course not. But consider this. He was available, he made himself available to the prosecution, they said "no thanks". He left. Then *suddenly* they issue an international watch for him. After he leaves. Does this not seem like dirty pool to you? Nothing suspicious there?
Maybe this girl has a valid complaint. I have no idea. What I do know is the proceedings are most decidedly not kosher. That implies the whole ball of wax might be bogus. Is it? Again, no idea. But I think that the investigation should go both ways. Sure, take the girl's complaint. But also let's get into the reasons why this went from a local matter to an international circus.
So I guess you're the defense attorney that tries to undermine a rape victim's credibility by accusing her of being a slut on the stand?
Now wait a second - who is it again that is trying to undermine someone's credibility?
Your assumption that he must be innocent because he is engaged in what you clearly consider a righteous PR war with the United States is sexist and shameful.
And your grasp of what people in power are willing to do to keep their position is astonishingly naive. It is impossible they could have offered this girl a million bucks simply because she is a woman? Or threatened her family? You don't think stuff like that happens?
These are the kinds of people this guy is up against. You think tracking down some girl he spent time with and leaning on her is an impossibility? Really??
The woman making the allegation (and I stress woman because she is not under age), should be taken seriously until the investigation has been completed.
Then why did the prosecution decline the offer of cooperation while he was in country, and suddenly pursue it through interpol after he had left? I invite you to explain that.
Why would this woman willingly put herself at the center of an international maelstrom, knowing that every bit of her personal life would be put under the microscope if nothing happened?
Some people like attention, even bad attention. Again, you naivete is showing. Some people have motives you cannot understand. Because they are nuts. For example, why do some women marry inmates? Explain that one to me.
The only thing sexist and shameful is everyone leaping to the conclusion that this guy clearly must be up to something because some woman hinted that he might be. Especially when there are plenty of oddball circumstances that clearly indicate an effort to marginalize the guy.
He was in Sweden and prosecution waited until he left Sweden to start making demands. Probably specifically to get Interpol involved and limit his movements. You knew this guy was going to get nailed for what he was doing. This is the beginning. Paint him as a child molester because nobody feels bad for one of those. A classic first step. Limit his movements, deny him places to be. Eventually he'll wind up somewhere with an extradition treaty and that will be that.
So what's wrong with an agenda? News for you my friend - everyone has an agenda. You wouldn't get out of bed in the morning if you didn't have an agenda. It's ok to want something.
What that something is - that is the important thing.
Simply having an agenda though isn't a crime. We're not machines. Everyone has desires and opinions.
Sure, most of the stuff released there puts the US in a bad light. But you know what? Wikileaks didn't actually do any of those things. They just let the world know about it. You think we'd be a better nation if nobody knew about any of this stuff?
Not me my friend.
I'm glad the untouchable people who harm the country I love just might get called to task for the things they've done. The end result will be a stronger (and hopefully more accountable) America.
Now for the #fail. Android, like Windows Phone, is largely designed to be an open platform. Windows Phone does require licensing, but supports many handset makers similar to the Android strategy. What do I mean by this? Many carriers and manufacturers of handsets are encouraged and able to use the operating system and adapt it to just about any form factor they can imagine. HTC, Samsung, Motorola, Acer and others each can make interesting, innovative devices and customize the operating system to meet their needs.
This sounds like a good thing, right? It is awesome if you are a consumer and want the maximum amount of choice and flexibility. The problem comes in when you have to patch or maintain the software that drives these devices when they only have the most basic components in common. This is the security nightmare that Android is beginning to face. Every device on every carrier has a slightly unique configuration that requires that phone's manufacturer and carrier to update its software independent of what Google may have provided.
My question is, why is that a problem?
You don't go to Apple and ask for Windows patches. You don't ask Windows to patch your iWhatever. Each company maintains its own patches. If the common point in between two devices happens to be Android, how can this be some kind of nightmare? It's SOP. The company that sells you the gadget gives you the patches. In short, so what?
Ra-di-a-tion! Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too.
But having done 4 years of pushing paper only means your good at pushing paper. It does *not* promise talent.
I agree with you here. Talent is not a guarantee with a college degree absolutely. But it does guarantee something that actually is important to employers. A college degree is a statement that you can attempt a large and difficult and often times dreary task and stick through it to the end, and actually see it through to the end. A degree says determination. Employers love determination. That's what gets projects done on time.
in fact, most talent is driven from individuals during college.
Here is where we disagree. K-12 is like that, but college certainly isn't. I loved college intensely. If I hadn't gotten married along the way I'd be a prof myself by now. Where else can you go into a building and have PhD's explain interesting things to you all day long? It's wonderful.
I loved my engineering courses. I look at the world with new eyes now. For example, I know that shape a power line makes is a catenary, and I know why it looks like that. Hell, I even liked the goofy other stuff they made me take. I still lean on my Economics class for insights into the world around me. I know why the GDP is important. And public speaking. I teach classes on our software every so often and each time I walk into a room full of strangers I think of Dr. Dial who taught me how to speak to crowds. And even a poetry appreciation class where they taught us how to pull meaning from words and dissect advertising. I can tell you how you are being manipulated by any advertisement 9 times out of 10. I mostly avoid TV and advertising now because of that class.
I positively bloomed in college, and found it to be the most enriching time of my life.
I agree that dogs are most likely smarter, but I disagree about the social thing. Cats are very social creatures.
I saw a show on tv about cats on a farm. The females grouped together and mutually raised their kittens to keep the males from harming them. They coordinated their efforts and they even worked in shifts.
We have 3 cats here and they definitely socialize and coordinate effort. An example: My wife got each cat their own litter box thinking that would make them comfortable and happy, having their own place to take care of business. Didn't work out that way though. They as a group decided that one box was for #1s, one was for #2s, and the third one is for when you have to do both. How on earth they came up with this system is a mystery. Or why. But it definitely is intelligent and social - they are all in agreement as to which box is for what.
The really interesting bit is that we originally had two cats and two boxes. They decided one was for #1's, and one was for #2's. Then we took in a stray and got the third box. She originally wasn't even litter trained. The other two cats schooled her, and collectively they decided what the third litter box was for. Again, I have no idea how this happened or why. I just know that they do have a well defined system, and that system absolutely implies a fairly deep social interaction.
Ballmer: And next will be my kernel I suppose, let's get on with it.
Stallman: WRONG! Your kernel you keep and I'll tell you why. It's so that every missed IRQ, every dropped packet, every sysadmin who wanders by and says "My God what is that abomination" will fall upon your unused IO buffers unserviced.
1) There isn't a difference between the kernel patch and the command line hack. They are equivalent. The command line bit was known beforehand because that was the method used to figure out if this kernel hack would be a good idea. The kernel hack just makes the process transparent.
Linus says: Right. And that's basically how this "patch" was actually tested
originally - by doing this by hand, without actually having a patch in
hand. I told people: this seems to work really well.
2) Linus recommends the kernel patch:
Linus also says:Put another way: if we find a better way to do something, we should
_not_ say "well, if users want it, they can do this *technical thing
here*". If it really is a better way to do something, we should just
do it. Requiring user setup is _not_ a feature.
The opening sequence to Serenity. It's two long takes stitched together, but it is still impressive. Long tracking shot through the ship, timing of the actors, and some of the lines are in Chinese. Whole crew nails it. Impressive as hell.
I'm really surprised this didn't make the list. Not only is it a brilliant and amazing shot, it is a total tearjerker in one of the best movies I've ever seen.
Granted it's not a perfect analogy; I didn't use a car.
But I still think there are enough points in common to draw a parallel. A tangled web of alliances, a stockpiling of resources, and itchy trigger fingers.
But you're right - patents aren't bombs. That's why I predict a different outcome. How many patents are some of these companies sitting on? IBM is granted about 4000 per year. And now we're seeing squabbles involving a few dozen.
This can't do anything but escalate.
The next idea will be "They're suing us for 6 patents? Nail them for 12. They responded with 15? Go for 20." And so on.
With any luck the courts will see this for what it is. It is anti competitive. These patents don't protect innovation, they're a threat to others. A huge "nuclear option" series of lawsuits might be the best way to finally have the courts see this. If that happens perhaps we'll all get that patent rewrite we all have been hoping for. No better way to show the world something needs fixed than by demonstrating just how broken it is.
More than hope. I really do think this is the beginning of the end for software patents.
You have these multibillion dollar companies with gigantic patent portfolios. The implied threat is there. "Don't sue us, or you'll get it in return." And the big players don't sue each other over trivial things that infringe because of the threat of mutually assured destruction. That's always been the rule, until recently.
Gigantic forces in reserve, a tangled web of alliances, then a single shot fired is what started WWI.
Something this inherently unstable as our current state of affairs doesn't take much of a push - we've seen it before.
The only problem is that these multibillion dollar companies place a monetary value on their patent portfolios. When those dry up all these companies will have to revalue themselves in the marketplace. Stocks will tank for a while. It'll be bad.
Luxury, Shilling. We used to have to pay 20 pence for our games which were nothing more than jumping from cowpie to cowpie just to keep warm in the snow. And when we got home my father would thrash us to sleep with an Atari 2600 controller.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell yeah I would. Are they offering any stock?
PT Barnum says this park will be a hit.
Ok, great. I'm like the guys in Office Space who don't know how to launder money.
So. Wanna illuminate me or are you satisfied with being merely cryptic? Because if you make that kind of info public maybe The Community can figure out a way to bring these assholes to justice.
The whole point of these malware authors is to ransom data for cash, right?
How the hell do they get paid? And if that is an answerable question, that brings question number two.
Why the hell can't the law find them?
There would be a money trail of some sort. The money has to go from victim to the criminal. That is traceable.
Isn't this really just a gigantic "kick me" sign?
I am well aware of the treachery some people are capable of. For example: calling me naive is an ad hominum attack designed to undermine my credibility based only on personal opinion.
Oh good grief. I don't care about your credibility. Your position seemed naive, so I said so. I'm not entitled to an opinion?
Should her claims of injustice be ignored because of the "greater good"?
Of course not. But consider this. He was available, he made himself available to the prosecution, they said "no thanks". He left. Then *suddenly* they issue an international watch for him. After he leaves. Does this not seem like dirty pool to you? Nothing suspicious there?
Maybe this girl has a valid complaint. I have no idea. What I do know is the proceedings are most decidedly not kosher. That implies the whole ball of wax might be bogus. Is it? Again, no idea. But I think that the investigation should go both ways. Sure, take the girl's complaint. But also let's get into the reasons why this went from a local matter to an international circus.
So I guess you're the defense attorney that tries to undermine a rape victim's credibility by accusing her of being a slut on the stand?
Now wait a second - who is it again that is trying to undermine someone's credibility?
Your assumption that he must be innocent because he is engaged in what you clearly consider a righteous PR war with the United States is sexist and shameful.
And your grasp of what people in power are willing to do to keep their position is astonishingly naive. It is impossible they could have offered this girl a million bucks simply because she is a woman? Or threatened her family? You don't think stuff like that happens?
Here, read this.
These are the kinds of people this guy is up against. You think tracking down some girl he spent time with and leaning on her is an impossibility? Really??
The woman making the allegation (and I stress woman because she is not under age), should be taken seriously until the investigation has been completed.
Then why did the prosecution decline the offer of cooperation while he was in country, and suddenly pursue it through interpol after he had left? I invite you to explain that.
Why would this woman willingly put herself at the center of an international maelstrom, knowing that every bit of her personal life would be put under the microscope if nothing happened?
Some people like attention, even bad attention. Again, you naivete is showing. Some people have motives you cannot understand. Because they are nuts. For example, why do some women marry inmates? Explain that one to me.
The only thing sexist and shameful is everyone leaping to the conclusion that this guy clearly must be up to something because some woman hinted that he might be. Especially when there are plenty of oddball circumstances that clearly indicate an effort to marginalize the guy.
He was in Sweden and prosecution waited until he left Sweden to start making demands. Probably specifically to get Interpol involved and limit his movements. You knew this guy was going to get nailed for what he was doing. This is the beginning. Paint him as a child molester because nobody feels bad for one of those. A classic first step. Limit his movements, deny him places to be. Eventually he'll wind up somewhere with an extradition treaty and that will be that.
Also, if there are any Interpol people who happen to read this - I know of an actual child molester you could go pick up pretty easy if this is the sort of thing that actually interests you.
No? Not interested? Hypocrisy. Imagine that.
So what's wrong with an agenda? News for you my friend - everyone has an agenda. You wouldn't get out of bed in the morning if you didn't have an agenda. It's ok to want something.
What that something is - that is the important thing.
Simply having an agenda though isn't a crime. We're not machines. Everyone has desires and opinions.
Agenda isn't a dirty word.
Wikileaks isn't anti-US at all.
Sure, most of the stuff released there puts the US in a bad light. But you know what? Wikileaks didn't actually do any of those things. They just let the world know about it. You think we'd be a better nation if nobody knew about any of this stuff?
Not me my friend.
I'm glad the untouchable people who harm the country I love just might get called to task for the things they've done. The end result will be a stronger (and hopefully more accountable) America.
Fear of Germs.
Skip ahead to 1:49.
I always think of the Coffee Talk lady when I think of Visual Studio.
"Visual studio is neither visual nor is it a studio. Discuss."
Chester says:
Now for the #fail. Android, like Windows Phone, is largely designed to be an open platform. Windows Phone does require licensing, but supports many handset makers similar to the Android strategy. What do I mean by this? Many carriers and manufacturers of handsets are encouraged and able to use the operating system and adapt it to just about any form factor they can imagine. HTC, Samsung, Motorola, Acer and others each can make interesting, innovative devices and customize the operating system to meet their needs.
This sounds like a good thing, right? It is awesome if you are a consumer and want the maximum amount of choice and flexibility. The problem comes in when you have to patch or maintain the software that drives these devices when they only have the most basic components in common. This is the security nightmare that Android is beginning to face. Every device on every carrier has a slightly unique configuration that requires that phone's manufacturer and carrier to update its software independent of what Google may have provided.
My question is, why is that a problem?
You don't go to Apple and ask for Windows patches. You don't ask Windows to patch your iWhatever. Each company maintains its own patches. If the common point in between two devices happens to be Android, how can this be some kind of nightmare? It's SOP. The company that sells you the gadget gives you the patches. In short, so what?
Ra-di-a-tion! Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too.
But having done 4 years of pushing paper only means your good at pushing paper. It does *not* promise talent.
I agree with you here. Talent is not a guarantee with a college degree absolutely. But it does guarantee something that actually is important to employers. A college degree is a statement that you can attempt a large and difficult and often times dreary task and stick through it to the end, and actually see it through to the end. A degree says determination. Employers love determination. That's what gets projects done on time.
in fact, most talent is driven from individuals during college.
Here is where we disagree. K-12 is like that, but college certainly isn't. I loved college intensely. If I hadn't gotten married along the way I'd be a prof myself by now. Where else can you go into a building and have PhD's explain interesting things to you all day long? It's wonderful.
I loved my engineering courses. I look at the world with new eyes now. For example, I know that shape a power line makes is a catenary, and I know why it looks like that. Hell, I even liked the goofy other stuff they made me take. I still lean on my Economics class for insights into the world around me. I know why the GDP is important. And public speaking. I teach classes on our software every so often and each time I walk into a room full of strangers I think of Dr. Dial who taught me how to speak to crowds. And even a poetry appreciation class where they taught us how to pull meaning from words and dissect advertising. I can tell you how you are being manipulated by any advertisement 9 times out of 10. I mostly avoid TV and advertising now because of that class.
I positively bloomed in college, and found it to be the most enriching time of my life.
But Westley does win the encounter, despite long odds. That's encouraging, right?
I agree that dogs are most likely smarter, but I disagree about the social thing. Cats are very social creatures.
I saw a show on tv about cats on a farm. The females grouped together and mutually raised their kittens to keep the males from harming them. They coordinated their efforts and they even worked in shifts.
We have 3 cats here and they definitely socialize and coordinate effort. An example: My wife got each cat their own litter box thinking that would make them comfortable and happy, having their own place to take care of business. Didn't work out that way though. They as a group decided that one box was for #1s, one was for #2s, and the third one is for when you have to do both. How on earth they came up with this system is a mystery. Or why. But it definitely is intelligent and social - they are all in agreement as to which box is for what.
The really interesting bit is that we originally had two cats and two boxes. They decided one was for #1's, and one was for #2's. Then we took in a stray and got the third box. She originally wasn't even litter trained. The other two cats schooled her, and collectively they decided what the third litter box was for. Again, I have no idea how this happened or why. I just know that they do have a well defined system, and that system absolutely implies a fairly deep social interaction.
Ballmer: And next will be my kernel I suppose, let's get on with it.
Stallman: WRONG! Your kernel you keep and I'll tell you why. It's so that every missed IRQ, every dropped packet, every sysadmin who wanders by and says "My God what is that abomination" will fall upon your unused IO buffers unserviced.
Two things:
1) There isn't a difference between the kernel patch and the command line hack. They are equivalent. The command line bit was known beforehand because that was the method used to figure out if this kernel hack would be a good idea. The kernel hack just makes the process transparent.
Linus says: Right. And that's basically how this "patch" was actually tested originally - by doing this by hand, without actually having a patch in hand. I told people: this seems to work really well.
2) Linus recommends the kernel patch:
Linus also says:Put another way: if we find a better way to do something, we should _not_ say "well, if users want it, they can do this *technical thing here*". If it really is a better way to do something, we should just do it. Requiring user setup is _not_ a feature.
Source.
The opening sequence to Serenity. It's two long takes stitched together, but it is still impressive. Long tracking shot through the ship, timing of the actors, and some of the lines are in Chinese. Whole crew nails it. Impressive as hell.
I can only find the stupid video in French though. Most annoying.
Here is the link.
I'm really surprised this didn't make the list. Not only is it a brilliant and amazing shot, it is a total tearjerker in one of the best movies I've ever seen.
No, it's 30 years old, it's just 30 years old to us.
Remember what the Big E said about time being relative to the observer, y'know.
He also warns that... we're not certain... quite yet, and... we'll have to keep... our eye on it to... make sure it's not a... pulsar.
Granted it's not a perfect analogy; I didn't use a car.
But I still think there are enough points in common to draw a parallel. A tangled web of alliances, a stockpiling of resources, and itchy trigger fingers.
But you're right - patents aren't bombs. That's why I predict a different outcome. How many patents are some of these companies sitting on? IBM is granted about 4000 per year. And now we're seeing squabbles involving a few dozen.
This can't do anything but escalate.
The next idea will be "They're suing us for 6 patents? Nail them for 12. They responded with 15? Go for 20." And so on.
With any luck the courts will see this for what it is. It is anti competitive. These patents don't protect innovation, they're a threat to others. A huge "nuclear option" series of lawsuits might be the best way to finally have the courts see this. If that happens perhaps we'll all get that patent rewrite we all have been hoping for. No better way to show the world something needs fixed than by demonstrating just how broken it is.
More than hope. I really do think this is the beginning of the end for software patents.
You have these multibillion dollar companies with gigantic patent portfolios. The implied threat is there. "Don't sue us, or you'll get it in return." And the big players don't sue each other over trivial things that infringe because of the threat of mutually assured destruction. That's always been the rule, until recently.
Gigantic forces in reserve, a tangled web of alliances, then a single shot fired is what started WWI.
Something this inherently unstable as our current state of affairs doesn't take much of a push - we've seen it before.
The only problem is that these multibillion dollar companies place a monetary value on their patent portfolios. When those dry up all these companies will have to revalue themselves in the marketplace. Stocks will tank for a while. It'll be bad.
That was my first thought too, but I was thinking of burn units. The reverse trick of turning blood into skin would be a godsend.
Luxury, Shilling. We used to have to pay 20 pence for our games which were nothing more than jumping from cowpie to cowpie just to keep warm in the snow. And when we got home my father would thrash us to sleep with an Atari 2600 controller.