Move all of your accounts to a new email address ASAP. Then, over the course of a few months, watch the old email address closely. Watch for any straggling emails going to the old email. Fix any stragglers. When you are comfortable that the only thing showing up is SPAM, then transfer the domain.
Look, there's no way you can be 100% sure. The best thing would be to trust the new guy.
Speaking of stragglers... Just today I noticed that two large companies (one named after a large South American river, the other is a giant Bank in America) that were still sending stuff to an old email address after I had changed my account preferences. Obviously my old address lingers in their databases without any user interface to clean it.
Another thing is the separatoin of the sexes for awards. Now, in the Olympics, this makes perfect sense. Men grow bigger and stronger, so the spirit of competition demands that runners and swimmers compete within their sex. Now, what about the Oscars? Why do they have a category for Best Female Lead and Best Male Lead? Men are not naturally better or worse than women at acting. There should just be Best Actor.
Same with project management. Honestly, why should I care if it's a female? Is Red Hat's organization so sexist that her appointment is a marvelous accomplishment? I assume it isn't.
Considering Flash's extensive use as an attack vector this is great news. I would sleep better at night though if Firefox itself was also sandboxed; in fact I'm a bit surprised you can even sandbox Flash when the browser doesn't support it.
What happens when a user wants to download a file (on purpose) to their home directory when the entire browser is sandboxed?
Since their DRM is ineffective at actually stopping pirates, here we have the perfect example of "defective by design". Anybody with a DRM-cracked pirated version will not have any disruption. Nice job, Ubi.
I get heated over this kind of thing every time I pop in a DVD from Netflix. They send you discs without any special features that are loaded with up to 15 minutes of unskippable advertisements and previews. If I had just downloaded the move, I could jump right in. I am willing to pay, but I see nothing but disincentives to do so! Fools.
It might have something to do with their lackluster efforts to keep pace as Apple and Google speed off into the future. Microsoft's effort to catch up makes BlackBerry look old-and-busted.
Hard to get outraged when I was under the assumption that Google already did this. Why wouldn't I think that any time I was logged in with my google account (shared with search, gmail, android, youtube) they they weren't collecting data in the same bin?
Same with Facebook. How many websites have the facebook "like" buttons? When you're signed in to facebook, they are watching everything else you do. Again, I assume it all goes into one big bin of information about me.
Scary to type that out, but not a new development by any means, at least not in my perception.
All they have to do is turn it around. Like this: "It is not illegal to withdraw support for a senator/representative because they have not supported your chosen policy. It is expected that controversial decisions would upset some campaign contributors. Mr. Dodd is free to remind his peers of this fact."
I agree for the most part, except for that "obviously not sustainable" part. The phone companies complain loudly, but I don't trust them to be forthcoming about their business. Increasing network capacity is possible, but probably expensive. They don't want to if they don't have to. The commercials on TV advertise the kind of usage that would lead to an absurdly large bill. They actively sell it to customers. Then, they turn around and demonize the users who actually use the phones as advertised. Have you seen the "that's so 27 seconds ago" ads? They feature some average-looking Americans (1 fat white guy and 1 fat black guy) surfing with their phones non-stop, including YouTube. They would blow that bandwidth cap in the time frame of 1 commercial break at that rate.
Titles like that make for good drama, but we must stand back for a second to see what this means.
The "digital destruction" of textbook publishing has been underway for quite some time. The Internet has made the dissemination of information easy and cheap. Even before the Internet, digital mediums such as DVD and Laserdisc were used by educational institutions for teaching.
Self-published homemade works are now commonplace with music, movies, news (blogs), interactive media such as webpages and software. Full-size books are a logical continuation.
Easy to demonize Apple, but Steve was a fighter, he saw the opportunity for success and profit, and nobody would expect anything less.
And you miss the point. Space elevators would enable huge profits. Profits orders of magnitude larger than importing two-cent junk to America. If it was possible, they'd do it. Tell me, how does Virgin Galactic fit into your little world-view?
30 years ago all sorts of stuff was being predicted. space colonies this that. all we ended up has been a widening income/wealth inequality with those amassing wealth doing nothing with that wealth but letting it amass more wealth sitting in the banks. there is no way in hell we will have space elevators, this that, as long as the rich can make more money without making anything. why invest in a space elevator, why you can just let the money sit in hedge funds and let it become more money overnight, without considerable risk... the only ones who will do these would be new internet-era entrepreneurs and rich boys like the ones who are investing in space x thingies etc now. and no way in hell their numbers and wealth can make these stuff come true in a way that would matter for the public.
You have such a deep misunderstanding of the real world, I'm surprised you can manage to get food into your mouth to survive. The article summary seems to have triggered your "I AM THE 99%" response. However you don't seem to understand the nature of wealth. People like you sit back and complain that the rich have all their money in the bank, so there isn't any left for you. The reality is that weathy people invest their money to remain wealthy. What the hell do you think a hedge fund is? Like most investments, it puts the money to work.
If a space elevator could ever be made profitably, those kinds of funds are the ones that would invest. Poor, aimless, unmotivated fools will never make it happen. No such venture was ever done for charity. Columbus was sponsored by the Portuguese crown in a search for wealth in trade routes. The Apollo program was sponsored by the USA so as to not fall behind in the USSR and risk the cold war. A space elevator represents a huge opportunity for wealth generation. You don't think greed would make it happen if it was possible? You're just plain wrong.
Oh, you'll wait until science-fiction, is that right? Star Trek or bust.
You go ahead. Me, I'll be using the near-future technology for making tools, mechanical parts, printed logic devices, plates, toys, and wearables while you continue to slog to Walmart.
This is no fake; and this is a huge, huge, blow to Google.
Uhm...what? I think that the only thing that could possible be a huge blow to Google would be from large-scale government. Think losing an anti-trust case or being kicked out of China.
This? This is a blip, a hiccup. They will probably stop the blatant fraud and move on, and/maybe/ apologize.
... It's just that it uses different effects to convey the 3rd dimension. Your eyes and brain fill in the 3rd dimension on 'regular' TV by using hints from the size of objects relative to other objects, and by focus and movement. What we now call '3D' is forced stereoscopic perspective, which is a fun effect but ultimately no more useful. It also has the downsides of being uncomfortable after some period of time and all sorts of other things such as brightness and those awful glasses.
They fail because they are a silly gimmick. I can't wait for it to pass. Damn kids with their 3D.. grumble.. get of my lawn!
I don't particularly like XP, but I don't particularly dislike it either. The OS came with my older laptops, and I'm not about to spend the money to upgrade it. Like many of the/. crowd, the only way I acquire Windows is through a new PC or laptop (or netbook, or ultra-ma-jig, or whatever we call them now).
Ever see that image floating around the internet? "New Mac for Christmas - $2000 Facebook machine" That speaks volumes.
I have an ebay'ed Xeon server that runs various *nixes with Xen. That does the heavy stuff, and everything else is for Firefox and Office. What's keeping me on XP? Same thing that's making me upgrade to Windows 7... Nothing! It costs money for no material value. That's not even a decision.
Slashdot Mirror
Move all of your accounts to a new email address ASAP. Then, over the course of a few months, watch the old email address closely. Watch for any straggling emails going to the old email. Fix any stragglers. When you are comfortable that the only thing showing up is SPAM, then transfer the domain.
Look, there's no way you can be 100% sure. The best thing would be to trust the new guy.
Speaking of stragglers... Just today I noticed that two large companies (one named after a large South American river, the other is a giant Bank in America) that were still sending stuff to an old email address after I had changed my account preferences. Obviously my old address lingers in their databases without any user interface to clean it.
Agreed.
Another thing is the separatoin of the sexes for awards. Now, in the Olympics, this makes perfect sense. Men grow bigger and stronger, so the spirit of competition demands that runners and swimmers compete within their sex. Now, what about the Oscars? Why do they have a category for Best Female Lead and Best Male Lead? Men are not naturally better or worse than women at acting. There should just be Best Actor.
Same with project management. Honestly, why should I care if it's a female? Is Red Hat's organization so sexist that her appointment is a marvelous accomplishment? I assume it isn't.
--d
Considering Flash's extensive use as an attack vector this is great news. I would sleep better at night though if Firefox itself was also sandboxed; in fact I'm a bit surprised you can even sandbox Flash when the browser doesn't support it.
What happens when a user wants to download a file (on purpose) to their home directory when the entire browser is sandboxed?
Seconded.
Last I checked, streaming doesn't contain ads. However, the newest releases can't be found there.
Since their DRM is ineffective at actually stopping pirates, here we have the perfect example of "defective by design". Anybody with a DRM-cracked pirated version will not have any disruption. Nice job, Ubi.
I get heated over this kind of thing every time I pop in a DVD from Netflix. They send you discs without any special features that are loaded with up to 15 minutes of unskippable advertisements and previews. If I had just downloaded the move, I could jump right in. I am willing to pay, but I see nothing but disincentives to do so! Fools.
Relax, Francis. It's a joke.
It might have something to do with their lackluster efforts to keep pace as Apple and Google speed off into the future. Microsoft's effort to catch up makes BlackBerry look old-and-busted.
It's more like a second-rate StumbleUpon.
Hard to get outraged when I was under the assumption that Google already did this. Why wouldn't I think that any time I was logged in with my google account (shared with search, gmail, android, youtube) they they weren't collecting data in the same bin?
Same with Facebook. How many websites have the facebook "like" buttons? When you're signed in to facebook, they are watching everything else you do. Again, I assume it all goes into one big bin of information about me.
Scary to type that out, but not a new development by any means, at least not in my perception.
All they have to do is turn it around. Like this:
"It is not illegal to withdraw support for a senator/representative because they have not supported your chosen policy. It is expected that controversial decisions would upset some campaign contributors. Mr. Dodd is free to remind his peers of this fact."
I don't like it, but that's how it will be.
I agree for the most part, except for that "obviously not sustainable" part.
The phone companies complain loudly, but I don't trust them to be forthcoming about their business. Increasing network capacity is possible, but probably expensive. They don't want to if they don't have to.
The commercials on TV advertise the kind of usage that would lead to an absurdly large bill. They actively sell it to customers. Then, they turn around and demonize the users who actually use the phones as advertised.
Have you seen the "that's so 27 seconds ago" ads? They feature some average-looking Americans (1 fat white guy and 1 fat black guy) surfing with their phones non-stop, including YouTube. They would blow that bandwidth cap in the time frame of 1 commercial break at that rate.
Are you sure that's the right comic for this story?
Titles like that make for good drama, but we must stand back for a second to see what this means.
The "digital destruction" of textbook publishing has been underway for quite some time. The Internet has made the dissemination of information easy and cheap. Even before the Internet, digital mediums such as DVD and Laserdisc were used by educational institutions for teaching.
Self-published homemade works are now commonplace with music, movies, news (blogs), interactive media such as webpages and software. Full-size books are a logical continuation.
Easy to demonize Apple, but Steve was a fighter, he saw the opportunity for success and profit, and nobody would expect anything less.
-d
And you miss the point. Space elevators would enable huge profits. Profits orders of magnitude larger than importing two-cent junk to America. If it was possible, they'd do it. Tell me, how does Virgin Galactic fit into your little world-view?
-d
30 years ago all sorts of stuff was being predicted. space colonies this that. all we ended up has been a widening income/wealth inequality with those amassing wealth doing nothing with that wealth but letting it amass more wealth sitting in the banks. there is no way in hell we will have space elevators, this that, as long as the rich can make more money without making anything. why invest in a space elevator, why you can just let the money sit in hedge funds and let it become more money overnight, without considerable risk ... the only ones who will do these would be new internet-era entrepreneurs and rich boys like the ones who are investing in space x thingies etc now. and no way in hell their numbers and wealth can make these stuff come true in a way that would matter for the public.
You have such a deep misunderstanding of the real world, I'm surprised you can manage to get food into your mouth to survive. The article summary seems to have triggered your "I AM THE 99%" response. However you don't seem to understand the nature of wealth. People like you sit back and complain that the rich have all their money in the bank, so there isn't any left for you. The reality is that weathy people invest their money to remain wealthy. What the hell do you think a hedge fund is? Like most investments, it puts the money to work.
If a space elevator could ever be made profitably, those kinds of funds are the ones that would invest. Poor, aimless, unmotivated fools will never make it happen. No such venture was ever done for charity. Columbus was sponsored by the Portuguese crown in a search for wealth in trade routes. The Apollo program was sponsored by the USA so as to not fall behind in the USSR and risk the cold war. A space elevator represents a huge opportunity for wealth generation. You don't think greed would make it happen if it was possible? You're just plain wrong.
-d
If it is going to be telnet session only, why not switch to the best GUI-less OS ever? Linux anyone?
You think the only reason companies use a Microsoft platform for their servers is because it has a GUI? That's sad.
Oh, you'll wait until science-fiction, is that right? Star Trek or bust.
You go ahead. Me, I'll be using the near-future technology for making tools, mechanical parts, printed logic devices, plates, toys, and wearables while you continue to slog to Walmart.
This is no fake; and this is a huge, huge, blow to Google.
Uhm...what? I think that the only thing that could possible be a huge blow to Google would be from large-scale government. Think losing an anti-trust case or being kicked out of China.
This? This is a blip, a hiccup. They will probably stop the blatant fraud and move on, and /maybe/ apologize.
add Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, Wikipedia. Can you imagine the exposure? That would be the nuclear option.
Once per year is still too quick, IMHO. In my experience, 2-4 years (or more!) would better fit enterprise expectations.
Publicity.
... It's just that it uses different effects to convey the 3rd dimension. Your eyes and brain fill in the 3rd dimension on 'regular' TV by using hints from the size of objects relative to other objects, and by focus and movement. What we now call '3D' is forced stereoscopic perspective, which is a fun effect but ultimately no more useful. It also has the downsides of being uncomfortable after some period of time and all sorts of other things such as brightness and those awful glasses.
They fail because they are a silly gimmick. I can't wait for it to pass. Damn kids with their 3D.. grumble.. get of my lawn!
I think that would double every second for the entire day. Be more specific.
I don't particularly like XP, but I don't particularly dislike it either. The OS came with my older laptops, and I'm not about to spend the money to upgrade it. Like many of the /. crowd, the only way I acquire Windows is through a new PC or laptop (or netbook, or ultra-ma-jig, or whatever we call them now).
Ever see that image floating around the internet? "New Mac for Christmas - $2000 Facebook machine" That speaks volumes.
I have an ebay'ed Xeon server that runs various *nixes with Xen. That does the heavy stuff, and everything else is for Firefox and Office. What's keeping me on XP? Same thing that's making me upgrade to Windows 7... Nothing! It costs money for no material value. That's not even a decision.
-d