There is continuity in the way you describe; however, it is not when Anakin loses his hand (which, as noted, happens in Episode II, and does not result in his turning). It is when (*** Last chance spoiler warning ***) he cuts off Mace Windu's hand, resulting in Windu's death. When Luke loses his hand, and then takes Darth Vader's hand, he decides to reject the dark side; when Anakin loses his arm, and then takes Windu's hand, he succumbs to the dark side.
It might also be interesting to note that Anakin's turn to the dark side, and his return from the dark side, both coincide with the lightning attacks against people close to him.
(Aside: Wasn't Anakin's sudden and complete turn completely unbelievable?? It felt like the last few scenes of the movie were very rushed. Same with Padme's too-quick rejection, and Obi-Wan's quick change from reluctance to acceptance of his assigned task to kill Anakin.)
[1] Even though Microsoft will not be able to find every single vulnerability, this will help them find and fix common vulnerabilities that appear. Since they'll know where the problem came from, they'll also be able to test any solutions they come up with. And there always is a "window of opportunity", but this will help Microsoft shorten it.
[2] According to the description, the network is set up to crawl websites looking for vulnerabilities. If one of the websites infects the crawler, then they will have found a vulnerability. So it could help. In fact, they could also watch for non-browser related exploits, which are commonly used by worms. So in both cases, it very well could help Microsoft detect unreported vulnerabilities.
[3] All they need to do is use IE. If their system gets infected, that's enough to raise an alarm. They don't need matching video cards to see if IE has a buffer overflow in its image rendering module. And they are trying to secure their OS -- that's the point of this research! Discover holes, and fix them. A more apt analogy would be letting people try to break into your car, and then installing countermeasures against whatever techniques succeded.
Sure, it's not the perfect solution (as if one exists), but it's a good idea.
Opera has a feature to fit pages to your web browser width: Crtl+F11, or View-->Fit to window width. It's extremely useful. Works great for supersized (over-resolutioned) webpages too...
Is it that easy to attach a rider? In that case, couldn't the opposition immediately attach a countering rider? (Obviously, I don't know the process of attaching riders.)
Anyway, shouldn't the blame (and outrage) fall on the person who attached the offending rider, and not the person voting against it? After all, the person who attached the rider is the one who is hurting the bill. Are we really that short-sighted as a nation?
Re:The question every firefox user is asking
on
Opera 8 Released
·
· Score: 1
Opera supports Ajax fully, and there is no reason why gmail shouldn't work, and it used to. Blame google for forcing Opera users to use the crappy basic HTML interface. That's not Opera's fault.
gmail's nifty interface works for me again, and it has for a while now. I'm using Opera 8 currently, Identifying as Opera (it worked in 8 beta, too). If that doesn't work, try using http://gmail.google.com/gmail?nocheckbrowser
I don't think it's that simple. The publishers sold their product. Once it came into someone else's possession, the publisher lost control of it. If they wanted to keep full control over their product, they should not have sold it. What the publishers are currently trying to do is to be able to sell a product, while keeping control over it. This seems unreasonable to me. I don't see anything wrong with letting them try to reap all the benefit they can from their products, but if they don't succeed, punishing others seems excessive. People should respect each other, but if you jail everyone who fails, the 3 unjailed people are going to have a hard time running things.
I didn't know this was such a controversial topic, but as I recall, lasers can't even penetrate Star Trek's navigational deflectors. I'm surprised I remember that, but it's probably because I had the same question when I was a kid (and I wanted Star Wars to win). Star Trek's cool too though.... after some googling...
The way I see it, the law should focus on the broader issue rather than on the particular details. The legality should, for example, focus on whether invasion of privacy is ok, rather than whether tapping the keyboard wire or the phone line wire is ok. It's a privacy issue, not a technology issue, and law should be simplified, not complicated. Adding additional details and exceptions is how the law got so complicated in the first place. There's something wrong with the law when it takes a lifetime of study to fully comprehend it, especially when ignorance is not an excuse to breaking the law.
Trade secrets can be copyrighted. Authored works are copyrighted (author retains control over rights to copy) upon creation, and there is no requirement to publish the works.
You're probably thinking of patents, where publishing is required.
This seems to be a common line of thought, that people believe in a god because there is some need to. You hear people say "I believe in God because he heals my pain", or "I don't believe in God, because I don't need someone to lean on". This is backwards though; God doesn't exist depending on whether you need him or not, just as your house doesn't exist just because you want it to.
It's a revision in theory, which occurs naturally as new information is discovered -- it happens most formally in science, but also in all parts of life.
I think the point is that there are many who simply accept whichever view they're taught. It's not that the developers of the theories are idiots; it's the end-users (if you'll allow the analogy) who don't know much of the underlying thoughts and reasoning, and just take up one viewpoint or another, because it makes more sense in their minds. Sure, you can say that's because they're stupid and they don't think, and while that's true for some people, it's a rather shortsighted assumption, since no human can hold the sum of human knowledge in their head.
But anyway, the point is that there are people on both sides of the argument who just echo the arguments they've heard, and don't care to explore the viewpoints on the other side of the fence because they already see clearly how right they are, and how blind and closed-minded the other side is.
The story is biased and all of the 5:insightful comments I've read so far are BULLSHIT.
Welcome to Slashdot. Expect strong bias and lemming moderation. (Don't forget that this is how any sufficiently large community is; since time is limited (or people are too busy), it's easier to jump to conclusions rather than withholding judgement until there's sufficient information. It's alright though -- there really aren't that many of them, and they're not the ones investigating the matter, so it's okay.)
Are you a student of Machiavelli, or merely a gifted amateur. [rhetorical question, no need for a question mark]
Traditionally, a rhetorical question requires a question mark, since it's still a question (e.g. "Who cares?"). A lot of people do use a period since it sounds like a statement, but grammatically this is incorrect.
Corporations can be found to be psychotic? Does that mean that they can also be forced to seek treatment if they're diagnosed that way? (I'm just asking!)
Slashdot Mirror
*** Warning: Spoilers ***
-
There is continuity in the way you describe; however, it is not when Anakin loses his hand (which, as noted, happens in Episode II, and does not result in his turning). It is when (*** Last chance spoiler warning ***) he cuts off Mace Windu's hand, resulting in Windu's death. When Luke loses his hand, and then takes Darth Vader's hand, he decides to reject the dark side; when Anakin loses his arm, and then takes Windu's hand, he succumbs to the dark side.
It might also be interesting to note that Anakin's turn to the dark side, and his return from the dark side, both coincide with the lightning attacks against people close to him.
(Aside: Wasn't Anakin's sudden and complete turn completely unbelievable?? It felt like the last few scenes of the movie were very rushed. Same with Padme's too-quick rejection, and Obi-Wan's quick change from reluctance to acceptance of his assigned task to kill Anakin.)
[1] Even though Microsoft will not be able to find every single vulnerability, this will help them find and fix common vulnerabilities that appear. Since they'll know where the problem came from, they'll also be able to test any solutions they come up with. And there always is a "window of opportunity", but this will help Microsoft shorten it.
[2] According to the description, the network is set up to crawl websites looking for vulnerabilities. If one of the websites infects the crawler, then they will have found a vulnerability. So it could help. In fact, they could also watch for non-browser related exploits, which are commonly used by worms. So in both cases, it very well could help Microsoft detect unreported vulnerabilities.
[3] All they need to do is use IE. If their system gets infected, that's enough to raise an alarm. They don't need matching video cards to see if IE has a buffer overflow in its image rendering module. And they are trying to secure their OS -- that's the point of this research! Discover holes, and fix them. A more apt analogy would be letting people try to break into your car, and then installing countermeasures against whatever techniques succeded.
Sure, it's not the perfect solution (as if one exists), but it's a good idea.
Er, although i'm not sure that'd work so well for a company model. =P
You can get it for free: http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww .opera.com%2Fct-magazin%2F&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en& ie=UTF8 . works with 7.54 and 8 betas. And you can upgrade to 8 final for $15 USD, too
Opera has a feature to fit pages to your web browser width: Crtl+F11, or View-->Fit to window width. It's extremely useful. Works great for supersized (over-resolutioned) webpages too...
Is it that easy to attach a rider? In that case, couldn't the opposition immediately attach a countering rider? (Obviously, I don't know the process of attaching riders.)
Anyway, shouldn't the blame (and outrage) fall on the person who attached the offending rider, and not the person voting against it? After all, the person who attached the rider is the one who is hurting the bill. Are we really that short-sighted as a nation?
Opera supports Ajax fully, and there is no reason why gmail shouldn't work, and it used to. Blame google for forcing Opera users to use the crappy basic HTML interface. That's not Opera's fault.
gmail's nifty interface works for me again, and it has for a while now. I'm using Opera 8 currently, Identifying as Opera (it worked in 8 beta, too). If that doesn't work, try using http://gmail.google.com/gmail?nocheckbrowser
here's a link to one of their commercials. and a link to a somewhat silly review here.
I don't think it's that simple.
The publishers sold their product. Once it came into someone else's possession, the publisher lost control of it. If they wanted to keep full control over their product, they should not have sold it.
What the publishers are currently trying to do is to be able to sell a product, while keeping control over it. This seems unreasonable to me. I don't see anything wrong with letting them try to reap all the benefit they can from their products, but if they don't succeed, punishing others seems excessive.
People should respect each other, but if you jail everyone who fails, the 3 unjailed people are going to have a hard time running things.
I didn't know this was such a controversial topic, but as I recall, lasers can't even penetrate Star Trek's navigational deflectors. I'm surprised I remember that, but it's probably because I had the same question when I was a kid (and I wanted Star Wars to win). Star Trek's cool too though. ... after some googling ...
Holy cow! They've already covered this in much more detail than I ever imagined possible: http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWokona.html
The Internet truly is a wonderful thing.
The way I see it, the law should focus on the broader issue rather than on the particular details. The legality should, for example, focus on whether invasion of privacy is ok, rather than whether tapping the keyboard wire or the phone line wire is ok. It's a privacy issue, not a technology issue, and law should be simplified, not complicated.
Adding additional details and exceptions is how the law got so complicated in the first place. There's something wrong with the law when it takes a lifetime of study to fully comprehend it, especially when ignorance is not an excuse to breaking the law.
Link's slashdotted. You should at least have the courtesy of providing a mirror or a torrent before linking to a 17GB pdf.
Trade secrets can be copyrighted. Authored works are copyrighted (author retains control over rights to copy) upon creation, and there is no requirement to publish the works.
You're probably thinking of patents, where publishing is required.
Here is a nice and concise description of patents, copyrights, and trade secrets.
Parents.
When Mr. Incredible walks into the control station with the bridge, it's very reminiscent of Dr. Xavier's Cerebro chamber.
(not implying anything, just more fun coincidences)
This seems to be a common line of thought, that people believe in a god because there is some need to. You hear people say "I believe in God because he heals my pain", or "I don't believe in God, because I don't need someone to lean on". This is backwards though; God doesn't exist depending on whether you need him or not, just as your house doesn't exist just because you want it to.
It's a revision in theory, which occurs naturally as new information is discovered -- it happens most formally in science, but also in all parts of life.
I think the point is that there are many who simply accept whichever view they're taught. It's not that the developers of the theories are idiots; it's the end-users (if you'll allow the analogy) who don't know much of the underlying thoughts and reasoning, and just take up one viewpoint or another, because it makes more sense in their minds. Sure, you can say that's because they're stupid and they don't think, and while that's true for some people, it's a rather shortsighted assumption, since no human can hold the sum of human knowledge in their head.
But anyway, the point is that there are people on both sides of the argument who just echo the arguments they've heard, and don't care to explore the viewpoints on the other side of the fence because they already see clearly how right they are, and how blind and closed-minded the other side is.
i suppose the "data link dropout" is where the secret moon base is located...
while we're at it, why don't we ban history books too? and the media, can't let those copycat crimes get out of control.
(i realize you were being satirical, although based on your exaggerated description, i'd venture to guess you haven't actually read it...)
The story is biased and all of the 5:insightful comments I've read so far are BULLSHIT.
Welcome to Slashdot. Expect strong bias and lemming moderation.
(Don't forget that this is how any sufficiently large community is; since time is limited (or people are too busy), it's easier to jump to conclusions rather than withholding judgement until there's sufficient information.
It's alright though -- there really aren't that many of them, and they're not the ones investigating the matter, so it's okay.)
Are you a student of Machiavelli, or merely a gifted amateur. [rhetorical question, no need for a question mark]
Traditionally, a rhetorical question requires a question mark, since it's still a question (e.g. "Who cares?"). A lot of people do use a period since it sounds like a statement, but grammatically this is incorrect.
Corporations can be found to be psychotic?
Does that mean that they can also be forced to seek treatment if they're diagnosed that way?
(I'm just asking!)
here are a couple of useful links to help fill it with legal mp3s:
http://irate.sourceforge.net/
http://www.google.com/search?q=legal+free+mp3
irate's awesome, although i think it would be more convenient with a plugin with your favorite player. it makes it really easy to find new music too.
mofo's been featured on slashdot before: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/15/195620 0
mofo seems to be a contraction of Morrison & Foerster LLP.
"Note to moderators, Smith & Wesson doesn't make the Glock, so the parent is the better analogy."
The prior post didn't state who made the gun... or do we already know who wrote the worm?