"Android" hasn't, any more than "Windows" has. It's up to the individual retailer (of the phone or of the PC). My first phone had hardly any crapware; my second phone was chock full of it. Oddly enough, both phones were from Samsung, just different phones.
And it's not to prove anything in either case - it's completely to make them money by bundling crap you don't want. The only difference is, you can remove it off your PC generally just by uninstalling it the normal way - while you probably need to root your phone to get rid of most of the crapware from it.
It was the result of trimming. The rules of the battle school game in the book were described such that getting your team to the enemy's goal wasn't so much the end-game condition as simply a convenient way for the system to know that the game was over. When Ender exploited it, it was clearly an exploit - and the rules (and game programming) were then immediately modified so that nobody could exploit it again.
Meanwhile, Dr Device had never been tested against a planet; nobody had even considered the idea that it *could* be used against a planet. When Ender decided to use it against the planet, it came as a complete shock to everyone watching it. They definitely didn't know which tactics would be needed, because nobody had ever thought of using it like that - which was exactly the point of why they wanted kids, because they figured a kid would be more likely to try something so crazy and untested as a strategy.
Well, the book was better. But mostly only because there was (a little) more of it. By which I mean, the movie covered everything that happened, there was just a little bit more background on some of the events (also more description of what, exactly, what was "cut" to make it the "Good Parts Version".) I strongly recommend it.
Not Princess Bride? Ok, I suppose maybe it wasn't *quite* as good as the book, but only because the book was mindblowingly good. The movie was also mindblowingly good, though.
Amusingly enough, while I can think of a few movies as good as their books, I can only think of a *single* book that was as good as its movie (better, actually!)... and it was written by Card. In 1989, Card wrote a novelization of James Cameron's The Abyss... and it was seriously one of Card's best works. And Card has a lot of great works.
I was all prepared to be outraged at a company that tried to strongarm employees into giving away personal passwords, and then found some pretense to send people that wouldn't agree, to jail. That would be news.
This isn't really news - it wasn't the guy's property, it was his ex-company's. Were his higher-ups retarded for leaving their whole IT at the mercy of a single guy, not making sure anyone else had any idea how to work their stuff, and then firing that guy? Yes. Yes, they were. But that's not really news, either, at least not if you read the daily WTF. Companies act incompetently with regards to their IT all the time.
We are not a hive mind. We have different opinions on things.
I think there are a lot of things that are currently illegal, that shouldn't be (owning items that might conceivably be used in a crime, but not actually using them in a crime). There are other things that are currently illegal across the board, that should be more nuanced (like speed limits). Then there are things that are currently illegal and certainly should be, too.
Driving a hundred miles an hour on standard highways should probably be illegal. Driving 150 miles an hour definitely should be. Yes, even in a car specifically designed for it. Leave that for the speedway.
Driving 70 should definitely be legal on the freeway. Driving 80 probably should still be. 90? Maybe not. 150? No way.
Yes, we all know police use tickets as revenue generators rather than to increase safety, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be *any* safety measures.
On the plus side, slashdot does include transcripts with all its videos now, something I wish every site would do. (Though I'd still rather prefer originally-written content, than transcribed content, but it's still better than watching a video for most things, unless they're specifically trying to demonstrate a visual concept.)
I do agree with you in your first paragraph - there are a lot ways our culture still makes it harder to be a woman, but there are some laws around that screw guys and make it easy if you're a woman, too. Ideally, we'd fix both types of laws.
After that it goes right into troll territory, though - "It's bizarre how some guys are in their twenties and have simply zero interest in women. They have literally nothing in common with them and no interest in them." Not bizarre at all, I would have no desire to get married to the vast majority of women on the planet. It's not always easy, but the goal is to find someone you *do* have things in common with, and that's pretty obvious. (And if you think having a relationship as a male must necessarily be "expensive", clearly you haven't taken the right lessons from the feminist movement at all.)
How is it *not* a penetration test? They were testing whether they could get in. They got in. How does it matter whether they got in because they tricked a computer into letting them in, or a person? Both avenues are equally important if you want your office to be secure.
But seriously, no, I don't, and while I'm not in IT, I don't think my company does either? (But we're in a totally different geographic location - we've *always* had to worry about earthquakes, and to a lesser extent, fires, but not really hurricanes.)
If your choice is a. expensive crappy internet from one company, b. expensive crappy internet from the other company, or c. no internet, you're probably going to choose expensive crappy internet. So what motive do either internet companies have to make their internet cheaper or faster? None.
I miss the days when ISPs were actually allowed to have real competition.
This headline makes no sense. CAPTCHA is just a concept, there are hundreds of implementations. I'm sure some of them are crap and only block bots that aren't even trying, some block 100% of bots (and half the humans, too), and most are somewhere in the middle. So what does it mean to "solve CAPTCHA with 90% accuracy?" Does that mean he's tested it on every system out there, and aggregated the results? That would actually be interesting if he has, but more likely he's just tested it on one kinda-crap system that I could probably write a bot in a week to do the same thing.
It does sound like it's built to be more robust, working with more different types of captchas than perhaps many captcha-busting algorithms, but I doubt it's the first of its kind (maybe it uses a new algorithm, but it's still a captcha-buster, that's not new.)
"Sure as I know anything I know this, they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make peopleâ¦better. And I do not hold to that."
Not very many, because Linux really doesn't have a single good desktop distro. Linux is great for servers, but it sucks balls compared to Win7. Then again, Win8 sucks balls compared to Win7, too... if MS keeps crapping up their UI, maybe eventually people will start using Linux more, cause why not, if you GUI is gonna suck either way, it might as well be free.
Given a comment a few above this one stating that he once had the misfortune to work on one, and they often made him work several days in a row with no sleep... that actually does sound like it's probably the reason, and I can't really blame him for it.
I just googled that, cause I was curious what kind of game it is (games sites are obviously and reasonably blocked at work). I learned that there are apparently 3 such games in the series - they can't *all* be the world's hardest game...
I prefer replacing them with "my butt". Which is what I'm doing, already, so this thread is a goldmine. It makes your post nonsense, though - I'm not sure why I would replace your butt with someone else's computer.
Yes, it does make it legitimate. It doesn't make it a good newsletter, but it does make it legitimate. If they signed up for it, the email contains an obvious unsubscribe, and clicking on it and hitting submit on the resulting page makes you no longer get the newsletter, then it's not spam, period, end of story.
How would you like it if some newsletter you *did* want to get stopped coming to you because somewhere up the chain, some automated process decided it was spam and bounced it?
Is it possible some people were tricked into subscribing? Sure. That's happened to me a couple times. The proper course of action is to unsubscribe, not to call it spam. (Call it spam if you unsubscribe and they keep mailing you stuff afterwards, obviously.)
"those loyalty cards. dont think for a minute your information isnt getting added from the advert to the card, or isnt somehow related, because it absolutely is. The card seriously knows more about who you are as a person than your closest loved ones, and is used to routinely provide a pavlovian treat to bad customers in order to get them to become good ones."
Stores I have loyalty cards with might know a lot about the person who owns the card, but here's a fun fact: they have no idea *who* owns the card. You don't actually have to fill out the demographic info sheet they give you when you get a card in order to use the card, or at least you haven't at the couple places I have cards with. So all they know is that *someone* is using the card to buy the stuff I bought. I'm happy giving them that information.
No, they're presumably surprised that they got *caught*, when the point of doing it that way was so they wouldn't, which is almost as silly, but not quite. I don't think anyone using Silk Road thought that it wasn't illegal, merely that it *shouldn't* be. Which, good luck getting various illegal substances that should be legal, legalized in the US. Pot is still federally illegal, after all.
I'd say one of the best ways we could get them "legalized" is to have so many people ignore the law for so long that police stop bothering with arrests, until it eventually becomes one of those "it's illegal to wash a donkey in your bathtub" kind of laws that gets featured in "wacky laws you didn't know were technically still on the books" type humor books.
But I was surprised that so many people thought they could use silk road and get away with it. Just because they were anonymized during the purchase process, didn't mean they were anonymized during the part of the process where physical objects were physically mailed to them in the mail.
Yeah, you have to buy your phone outright, but you can also buy a refurb phone. I got my phone (through Ting) for 78 dollars, which came with a 50 dollar Ting credit. (That 50 dollar Ting credit is down to 25 now, but still.) It's a great phone. (Amazon has it listed new for use on Boost, for 200 dollars.)
Slashdot Mirror
Or you can just flash GApps into it like a normal person. :p
"Android" hasn't, any more than "Windows" has. It's up to the individual retailer (of the phone or of the PC). My first phone had hardly any crapware; my second phone was chock full of it. Oddly enough, both phones were from Samsung, just different phones.
And it's not to prove anything in either case - it's completely to make them money by bundling crap you don't want. The only difference is, you can remove it off your PC generally just by uninstalling it the normal way - while you probably need to root your phone to get rid of most of the crapware from it.
It was the result of trimming. The rules of the battle school game in the book were described such that getting your team to the enemy's goal wasn't so much the end-game condition as simply a convenient way for the system to know that the game was over. When Ender exploited it, it was clearly an exploit - and the rules (and game programming) were then immediately modified so that nobody could exploit it again.
Meanwhile, Dr Device had never been tested against a planet; nobody had even considered the idea that it *could* be used against a planet. When Ender decided to use it against the planet, it came as a complete shock to everyone watching it. They definitely didn't know which tactics would be needed, because nobody had ever thought of using it like that - which was exactly the point of why they wanted kids, because they figured a kid would be more likely to try something so crazy and untested as a strategy.
Well, the book was better. But mostly only because there was (a little) more of it. By which I mean, the movie covered everything that happened, there was just a little bit more background on some of the events (also more description of what, exactly, what was "cut" to make it the "Good Parts Version".) I strongly recommend it.
Not Princess Bride? Ok, I suppose maybe it wasn't *quite* as good as the book, but only because the book was mindblowingly good. The movie was also mindblowingly good, though.
Amusingly enough, while I can think of a few movies as good as their books, I can only think of a *single* book that was as good as its movie (better, actually!)... and it was written by Card. In 1989, Card wrote a novelization of James Cameron's The Abyss... and it was seriously one of Card's best works. And Card has a lot of great works.
If a Hollywood movie showed us a cataclysmic event in which millions of people died, I would call that "exciting".
If the same events occurred in real life, I'm not sure that's the word I would use.
I was all prepared to be outraged at a company that tried to strongarm employees into giving away personal passwords, and then found some pretense to send people that wouldn't agree, to jail. That would be news.
This isn't really news - it wasn't the guy's property, it was his ex-company's. Were his higher-ups retarded for leaving their whole IT at the mercy of a single guy, not making sure anyone else had any idea how to work their stuff, and then firing that guy? Yes. Yes, they were. But that's not really news, either, at least not if you read the daily WTF. Companies act incompetently with regards to their IT all the time.
We are not a hive mind. We have different opinions on things.
I think there are a lot of things that are currently illegal, that shouldn't be (owning items that might conceivably be used in a crime, but not actually using them in a crime). There are other things that are currently illegal across the board, that should be more nuanced (like speed limits). Then there are things that are currently illegal and certainly should be, too.
Driving a hundred miles an hour on standard highways should probably be illegal. Driving 150 miles an hour definitely should be. Yes, even in a car specifically designed for it. Leave that for the speedway.
Driving 70 should definitely be legal on the freeway. Driving 80 probably should still be. 90? Maybe not. 150? No way.
Yes, we all know police use tickets as revenue generators rather than to increase safety, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be *any* safety measures.
On the plus side, slashdot does include transcripts with all its videos now, something I wish every site would do. (Though I'd still rather prefer originally-written content, than transcribed content, but it's still better than watching a video for most things, unless they're specifically trying to demonstrate a visual concept.)
I do agree with you in your first paragraph - there are a lot ways our culture still makes it harder to be a woman, but there are some laws around that screw guys and make it easy if you're a woman, too. Ideally, we'd fix both types of laws.
After that it goes right into troll territory, though - "It's bizarre how some guys are in their twenties and have simply zero interest in women. They have literally nothing in common with them and no interest in them." Not bizarre at all, I would have no desire to get married to the vast majority of women on the planet. It's not always easy, but the goal is to find someone you *do* have things in common with, and that's pretty obvious. (And if you think having a relationship as a male must necessarily be "expensive", clearly you haven't taken the right lessons from the feminist movement at all.)
How is it *not* a penetration test? They were testing whether they could get in. They got in. How does it matter whether they got in because they tricked a computer into letting them in, or a person? Both avenues are equally important if you want your office to be secure.
Obligatory: no.
But seriously, no, I don't, and while I'm not in IT, I don't think my company does either? (But we're in a totally different geographic location - we've *always* had to worry about earthquakes, and to a lesser extent, fires, but not really hurricanes.)
If your choice is a. expensive crappy internet from one company, b. expensive crappy internet from the other company, or c. no internet, you're probably going to choose expensive crappy internet. So what motive do either internet companies have to make their internet cheaper or faster? None.
I miss the days when ISPs were actually allowed to have real competition.
This headline makes no sense. CAPTCHA is just a concept, there are hundreds of implementations. I'm sure some of them are crap and only block bots that aren't even trying, some block 100% of bots (and half the humans, too), and most are somewhere in the middle. So what does it mean to "solve CAPTCHA with 90% accuracy?" Does that mean he's tested it on every system out there, and aggregated the results? That would actually be interesting if he has, but more likely he's just tested it on one kinda-crap system that I could probably write a bot in a week to do the same thing.
It does sound like it's built to be more robust, working with more different types of captchas than perhaps many captcha-busting algorithms, but I doubt it's the first of its kind (maybe it uses a new algorithm, but it's still a captcha-buster, that's not new.)
Oh, look, it's Pax. I vote no.
"Sure as I know anything I know this, they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make peopleâ¦better. And I do not hold to that."
Not very many, because Linux really doesn't have a single good desktop distro. Linux is great for servers, but it sucks balls compared to Win7. Then again, Win8 sucks balls compared to Win7, too... if MS keeps crapping up their UI, maybe eventually people will start using Linux more, cause why not, if you GUI is gonna suck either way, it might as well be free.
Given a comment a few above this one stating that he once had the misfortune to work on one, and they often made him work several days in a row with no sleep... that actually does sound like it's probably the reason, and I can't really blame him for it.
I just googled that, cause I was curious what kind of game it is (games sites are obviously and reasonably blocked at work). I learned that there are apparently 3 such games in the series - they can't *all* be the world's hardest game...
I prefer replacing them with "my butt". Which is what I'm doing, already, so this thread is a goldmine. It makes your post nonsense, though - I'm not sure why I would replace your butt with someone else's computer.
Yes, it does make it legitimate. It doesn't make it a good newsletter, but it does make it legitimate. If they signed up for it, the email contains an obvious unsubscribe, and clicking on it and hitting submit on the resulting page makes you no longer get the newsletter, then it's not spam, period, end of story.
How would you like it if some newsletter you *did* want to get stopped coming to you because somewhere up the chain, some automated process decided it was spam and bounced it?
Is it possible some people were tricked into subscribing? Sure. That's happened to me a couple times. The proper course of action is to unsubscribe, not to call it spam. (Call it spam if you unsubscribe and they keep mailing you stuff afterwards, obviously.)
"those loyalty cards. dont think for a minute your information isnt getting added from the advert to the card, or isnt somehow related, because it absolutely is. The card seriously knows more about who you are as a person than your closest loved ones, and is used to routinely provide a pavlovian treat to bad customers in order to get them to become good ones."
Stores I have loyalty cards with might know a lot about the person who owns the card, but here's a fun fact: they have no idea *who* owns the card. You don't actually have to fill out the demographic info sheet they give you when you get a card in order to use the card, or at least you haven't at the couple places I have cards with. So all they know is that *someone* is using the card to buy the stuff I bought. I'm happy giving them that information.
Beat me to it. I was wondering why QC was being deleted from ebookstores, when I saw the headline.
No, that's not the meme, get it right. The meme is, "THANKS, Obama!
No, they're presumably surprised that they got *caught*, when the point of doing it that way was so they wouldn't, which is almost as silly, but not quite. I don't think anyone using Silk Road thought that it wasn't illegal, merely that it *shouldn't* be. Which, good luck getting various illegal substances that should be legal, legalized in the US. Pot is still federally illegal, after all.
I'd say one of the best ways we could get them "legalized" is to have so many people ignore the law for so long that police stop bothering with arrests, until it eventually becomes one of those "it's illegal to wash a donkey in your bathtub" kind of laws that gets featured in "wacky laws you didn't know were technically still on the books" type humor books.
But I was surprised that so many people thought they could use silk road and get away with it. Just because they were anonymized during the purchase process, didn't mean they were anonymized during the part of the process where physical objects were physically mailed to them in the mail.
Yeah, you have to buy your phone outright, but you can also buy a refurb phone. I got my phone (through Ting) for 78 dollars, which came with a 50 dollar Ting credit. (That 50 dollar Ting credit is down to 25 now, but still.) It's a great phone. (Amazon has it listed new for use on Boost, for 200 dollars.)