That is why they are attacked by the scientific community.
So, what you're essentially saying is that attacking scientists who might have a bit too much zeal for their research so fiercely that it causes setbacks to our scientific advances as a whole is a constructive thing?
Can't wait until advertisers get their hands on this tech.
Voice in my head: "Hey you, wouldn't you love some nice Starbucks(TM) coffee?" Me: "Huh, wha? Who is saying that? Get out of my head!!!" Policeman: "Please come with me. There are some nice men in white coats that'll make it all better."
Okay, but the point is that what you just described is *not* legal. If a government school puts up a sign on the front a school building saying "by attending this school you agree to waive your right to a seperated church and state" is that legal?
The difference is you don't *have* to be in the airport. The government doesn't require you to attend. You *are* mandated by the government to get an education.
Yes, but you're guessing that Johnny Walker will be able to survive even those 10 years before parole (which, if I recall, he isn't eligible for anyway based on the deal).
So... let me use my brain... you have given me two choices:
1) Windows setup in an insecure way.
2) Linux setup in a secure way
Basically, your choices would parallel the choices in the following example:
Which is better?
1) Apples
2) Oranges
In other words, what you are comparing isn't fair. Why isn't it something like, which is more secure?
1) A Windows machine not hooked to a network
2) A Linux machine not hooked to a network
You seriously can't compare the configuration of a standard home user's Windows PC to a professionally configured Linux machine and have it be a valid comparison of their security.
Well then your boss is a fucking idiot. Imagine running a real store where you turn away 10% of your potential business, simply because they're black or chinese.
Sure... if it's 10% changing to accept them is probably a wise investment. However, in the browser arena, taking the time to fix it to gain an extra 0.01% really isn't economically worthwhile.
Re:another stupid Pr0n joke. (First on this story)
on
World's First Photo
·
· Score: 1
Dammit, I shouldn't have spent 12 minutes spell cheicking that line.
Funny what lengths people go to in order to make sure everyone knows that the don't believe in all that "silly stuff." Almost like they have to do it constantly to remind themselves.
Just recently, a new developer came on board, and really studied the code. He successfully found about 10 odd / abstract ways to exploit the code.
Yeah, but this guy was able to minutely dissect your code to find these, as you put it, "odd / abstract" exploits. What are the odds that someone else, without access to the code would just decide to run some off the wall exploit on the very very slight possibility that it would work on your system?
Unfortunately, since Congress made music work-for-hire, the recording company had the right to keep them from doing what they wanted with their own music.
So, what you're saying is that Offspring didn't pay attention to the contract they signed and then, when they wanted to do something that the contract didn't allow, they were "opressed by 'The Man'"?
Hmm... is the industry at fault for protecting what they own or are the Offspring at fault for giving up "their music" when it was convienent for them to do so to make money and then decide to complain when they'd rather be the "cool" band who gives away music?
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone else think this is Jakob trying to encourage this just so he might, one day, know what it's like to touch a human of the opposite sex?
So, what you're essentially saying is that attacking scientists who might have a bit too much zeal for their research so fiercely that it causes setbacks to our scientific advances as a whole is a constructive thing?
Voice in my head: "Hey you, wouldn't you love some nice Starbucks(TM) coffee?"
Me: "Huh, wha? Who is saying that? Get out of my head!!!"
Policeman: "Please come with me. There are some nice men in white coats that'll make it all better."
And here is the proof that people will say or do anything to justify their petty theft.
So, to prove your "importance" to the company, you pulled a childish prank?
Why does your penis need laser toner? Pervert...
Okay, but the point is that what you just described is *not* legal. If a government school puts up a sign on the front a school building saying "by attending this school you agree to waive your right to a seperated church and state" is that legal?
The difference is you don't *have* to be in the airport. The government doesn't require you to attend. You *are* mandated by the government to get an education.
iI ithink ithat ithey iare itaking ithis i'i' inaming ithing ito ifar.
Yes, but you're guessing that Johnny Walker will be able to survive even those 10 years before parole (which, if I recall, he isn't eligible for anyway based on the deal).
One second I'm hearing: "The big entertainment groups need to change thier model to make money and stop blaming us for "stealing" their programming"
The next I'm hearing: "The nerve of them putting in ads we can't skip!!! I can't believe the audacity."
Make up your minds.
So... let me use my brain... you have given me two choices:
1) Windows setup in an insecure way.
2) Linux setup in a secure way
Basically, your choices would parallel the choices in the following example:
Which is better?
1) Apples
2) Oranges
In other words, what you are comparing isn't fair. Why isn't it something like, which is more secure?
1) A Windows machine not hooked to a network
2) A Linux machine not hooked to a network
You seriously can't compare the configuration of a standard home user's Windows PC to a professionally configured Linux machine and have it be a valid comparison of their security.
Probably significantly less than attacks from Linux users against Microsoft. Of course, maturity isn't expected from either camp on this front.
Well then your boss is a fucking idiot. Imagine running a real store where you turn away 10% of your potential business, simply because they're black or chinese.
Sure... if it's 10% changing to accept them is probably a wise investment. However, in the browser arena, taking the time to fix it to gain an extra 0.01% really isn't economically worthwhile.
Dammit, I shouldn't have spent 12 minutes spell cheicking that line.
;-)
I dunno... maybe you should've.
More like "how street signs make parinoid whackos think they are telling them about where the military can find resources"
Funny what lengths people go to in order to make sure everyone knows that the don't believe in all that "silly stuff." Almost like they have to do it constantly to remind themselves.
Just recently, a new developer came on board, and really studied the code. He successfully found about 10 odd / abstract ways to exploit the code.
Yeah, but this guy was able to minutely dissect your code to find these, as you put it, "odd / abstract" exploits. What are the odds that someone else, without access to the code would just decide to run some off the wall exploit on the very very slight possibility that it would work on your system?
So, what you're saying is that Offspring didn't pay attention to the contract they signed and then, when they wanted to do something that the contract didn't allow, they were "opressed by 'The Man'"?
Hmm... is the industry at fault for protecting what they own or are the Offspring at fault for giving up "their music" when it was convienent for them to do so to make money and then decide to complain when they'd rather be the "cool" band who gives away music?