hehe, I ran a 333 mhz machine for a long time. I consistently keep my CPU at least 1 year behind everyone else's so my CPU upgrades cost me $30 instead of $1,000. hehe, right now I am running 733 or so, it runs all the nVidia demos just fine...
I try to tell people to get a cheaper slower machine, but noooo, they want the big and fast, and guess what, 3 months later, their big and fast is now slow and old... *sigh*
Experience means alot...
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 1
I have hired a few contractors and I really like having older more experienced programmers. Why? Here's my list.
Older Programmer
Understands that finishing a project involves a great deal of stress.
Deals with project stress well, as they have dealt with it many, many times.
Have coded themselves into corners enough to know that a good plan, forthought and past experiences of other team members all help them to keep out of new corners.
Have lot's stock code and are a lot less likely to want to reinvent the wheel.
More consistent and stable (as a general rule) as they have houses, mortgages, wives, families, etc... stuff that makes you stay in one place and battle through the hard times.
Tend have less of an attitude problem that is age related (in general)
More mature in an overall sense, and not quick to think themselves as right.
Will more likely program as you ask them to instead of how they want. (ie, comments, code structure, etc...)
Sometimes can have lack of energy though and not be to into a project, therefor not adding much in a creative manner... this usually doesn't effect production though... (this being probably the only down side...)
Is not up to date with current programming trends (though a good programmer should be able to adapt on the fly and this is another small issue.)
Younger Programmer :
Has lot's of energy and time to devote to getting something done.
Usually thinks he knows everything therefore less likely to program exactly how you want him too.
Complains a lot more than older programmer.
Would rather be playing games and therefore by extention his focus is divided.
Drinks too much caffine which effects mental imbalance, causing mood swings that effect communication and work flow.
Sometimes to lazy to really do good coding, would rather hack through it than plan first and implement second.
These is an over generalizations, but for the most part I have had better experiences with programmers older than me than younger. I personally have been the jerk young programmer, so I know where they come from, and so you work with them (as they are less expensive usually) until they become older mature programmers.
Unfortunately I have run mostly into young programmers that just don't want to do things the long hard way that works better... usually they do the absolute minimum of work, push off responsibitly onto others... but there are alwasy exceptions, I have worked with great younger programmers, but I've worked with better older programmers.
You really should see a good chiropractor, it costs me only $28 a visit and I went in once ever 2 days at first to get things straightened out. (be sure he treats your muscles as much as the bones, otherwise he's just a bone cracker)
Then later, 2 times a week, then once a week, etc.. until now I go once a month. For $28 a month my neck and back get a good adjustment. Well worth it, ever see someone in their 80's with bone spurs or back problems? They cry all the time because they are in constant pain... Think the people in the nursing home care?
Also, there is a certain stretch that get's all the kinks out of your neck and therefore keeps you loose.
Just pull your head down and to the right with your right arm and you will feel the back left side of your neck pulled tight. Do this for 20 seconds (use a clock/timer otherwise you will be off) then do the other side (left arm pulling down to the left) then rotate your shoulders. Repeat this 3 times.
Trust me, just this one little stretch will save your neck. My chiropractor chews me out when I don't stretch as he says what he does won't help if I don't take care of myself.
Also, for all you geeks out there hooked on coffee (me included) if you want to scare yourself away from coffee, here's a great read...
Yes, caffine (soda, tea, pills, yogurt, coffee, etc...) will trash your body, hurt your muscles, tendons, bones and joints. It will slowly degrade the quality of your life and bring your great greif and suffering...
I quit drinking coffee after reading only a hundred pages or so of this book... If you a serious about getting healthy, caffine has to go...
btw, I once had my entire left side go numb, my wrists ached, my neck was killing me, etc... all fixed by good health, stretching neck and chiropractor.
Also some essential oils (peppermint for pain, lemongrass for tendons and muscles) will give instant releif from pain and will help actually heal the tissue in your hands and wrists.
... if the code examples Sco are showing are identical... how do they prove who had it first... or even which is which.
That's easy, you can tell by the way the code displays on screen... if it's dingy like dirty laundry, it's left overs from SCO and they are trying to clean it up through the courts.
If it's clean and pristine like a nice brand new roll of toilet paper, then it's raw pure public Linux code about to get wiped by the SCO...
Either way, it will all end up in the garbage, cheaper than paying for lawyers to clean up...
I can make an image 300 dpi, 1500x367 that is in vector format and only takes up 100k. Try doing that with JPEG, GIF or ANY other format that supports the display as a bitmap AND a vector from the same file...
PNG also makes smaller _8 BIT_ graphics than GIF almost across the board. The only advantage GIF has is that it's algorithm for compression allows repeating colors in a horizontal line to compress slightly better than PNG. But if you get all vertical or a mess of lines (most images) then the _8 Bit_ PNG will compress better.
With PNG you can have 24/32bit graphics as well with 256 levels of transparency. How many levels of transparency does GIF have? _one_
The simple fact that IE is a piece of garbage does _not_ have any bearing on whether or not PNG's format is "poor standardization", IE is just trash... PNG alpha standard is just fine...
Popular end user understanding of the format is not needed for PNG to get more wide spread use, only developers of browsers, graphics software programmers and designers need to start backing what is by far the best, most well rounded feature rich graphics format in exhistance for web use.
If anyone doesn't know this also, Macromedia's Fireworks web design application (the best one around I might add, poor Adobe...) uses PNG for it's native file format. The things you can do with a PNG file in Fireworks are incredible.
And, now to give away a small secret here, you can use the alpha channels of a 32bit PNG in a flash animation, no other format will give you the alpha channel...
In addition, it uses a particularly nasty flaw in Microsoftâ(TM)s Internet Explorer program and its implementation by Microsoftâ(TM)s Outlook e-mail reader that allows the virus to infect machines whenever a victim simply previews an e-mail message loaded with the program.
Yet (as of this post) CNN mentions nothing of the fact that this is another virus that takes advantage of a Microsoft flaw...
And at the bottom of the MSN page"MSN - More Useful Everyday"
I see no reason why a large fuel explosion couldn't trigger a series of events that could cause a building to collapse if it was already on the verge of collapsing anyway.
You are making some assumptions here, 1. that it was damaged enough from the first 2 towers to be weakened and 2. that a deisel feul explosion can drop even a damaged building.
The problem is that 1. no other major buildings fell like that, WTC 6 mostly survived with just damage. 2. It is a recorded _fact_ that no physical fire has ever brought down a steel building. 3. WTC 7 fell perfectly straight down from every corner all at once. 4. As stated on a previous post, steel supports cannot be destroyed from an air blast, ever.
Even if you are right and the deisel explosion caused the building to collapse, it would not have dropped evenly from every corner, it would have been chaotic and random and messy. But the drop was perfect and straight.
I would link to images and videos but they would get slashdotted, look this all up on google and your favorite P2P client, it's all out there.
Are you suggesting that a demolotion team went in and blew it up? Why?
Yes. Oklohoma City bombing had bombs in teh building that didn't go off, this was reported all through the local news there, I have plenty of clips. I don't specifically know the reasons why, but plently of pundits out there have theories, there is public knowledge of what was in those buildings when they went down and it's all very supsicious...
If for safty reasons, why the need to cover it up?
Not sure what you mean by safety reasons, but obviously if you drop your own building you can't then blame it on terrorists if people know you did it...
Disclaimer: These are all theories based on the same evidence everyone else has, just the popular theory is not supported by the evidence... Also I have no special knowledge or insite that a normal geek online can't find out...
Because if it was a non-planned demolition, one portion of the building would have dropped first and not necessarily the whole building, and certainly not uniformily as it did.
The claim was that a huge diesil feul reserve exploded which brought the building down. Sorry, but explosive experts have proven you cannont cut steel support beams with an air explosion, it will never happen, the only way support beams could be cut with explosions is with explosives on direct contact with the supports...
Long story short, perhaps that building would have been messed up really, really bad, burnt to a crisp, partially collapsed, but no way, ever in a million years would a feul explosion drop a building like that...
Hardly a troll here, people need to open their eyes, WTC 7 dropped straight down in a perfect demolition, even in the videos (I've seen 4 completely seperate views) the edges of the buildings don't even waiver a bit, it looks almost like the build is being erased from the sky it goes down so straight...
My client _insists_ we use groove and it takes _forever_ to load up, _forever_ to close down, when it crashes (all the time) it takes, yes, _forever_ to die. It sucks up memory like there is no tomorrow, it it has a cluttered and hideously bloated interface, it has to update itself every time you open it, it's SLOOOOOOOWWW! ARARHHRAHAHGG!
Yet, Winamp 3 is amazingly annoying and slow as well... I just hope WASTE runs on winamp 2...
Pay employees with stocks that have no real value, and don't record it as wages, pay no federal taxes.
Give away free OS's to poor countries that can only run other MS applications, but that applications are not free...
Buy the president and DOJ, bribe the judge that said "Linux is not competition for MS", bomb Iraq, nab the oil, release windows to the Russians (make it look like it's pirated) scream "piracy!" at the Russians, release worms to scare the world into a new upgrade cycle, release articles on how stupid standards are.
Sounds like your saying flipping stations on my TV is wasting too then?
A really, really huge problem with all the math and your assertations is this. If I buy 1 mb cable connection and I use 70% of it for P2P then there is no waste, cause I paid for 100% of my bandwidth. You saying it's waste is totally subjective, cause it's being paid for, so the only possible waste would be on the user's end...
I asked my Cable company point blank, "can I run a server on my cable line? Will this affect bandwidth for my neighbors or other people on the same node?"
Response from cable company: "We have more bandwidth than we sell, use all you want."
If a company is selling a product they can't afford to sell, then they aren't running their business properly.
Even if you didn't take this drastic a step, another solution would be computer-aided software burn-in. Let the computer test the software for bugs. A super-QA Analysis if you will. Log complete program traces for every trial run, and let the machine put the software through every input/output possiblity.
Isn't this the basis for higher level scripting langauges? It seems that much of more difficult things to program (memory management, pointers, etc...) are all handled with a high level authoring tool/scripting language (PHP, Macromedia Director, etc...) vs having to deal with every nuance of the system (C, assembly, etc...)
I am by know means an expert but have found I can make very complex and robust software very quickly with Director, that would take an absolute expert in C ten times as long to make, simply because Director has a tremendous amount of libraries to use with no system resource manangement needed unless I choose too.
On top of that, I can always extend the capabilities with C++ or something very easily or with an ActiveX control. (activeX in Director is buggy somewhat though)
Since computers are getting faster, and proof of this is fullfledge 3d in Director with hardware opengl support, things that were not possible in high level scripting based authoring tools is now getting that way.
Then the level of stability can be controlled more at the level of the Director player instead of at the project level...
Ultimately it seems that more and more work based on user interaction will be done with higher level systems, and lower level coding will go to performance based tasks (video/photo editing, 3d games, etc...) but the USE of these tools may be controled with higher level programming like Director, where new features and ways to access the high performance tasks can be added and modified frequently without concern of overall application instability or performance, as there will be a difinitive seperation between the tasks of rendering/calculations and user interface/features.
ok, so basically we have come to the crux of the matter.
If automatic bots (wget) take data randomly from the net (which I understand they need a link to get somewhere anyways, but we can deal with that later if true) are the owner's of the bot's liable for 1."stolen IP" or 2. "unauthorized access" or possibly both?
1. The aspect of "stealing" something is a bit of a problem, as like if I made a copy of a novel while still in the store, they probably could kick me out, but if I left and they didn't know about it, unless I did something like pirate the copy, I doubt any lawsuit would hold up.
So that leaves "unauthorized access" by the bot. (until further debate on item 1)
2. As I stated before, there should be a basic premis that if something is private that is should be labeled that way or there should be certain obvious flags right off the bat, like no web server running on said computer is an easy one.
How long before robots go to the store, shop for us and do door to door sales?
If a robot came into my house, I would be pretty upset, so there should definitely be some containment of how a bot runs. For example as I stated before if we can safely consider the www a public area, then bot's could limit their hunting to www for a very safe, but possibly limited boundry.
If they do hit IP addresses directly, then they could be set to only recognize web pages and web servers, and ignore all other forms of communication protocol. This is all just as a starting idea.
But yes, if a bot invades my computer, the owner should be held accountable, as the only bots that I detect hitting my firewall I could safely assume are port scanners looking for doors in to my computer to make it a zombie or worse.. Then at that point a bot is not a bot, but a form of a virus or trojan...
But as a justice safety possision, if nothing is disturbed on my computer and the owner of the bot could justify the accidental intrusion (aka, I ran a web server on my computer and left some stuff in a folder I shouldn't have) then the bot owner should not be held accountable, just like Google shouldn't be if Madonna left her latest CD in mp3 format on her home page and google finds it there... Modonna's being guilty of negligence then exhonerates google, (not sure if I got all those big words right...)
Not sure if there's a point to replying to an "anon"
If the letter is unopened it's almost certainly tresspass to chattel to open it.
Ok, a letter is not a good analogy to a website, let's call it a poster. Then no mail or legal reasons not to inspect it, just like finding a webpage...
Certainly not. There's TFTP, RCP, Anonymous FTP, SMTP, etc.
Ok, but don't these systems have to be intentionally setup? And if they are, then the person setting them up must accept that the public, may, can and will access those areas. My computer can't be accessed like that by default, and if I did make it publiclly accessible without a password, I should say to myself in the mirror, "don't be stupid".
I think it's a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be.
Maybe you are right, but there's no reason not to try to simplify it first before adding all the exceptions to the rules.
I think the biggest key here is defining the most popular modes of access first, web/internet and P2P. P2P mainly because it's going to get into the courts faster than anything else...
Re:Wait- Who said the stripper was a woman?
on
ScavHunt211
·
· Score: 1
I think you all really missed the point of this one. A "mobius stripper" is one who creates "mobius strips" which are the never ending things you created in FIRST GRADE by taking a "strip" of paper and flipping one end and glueing it to the other end... and to prove that it was indeed going around for ever had to take a crayon and draw a single continous line along the strip starting anywhere and see where you end up... (at the beginning obviously)
Take some pointless philosophy classes in college (or talk at length with someone who has, same thing really) and you will learn to be creative with your answers (not be like the brainless mob that only seeks the "correct" answer) and also be the only person to get an 'A' in your class and the only team to actually complete the scavengar hunt.
If the judges were there to simply look at your list and say "good job" they wouldn't be "judges" they'd be referee's. That leads me to believe that if you bring in something more entertaining or thought provoking than the item described, but still does fit the description, a judge may use his "judging" powers to justify the grab... $.02
If I punch 589.261.92.71 (yes, i know its invalid, but for example) into my browser, or telnet client, or whatever, and it pulls up your private site on your private compy, I don't know where it is, or wether its a "private" or "public" comp. Its just data.
That is why it is neccary for there to be a definition on the premis of what it is. Ever seen the sign "Private Property, stay out!" or "No Tresspassing Private Property!"
This is the same problem that exists in the real world for hunters, fishers, snowmobiliers, hikers, etc... If the property owner doesn't put a fence around their property to keep people out or let them know that it is indeed private property, then how would anyone know? Also, even if there's isn't a huge wall and a padlock, if you step over the fence that has the sign "no tresspassing" you have just tresspassed.
Also like copyrights, if you don't put a copyright symbol on your work, then you haven't really informed anyone that it's copyrighted, then you will have a much harder time defending your copyright in court.
Also from my understanding of telnet and browsers, if I don't have web server software running then you'd need a password to get in. If there's a login/password and you get around that system however you can without a valid login then it should be considered unauthorized access, aka Breaking and entering, just like for your home.
If I misdial my friends phone number, and call you and you answer, have I "accesed" your personal phone w/o authorization?
Phones, to my limited knowledge, are all publicly accessable. If you reach a phone that isn't I am sure you will be promptly informed that it is not a publicly accessible phone number by them hanging up, so you aren't really getting "access" like going into someone's house, not really a proper analogy. A side note; using a public phone directory is only allowed for private use (businesses can't use it).
There's copyright law. There's also trespass to chattel, if the newspaper picks the letter up and opens it. There could be trade secret laws, depending on the content of the letter.
Interesting note, I didn't know this. But I really doubt there is a law against anyone "reading" it after they found it, then passing it around to others... which would not be publishing it. Or even more to the point of the original analogy, leaving the letter on the street for the next person to find it and read it.
Would it then be illegal for the first person to tell other people that that letter is there?
It seems that if you leave something just sitting around for anyone to look at, then you have no law protecting you if people do look at it. For example, there's case law that says I can use a 55mm (numbers may be off) lens and from the street take pictures of your house and you inside your house. This was defined as legal because the 55mm lens has the same capability to see as the human eye.
But it is illegal to use a zoom lens. Same goes with businesses and from sidewalks.
But how can you identify whether the computer is meant to be public (like a store) or private (like a house) without accessing it?
Well for one super easy test, if you have a domain name pointing to a computer. Bing, instantly label that as public access. (just like the phone book and a business vs private phone) If you want people to come to your computer privately, use an IP address only or password protect your domain name root folder.
To my knowledge every single communication protocol to access a remote computer requires a login/password. (not talking about web pages here) If this is true, then if you access a computer without a valid login/password (that means it has to be legit, no forgeries or fraud to get it) then it's unauthorised. That makes this all very simple, that computer is not public. If no password is needed (ie web page or P2P, etc..) then public access is limited by default to the parameters of the delivery software, (web server:public html folder, p2p:shared folder, etc...)
The problem is that lawyers like it complicated so they can have lot's of lawsuits about it. But this is not complicated, also journalists like complex issues to debate and write about, ugh what a pain... why should we make this a complex issue when it may not be? Isn't this similar to how copyright got mangled into the digital realm by the DMCA?
I believe the more clear cut the definition the better protected the average guy will be in the court system...
Fair enough, it's probably not black and white in the brick and mortar world either though.
If someone intends for their content to be closed in the simplistic manner that he chooses I think a simple statement on the page that you have to be a member to read this would then be appropriate.
There are many legally binding disclaimers on pages already, like copyright statements, personal liability disclaimers of knowledge, disclaimers of validity of information, etc...
The problem is like this though, what if a person links to that page and there is no disclaimer? Then only one person can be at fault, the original person to link to that page. Everyone after that would not necissarily have knowledge (unless labled) that it was for commercial use only, and the owner would have a very, very hard time convincing a jury/judge that those people commited any sort of crime.
Keep in mind also, that if you go to a book store 99.9% of all the books are open for reading, so perhaps a perspective change is in order here, when you pay for information online, are you paying for access to it, or paying for the information itself? Just because you "hide" something doesn't imply that you are charging money for it unless you explicitly ask for money in exchange.
Again, this is the difference between publicly accessible space sectioned off for commercial reasons and private space closed off by cultural norm. (brick and mortar & website vs home & personal computer)
One more example seems appropriate to the nature of a "web page".
Posters. If you put up 7 posters, all free to look at, but put one poster behind something so that no one would normally see it there, unless you clearly label that people are not allowed to look at the poster that is hidden, then it would be fair game to look at it for free. (this concept based on previous logic)
Simply relying on the fact that 1) people have already read the other posters and "know" where to look for the last one and pay for it before looking AND/OR 2) That no person would just rumage around in your store looking for stuff that isn't really on display.
Are not good arguments for saying accessing page 8 is unauthorized access...
Slashdot Mirror
hehe, I ran a 333 mhz machine for a long time. I consistently keep my CPU at least 1 year behind everyone else's so my CPU upgrades cost me $30 instead of $1,000. hehe, right now I am running 733 or so, it runs all the nVidia demos just fine...
I try to tell people to get a cheaper slower machine, but noooo, they want the big and fast, and guess what, 3 months later, their big and fast is now slow and old... *sigh*
Older Programmer
Younger Programmer :
These is an over generalizations, but for the most part I have had better experiences with programmers older than me than younger. I personally have been the jerk young programmer, so I know where they come from, and so you work with them (as they are less expensive usually) until they become older mature programmers.
Unfortunately I have run mostly into young programmers that just don't want to do things the long hard way that works better... usually they do the absolute minimum of work, push off responsibitly onto others... but there are alwasy exceptions, I have worked with great younger programmers, but I've worked with better older programmers.
$.02
Then later, 2 times a week, then once a week, etc.. until now I go once a month. For $28 a month my neck and back get a good adjustment. Well worth it, ever see someone in their 80's with bone spurs or back problems? They cry all the time because they are in constant pain... Think the people in the nursing home care?
Also, there is a certain stretch that get's all the kinks out of your neck and therefore keeps you loose.
Just pull your head down and to the right with your right arm and you will feel the back left side of your neck pulled tight. Do this for 20 seconds (use a clock/timer otherwise you will be off) then do the other side (left arm pulling down to the left) then rotate your shoulders. Repeat this 3 times.
Trust me, just this one little stretch will save your neck. My chiropractor chews me out when I don't stretch as he says what he does won't help if I don't take care of myself.
Also, for all you geeks out there hooked on coffee (me included) if you want to scare yourself away from coffee, here's a great read...
Caffine Blues
Yes, caffine (soda, tea, pills, yogurt, coffee, etc...) will trash your body, hurt your muscles, tendons, bones and joints. It will slowly degrade the quality of your life and bring your great greif and suffering...
I quit drinking coffee after reading only a hundred pages or so of this book... If you a serious about getting healthy, caffine has to go...
btw, I once had my entire left side go numb, my wrists ached, my neck was killing me, etc... all fixed by good health, stretching neck and chiropractor.
Also some essential oils (peppermint for pain, lemongrass for tendons and muscles) will give instant releif from pain and will help actually heal the tissue in your hands and wrists.
*ahem*
So, was this post really offtopic?
NeoBob: So does 1 + 1 really equal 2?
FredMorph: The Oriface says that in the Matrix all numbers equal all numbers, think deeper into your soul and you will find the answer.
NeoBob: No really, it's like simple math or something.
FredMorph: No you must not believe your eyes and ears, evil false mathematicians are continuously spreading false concepts of number reality.
NeoBob: Woah, heavy dude...
That's easy, you can tell by the way the code displays on screen... if it's dingy like dirty laundry, it's left overs from SCO and they are trying to clean it up through the courts.
If it's clean and pristine like a nice brand new roll of toilet paper, then it's raw pure public Linux code about to get wiped by the SCO...
Either way, it will all end up in the garbage, cheaper than paying for lawyers to clean up...
I can make an image 300 dpi, 1500x367 that is in vector format and only takes up 100k. Try doing that with JPEG, GIF or ANY other format that supports the display as a bitmap AND a vector from the same file...
PNG also makes smaller _8 BIT_ graphics than GIF almost across the board. The only advantage GIF has is that it's algorithm for compression allows repeating colors in a horizontal line to compress slightly better than PNG. But if you get all vertical or a mess of lines (most images) then the _8 Bit_ PNG will compress better.
With PNG you can have 24/32bit graphics as well with 256 levels of transparency. How many levels of transparency does GIF have? _one_
The simple fact that IE is a piece of garbage does _not_ have any bearing on whether or not PNG's format is "poor standardization", IE is just trash... PNG alpha standard is just fine...
Popular end user understanding of the format is not needed for PNG to get more wide spread use, only developers of browsers, graphics software programmers and designers need to start backing what is by far the best, most well rounded feature rich graphics format in exhistance for web use.
If anyone doesn't know this also, Macromedia's Fireworks web design application (the best one around I might add, poor Adobe...) uses PNG for it's native file format. The things you can do with a PNG file in Fireworks are incredible.
And, now to give away a small secret here, you can use the alpha channels of a 32bit PNG in a flash animation, no other format will give you the alpha channel...
I want to see photos of the tank with the missing foam please. Until then I will hardly believe this is related to the foam falling off....
In addition, it uses a particularly nasty flaw in Microsoftâ(TM)s Internet Explorer program and its implementation by Microsoftâ(TM)s Outlook e-mail reader that allows the virus to infect machines whenever a victim simply previews an e-mail message loaded with the program.
Yet (as of this post) CNN mentions nothing of the fact that this is another virus that takes advantage of a Microsoft flaw...
And at the bottom of the MSN page"MSN - More Useful Everyday"
ah the irony of having your own news company...
You are making some assumptions here, 1. that it was damaged enough from the first 2 towers to be weakened and 2. that a deisel feul explosion can drop even a damaged building.
The problem is that 1. no other major buildings fell like that, WTC 6 mostly survived with just damage. 2. It is a recorded _fact_ that no physical fire has ever brought down a steel building. 3. WTC 7 fell perfectly straight down from every corner all at once. 4. As stated on a previous post, steel supports cannot be destroyed from an air blast, ever.
Even if you are right and the deisel explosion caused the building to collapse, it would not have dropped evenly from every corner, it would have been chaotic and random and messy. But the drop was perfect and straight.
I would link to images and videos but they would get slashdotted, look this all up on google and your favorite P2P client, it's all out there.
Are you suggesting that a demolotion team went in and blew it up? Why?
Yes. Oklohoma City bombing had bombs in teh building that didn't go off, this was reported all through the local news there, I have plenty of clips. I don't specifically know the reasons why, but plently of pundits out there have theories, there is public knowledge of what was in those buildings when they went down and it's all very supsicious...
If for safty reasons, why the need to cover it up?
Not sure what you mean by safety reasons, but obviously if you drop your own building you can't then blame it on terrorists if people know you did it...
Disclaimer: These are all theories based on the same evidence everyone else has, just the popular theory is not supported by the evidence... Also I have no special knowledge or insite that a normal geek online can't find out...
Because if it was a non-planned demolition, one portion of the building would have dropped first and not necessarily the whole building, and certainly not uniformily as it did.
The claim was that a huge diesil feul reserve exploded which brought the building down. Sorry, but explosive experts have proven you cannont cut steel support beams with an air explosion, it will never happen, the only way support beams could be cut with explosions is with explosives on direct contact with the supports...
Long story short, perhaps that building would have been messed up really, really bad, burnt to a crisp, partially collapsed, but no way, ever in a million years would a feul explosion drop a building like that...
Hardly a troll here, people need to open their eyes, WTC 7 dropped straight down in a perfect demolition, even in the videos (I've seen 4 completely seperate views) the edges of the buildings don't even waiver a bit, it looks almost like the build is being erased from the sky it goes down so straight...
HELP! PLEASE SAVE ME FROM GROOVE!!!
My client _insists_ we use groove and it takes _forever_ to load up, _forever_ to close down, when it crashes (all the time) it takes, yes, _forever_ to die. It sucks up memory like there is no tomorrow, it it has a cluttered and hideously bloated interface, it has to update itself every time you open it, it's SLOOOOOOOWWW! ARARHHRAHAHGG!
Yet, Winamp 3 is amazingly annoying and slow as well... I just hope WASTE runs on winamp 2...
Doesn't MS own enough stake (or just handed over cash) in CNet to consider CNet a propaganda machine for MS? Can anyone verify or deny this info?
If so, I'd take any news from CNet regarding MS with a grain of salt, it might as well say "written by Bill Gates" at the bottom of the article...
Never use a standard you didn't create.
Change your standard every upgrade.
Force users to upgrade as often as possible.
Crush the competition.
Pay employees with stocks that have no real value, and don't record it as wages, pay no federal taxes.
Give away free OS's to poor countries that can only run other MS applications, but that applications are not free...
Buy the president and DOJ, bribe the judge that said "Linux is not competition for MS", bomb Iraq, nab the oil, release windows to the Russians (make it look like it's pirated) scream "piracy!" at the Russians, release worms to scare the world into a new upgrade cycle, release articles on how stupid standards are.
A really, really huge problem with all the math and your assertations is this. If I buy 1 mb cable connection and I use 70% of it for P2P then there is no waste, cause I paid for 100% of my bandwidth. You saying it's waste is totally subjective, cause it's being paid for, so the only possible waste would be on the user's end...
I asked my Cable company point blank, "can I run a server on my cable line? Will this affect bandwidth for my neighbors or other people on the same node?"
Response from cable company: "We have more bandwidth than we sell, use all you want."
If a company is selling a product they can't afford to sell, then they aren't running their business properly.
If P2P is taking up alot of bandwidth, so what?
That's the easy part.
Lot's of those wiggly lines = you are still alive.
Not so many wiggly lines = you are not doing so hot.
No wiggly lines = dead or your cord is diconnected.
Screen is melting = you cheaped out at radioshack and got the 10 ohm resister cause it was $.08 cheaper than the 20 ohm resistor.
*ahem* perhaps the same question should be asked about all the slashvertising of the xbox... :(
Isn't this the basis for higher level scripting langauges? It seems that much of more difficult things to program (memory management, pointers, etc...) are all handled with a high level authoring tool/scripting language (PHP, Macromedia Director, etc...) vs having to deal with every nuance of the system (C, assembly, etc...)
I am by know means an expert but have found I can make very complex and robust software very quickly with Director, that would take an absolute expert in C ten times as long to make, simply because Director has a tremendous amount of libraries to use with no system resource manangement needed unless I choose too.
On top of that, I can always extend the capabilities with C++ or something very easily or with an ActiveX control. (activeX in Director is buggy somewhat though)
Since computers are getting faster, and proof of this is fullfledge 3d in Director with hardware opengl support, things that were not possible in high level scripting based authoring tools is now getting that way.
Then the level of stability can be controlled more at the level of the Director player instead of at the project level...
Ultimately it seems that more and more work based on user interaction will be done with higher level systems, and lower level coding will go to performance based tasks (video/photo editing, 3d games, etc...) but the USE of these tools may be controled with higher level programming like Director, where new features and ways to access the high performance tasks can be added and modified frequently without concern of overall application instability or performance, as there will be a difinitive seperation between the tasks of rendering/calculations and user interface/features.
ok, so basically we have come to the crux of the matter.
If automatic bots (wget) take data randomly from the net (which I understand they need a link to get somewhere anyways, but we can deal with that later if true) are the owner's of the bot's liable for
1."stolen IP"
or
2. "unauthorized access"
or possibly both?
1. The aspect of "stealing" something is a bit of a problem, as like if I made a copy of a novel while still in the store, they probably could kick me out, but if I left and they didn't know about it, unless I did something like pirate the copy, I doubt any lawsuit would hold up.
So that leaves "unauthorized access" by the bot. (until further debate on item 1)
2. As I stated before, there should be a basic premis that if something is private that is should be labeled that way or there should be certain obvious flags right off the bat, like no web server running on said computer is an easy one.
How long before robots go to the store, shop for us and do door to door sales?
If a robot came into my house, I would be pretty upset, so there should definitely be some containment of how a bot runs. For example as I stated before if we can safely consider the www a public area, then bot's could limit their hunting to www for a very safe, but possibly limited boundry.
If they do hit IP addresses directly, then they could be set to only recognize web pages and web servers, and ignore all other forms of communication protocol. This is all just as a starting idea.
But yes, if a bot invades my computer, the owner should be held accountable, as the only bots that I detect hitting my firewall I could safely assume are port scanners looking for doors in to my computer to make it a zombie or worse.. Then at that point a bot is not a bot, but a form of a virus or trojan...
But as a justice safety possision, if nothing is disturbed on my computer and the owner of the bot could justify the accidental intrusion (aka, I ran a web server on my computer and left some stuff in a folder I shouldn't have) then the bot owner should not be held accountable, just like Google shouldn't be if Madonna left her latest CD in mp3 format on her home page and google finds it there... Modonna's being guilty of negligence then exhonerates google, (not sure if I got all those big words right...)
If the letter is unopened it's almost certainly tresspass to chattel to open it.
Ok, a letter is not a good analogy to a website, let's call it a poster. Then no mail or legal reasons not to inspect it, just like finding a webpage...
Certainly not. There's TFTP, RCP, Anonymous FTP, SMTP, etc.
Ok, but don't these systems have to be intentionally setup? And if they are, then the person setting them up must accept that the public, may, can and will access those areas. My computer can't be accessed like that by default, and if I did make it publiclly accessible without a password, I should say to myself in the mirror, "don't be stupid".
I think it's a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be. Maybe you are right, but there's no reason not to try to simplify it first before adding all the exceptions to the rules.
I think the biggest key here is defining the most popular modes of access first, web/internet and P2P. P2P mainly because it's going to get into the courts faster than anything else...
Hmmmmm,
Ahhh,
Yes, indeed, certainly a pleasent thought.
*sigh*
Take some pointless philosophy classes in college (or talk at length with someone who has, same thing really) and you will learn to be creative with your answers (not be like the brainless mob that only seeks the "correct" answer) and also be the only person to get an 'A' in your class and the only team to actually complete the scavengar hunt.
If the judges were there to simply look at your list and say "good job" they wouldn't be "judges" they'd be referee's. That leads me to believe that if you bring in something more entertaining or thought provoking than the item described, but still does fit the description, a judge may use his "judging" powers to justify the grab... $.02
That is why it is neccary for there to be a definition on the premis of what it is. Ever seen the sign "Private Property, stay out!" or "No Tresspassing Private Property!"
This is the same problem that exists in the real world for hunters, fishers, snowmobiliers, hikers, etc... If the property owner doesn't put a fence around their property to keep people out or let them know that it is indeed private property, then how would anyone know? Also, even if there's isn't a huge wall and a padlock, if you step over the fence that has the sign "no tresspassing" you have just tresspassed.
Also like copyrights, if you don't put a copyright symbol on your work, then you haven't really informed anyone that it's copyrighted, then you will have a much harder time defending your copyright in court.
Also from my understanding of telnet and browsers, if I don't have web server software running then you'd need a password to get in. If there's a login/password and you get around that system however you can without a valid login then it should be considered unauthorized access, aka Breaking and entering, just like for your home.
If I misdial my friends phone number, and call you and you answer, have I "accesed" your personal phone w/o authorization?
Phones, to my limited knowledge, are all publicly accessable. If you reach a phone that isn't I am sure you will be promptly informed that it is not a publicly accessible phone number by them hanging up, so you aren't really getting "access" like going into someone's house, not really a proper analogy. A side note; using a public phone directory is only allowed for private use (businesses can't use it).
Interesting note, I didn't know this. But I really doubt there is a law against anyone "reading" it after they found it, then passing it around to others... which would not be publishing it. Or even more to the point of the original analogy, leaving the letter on the street for the next person to find it and read it.
Would it then be illegal for the first person to tell other people that that letter is there?
It seems that if you leave something just sitting around for anyone to look at, then you have no law protecting you if people do look at it. For example, there's case law that says I can use a 55mm (numbers may be off) lens and from the street take pictures of your house and you inside your house. This was defined as legal because the 55mm lens has the same capability to see as the human eye.
But it is illegal to use a zoom lens. Same goes with businesses and from sidewalks.
But how can you identify whether the computer is meant to be public (like a store) or private (like a house) without accessing it?
Well for one super easy test, if you have a domain name pointing to a computer. Bing, instantly label that as public access. (just like the phone book and a business vs private phone) If you want people to come to your computer privately, use an IP address only or password protect your domain name root folder.
To my knowledge every single communication protocol to access a remote computer requires a login/password. (not talking about web pages here) If this is true, then if you access a computer without a valid login/password (that means it has to be legit, no forgeries or fraud to get it) then it's unauthorised. That makes this all very simple, that computer is not public. If no password is needed (ie web page or P2P, etc..) then public access is limited by default to the parameters of the delivery software, (web server:public html folder, p2p:shared folder, etc...)
The problem is that lawyers like it complicated so they can have lot's of lawsuits about it. But this is not complicated, also journalists like complex issues to debate and write about, ugh what a pain ... why should we make this a complex issue when it may not be? Isn't this similar to how copyright got mangled into the digital realm by the DMCA?
I believe the more clear cut the definition the better protected the average guy will be in the court system...
Fair enough, it's probably not black and white in the brick and mortar world either though.
If someone intends for their content to be closed in the simplistic manner that he chooses I think a simple statement on the page that you have to be a member to read this would then be appropriate.
There are many legally binding disclaimers on pages already, like copyright statements, personal liability disclaimers of knowledge, disclaimers of validity of information, etc...
The problem is like this though, what if a person links to that page and there is no disclaimer? Then only one person can be at fault, the original person to link to that page. Everyone after that would not necissarily have knowledge (unless labled) that it was for commercial use only, and the owner would have a very, very hard time convincing a jury/judge that those people commited any sort of crime.
Keep in mind also, that if you go to a book store 99.9% of all the books are open for reading, so perhaps a perspective change is in order here, when you pay for information online, are you paying for access to it, or paying for the information itself? Just because you "hide" something doesn't imply that you are charging money for it unless you explicitly ask for money in exchange.
Again, this is the difference between publicly accessible space sectioned off for commercial reasons and private space closed off by cultural norm. (brick and mortar & website vs home & personal computer)
One more example seems appropriate to the nature of a "web page".
Posters. If you put up 7 posters, all free to look at, but put one poster behind something so that no one would normally see it there, unless you clearly label that people are not allowed to look at the poster that is hidden, then it would be fair game to look at it for free. (this concept based on previous logic)
Simply relying on the fact that
1) people have already read the other posters and "know" where to look for the last one and pay for it before looking
AND/OR
2) That no person would just rumage around in your store looking for stuff that isn't really on display.
Are not good arguments for saying accessing page 8 is unauthorized access...