But... for just 100 dollars more and without any fees attached, people can get a the new MacMini instead, which should be at least as easy to use for novices and elderly people and which doesn't limit what you can do with it artificially.
So why would anyone want this? I can imagine people falling for it because they don't know better, but that's about it.
Maybe, but it's just a law in, say, North Korea, I don't care *that* much (as long as I don't happen to be in North Korea, of course, but I certainly don't intend to travel there).:)
When the snow starts a-fallin'
There's a man you should be callin'
That's KL5-4796,
Let it ring!
Mr. Plow is a loser,
And I think he is a boozer,
So you better make that call to the Plow King!
What about the rest of us, though? I don't commit crimes, and I don't want to use a GPS jammer if that'd get me into trouble, but I still don't want the police to be able to track my every movement *without any supervision*.
Serious as it may be, this does not allow you to selectively attack a specific person or account - you just have to "hope for the best", so to speak. While I wouldn't underrate it (is that a word?), I wouldn't overrate it, either, and I'm pretty sure that the Google people will plug this in no time. It's been my experience that they do look at reports that are coming in (just like they claim), and that they are generally quite quick to fix even minor issues, so something that is security-related *and* (by the sounds of it) easily fixable shouldn't last long.
That being said, did the authors actually contact Google about this prior to making the whole thing public? Full disclosure is good, of course, but it's also nice to give the vendor a chance to fix things before you inform every script kiddie in the world about what you found.:)
Huh? Maybe we checked different anti-spyware products there, but the one I got ran for two hours for a "smart" (as opposed to "full") system check - something that Ad-aware does in two minutes -, and then reported almost 5000 false positives.
Yes, that's not a typo. 5000.
It also seems to offer precious little if any configurability, the user interface is sometimes unintuitive: for example, clicking on one of the buttons in the upper right corner while a scan is running will abort that scan without either asking or a means to resume it, so if you accidentally do so after the thing ran for an hour, you're out of luck - you'll just have to invest that hour again (or use something else).
All in all, I'm not impressed in the slightest, and since it didn't find anything that Ad-aware and Spybot S&D hadn't already squashed, I didn't have any second thoughts uninstalling it again - and I'll also keep recommending Ad-aware to computer novices like my parents and so on.
Hey, that's a great idea - not so much one to advertise DNS servers (or whatever), that is, but to crack down on spam. Just use spam as a vehicle for transferring data that those in power don't want to be transferred, and spam will be dealt with in an effective way faster than you can say "spamassassin".:)
True, and I think that (not seeing people die on the news) is actually a bad thing. Not because I'm so keen on blood and gore, but because it would take away a lot of misconceptions, bias, intentional disinformation and so on.
Indeed. It's all about target audiences, probably - just like with FOX and biased news. FOX probably couldn't even stop doing those even if they wanted to, since everyone (both those who watch FOX and those who don't) expect bias from them.
Those who pay who decide, and that goes for both those that directly pay (be it by renting/buying porn or sponsoring FOX) and those that indirectly pay (by watching FOX and exposing themselves not only to the ads but also to the bias, which I assume is also something some people pay for).
The second coming of the prohibition, maybe? OK, now please excuse me while I set up my underground network that will supply porn to the masses at outrages prices and thus be among the only ones that actually benefit from the whole thing in any way.;)
No, I'm bi - and lest you say that's a same, it's not, just like being bi and being hetero is not the same (in fact, if bisexuality and homosexuality would be the same, then, since by the same reasoning bisexuality and heterosexuality would also be the same, homosexuality and heterosexuality would turn out to the be same. Wouldn't *that* be fun?)
I have observed that the guys in gay movies (or at least the box covers) or European films tend to be a lot better looking (fit, less hairy etc). Still look like prison escapees, but maybe not the maximum security wing.
I can't talk about European films really (never watched any porn that was *not*), but you've got a point about gay porn.
You're missing the point - "Says who?" is mostly an expression meaning "that's your opinion, but what makes you think it's actually objectively true?"
That being said, considering the person who wrote it *did* choose to remain anonymous, even the actual question "says who?" does make sense, since "some anonymous person" is not a conclusive answer.
Definitely, and even more so since there's basically nothing wrong with porn (in a sense that'd mean you shouldn't license "your" technology [whatever "your" actually is supposed to mean in this regard - it's not like "intellectual property" actually *is* property, but that's another matter] for use with it, that is).
No, I'm bi. And for what it's worth, there's tons of gay porn out there, too - go check, and you'll see for yourself. 11000 titles a year does not equal 11000 heterosexual/lesbian titles a year (BTW, am I the only one who thinks it's funny that the stereotypical macho hates gays but likes to watch porn involving two women?)
Slashdot Mirror
But... for just 100 dollars more and without any fees attached, people can get a the new MacMini instead, which should be at least as easy to use for novices and elderly people and which doesn't limit what you can do with it artificially. So why would anyone want this? I can imagine people falling for it because they don't know better, but that's about it.
Interesting. So, how many patents does IBM have, all in all?
Maybe, but it's just a law in, say, North Korea, I don't care *that* much (as long as I don't happen to be in North Korea, of course, but I certainly don't intend to travel there). :)
When the snow starts a-fallin' There's a man you should be callin' That's KL5-4796, Let it ring! Mr. Plow is a loser, And I think he is a boozer, So you better make that call to the Plow King!
What about the rest of us, though? I don't commit crimes, and I don't want to use a GPS jammer if that'd get me into trouble, but I still don't want the police to be able to track my every movement *without any supervision*.
Darn, you beat me to commenting on that. :)
Serious as it may be, this does not allow you to selectively attack a specific person or account - you just have to "hope for the best", so to speak. While I wouldn't underrate it (is that a word?), I wouldn't overrate it, either, and I'm pretty sure that the Google people will plug this in no time. It's been my experience that they do look at reports that are coming in (just like they claim), and that they are generally quite quick to fix even minor issues, so something that is security-related *and* (by the sounds of it) easily fixable shouldn't last long.
:)
That being said, did the authors actually contact Google about this prior to making the whole thing public? Full disclosure is good, of course, but it's also nice to give the vendor a chance to fix things before you inform every script kiddie in the world about what you found.
It probably would if they weren't the government's pet. :P
Huh? Maybe we checked different anti-spyware products there, but the one I got ran for two hours for a "smart" (as opposed to "full") system check - something that Ad-aware does in two minutes -, and then reported almost 5000 false positives.
Yes, that's not a typo. 5000.
It also seems to offer precious little if any configurability, the user interface is sometimes unintuitive: for example, clicking on one of the buttons in the upper right corner while a scan is running will abort that scan without either asking or a means to resume it, so if you accidentally do so after the thing ran for an hour, you're out of luck - you'll just have to invest that hour again (or use something else).
All in all, I'm not impressed in the slightest, and since it didn't find anything that Ad-aware and Spybot S&D hadn't already squashed, I didn't have any second thoughts uninstalling it again - and I'll also keep recommending Ad-aware to computer novices like my parents and so on.
A waste of time and money - I'm living proof it won't. :)
Hey, that's a great idea - not so much one to advertise DNS servers (or whatever), that is, but to crack down on spam. Just use spam as a vehicle for transferring data that those in power don't want to be transferred, and spam will be dealt with in an effective way faster than you can say "spamassassin". :)
Oh, so I'm the only bi person on the planet now? Wow, I didn't know that.
No surprise you're too much of a coward to post with an actual account.
True, and I think that (not seeing people die on the news) is actually a bad thing. Not because I'm so keen on blood and gore, but because it would take away a lot of misconceptions, bias, intentional disinformation and so on.
Indeed. It's all about target audiences, probably - just like with FOX and biased news. FOX probably couldn't even stop doing those even if they wanted to, since everyone (both those who watch FOX and those who don't) expect bias from them.
Those who pay who decide, and that goes for both those that directly pay (be it by renting/buying porn or sponsoring FOX) and those that indirectly pay (by watching FOX and exposing themselves not only to the ads but also to the bias, which I assume is also something some people pay for).
The second coming of the prohibition, maybe? OK, now please excuse me while I set up my underground network that will supply porn to the masses at outrages prices and thus be among the only ones that actually benefit from the whole thing in any way. ;)
You mean in the privacy of a professional movie set. :)
No, I'm bi - and lest you say that's a same, it's not, just like being bi and being hetero is not the same (in fact, if bisexuality and homosexuality would be the same, then, since by the same reasoning bisexuality and heterosexuality would also be the same, homosexuality and heterosexuality would turn out to the be same. Wouldn't *that* be fun?)
+1, Insightful (if I had mod points and if I hadn't already participated in this discussion). You definitely hit the nail on the head there.
Is that supposed to be flamebait? :) In any case, regrettably, there aren't that many porn movies involving fursuiters. A business opportunity, maybe?
I can't talk about European films really (never watched any porn that was *not*), but you've got a point about gay porn.
You're missing the point - "Says who?" is mostly an expression meaning "that's your opinion, but what makes you think it's actually objectively true?"
That being said, considering the person who wrote it *did* choose to remain anonymous, even the actual question "says who?" does make sense, since "some anonymous person" is not a conclusive answer.
Definitely, and even more so since there's basically nothing wrong with porn (in a sense that'd mean you shouldn't license "your" technology [whatever "your" actually is supposed to mean in this regard - it's not like "intellectual property" actually *is* property, but that's another matter] for use with it, that is).
Oh, come on, as if deep down, anyone really actually cares about that.
Says who?
No, I'm bi. And for what it's worth, there's tons of gay porn out there, too - go check, and you'll see for yourself. 11000 titles a year does not equal 11000 heterosexual/lesbian titles a year (BTW, am I the only one who thinks it's funny that the stereotypical macho hates gays but likes to watch porn involving two women?)