Ideally the people to stand up and shout loudest will be "main stream" muslims - just to make a statement to these murdering fuck-heads that they change nothing.
I think the point was that you have no idea what the cost will be in 30 years time, and you will own nothing. Your options at that point will be no different to the parent-post, so if you do indeed have access to every song there is, so will the parent if they're so inclined to buy in to streaming. Plus they'll have an offline collection.
It's very likely Apple have the fattest margins and are therefore in a better position to effect change. Plus they're kind of trading on their "ethical" status.
But I agree it's them (Apple) and everyone else who is to blame. The investigation is _perhaps_ unfair in that it doesn't even mention other manufacturers, but I don't think it's unreasonable to at least start with Apple. Maybe they're investigating them alphabetically?!:D
Perhaps it would be better to highlight the insecurity either: (1). when there is a form, _or_ when the user starts using the form, OR (2). when the user enters data that looks like name/address/cc-number?
I get the feeling that Sony gave the theatres the option because they wanted them to choose not to show the movie. Why are Sony afraid of releasing the movie in any form? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the hacks are far far worse than we already know, and Sony high-ups have decided that on balance, it might be better if they forget about this movie all together.
Encryption has a cost, it isn't free. It increases CPU utilisation and power consumption. It interferes with caching and reduces network efficiency.
This. Therefore it also uses more energy and is worse for the environment!
I kind of get why Google engineers might think this is a good idea, but the problem is that there's so many sites that don't use or need encryption, that this won't change. And as a result, lots of users will be getting told that site xyz is insecure, when it isn't... and they'll use it anyway.... thus entirely negating the benefit of changing the browser in the first place.
If the vast majority of websites were encrypted, then I could see the logic, but as-is, I'd say....
I'm from the UK and I hadn't really heard of it either, but I ended up getting a few copies when EXE magazine folded and the remainder of my subscription was fulfilled as Dr Dobbs. I always kind of resented it though because I wanted EXE mag!
Pirate Bay? Knowing Sony they are attacking themselves. The battles between their electronics and media divisions have been pretty comic over the years...
Ironically, TPB prolly could have hosted on Sony servers for years without Sony actually noticing!
Surely there are more obvious uses for (presumably) biodegradable materials, even for mundane uses like packaging. Using it for drones is waaaaaaaaaay down the list on things it could use useful for.
Microsoft ClipArt365, a subscription-based online product where you can the entirety of MS's ClipArt library anywhere in the world*. Never worry about not having the right piece of ClipArt at your fingertips; just use our quick ClipSearch** feature and you'll have the right art at your fingerprints in moments! Then simply insert the art into your Word(tm) document, Excel(tm) spreadsheet or Powerpoint(tm) presentation with a single-click!***. All this for $12/mo or $120/year!
Not sure I'd have even modded that funny. Right now, MS might be perfectly happy to play fast and loose with other peoples copyright, but it won't be long before they see a potential revenue stream and buy up someone like iStock.
It's hard to even think of an analogy for this... jumping out of a plane without a parachute and landing in a moving convertible which someone told you 10 years would be passing through the middle of Kansas somewhere around noon... while blindfolded, knitting a sweater,assembling a piano, and juggling sharks.:-P
Also, the sooner all police have cameras on them the better - for all concerned. Assuming Wilson is giving a completely accurate account, a video would make his life *massively* easier.
I'm not going to rant about how guilty Darren Wilson was. To tell the truth, I don't know if he was guilty. But I just don't understand how there wasn't enough evidence to at least take this to trial. There were multiple witnesses saying that Mike Brown had his hands up and was not attacking Darren Wilson when he was shot. This alone to me is enough to at least take it to trial and see all the evidence to try and figure out exactly what happened.
Oddly though, the Medical Examiner, who normally takes photos of the deceased, did not take photos of Brown. His/her reason? The battery was flat on his/her camera.
Sometimes these things happen, but it strikes me as a little strange that he/she didn't have a spare battery, spare camera, or even a camera phone... and presumably didn't ask if anyone else at the scene had one either. Thus leaving a _slight_ evidence gap... which someone far more suspicious than myself might suggest is the kind of gap you need if you want to [ahem] massage the facts after the event.
Someone did manage to find a working camera to get photos of Darren Wilson's injuries though. Wilson has said that he had been hit twice by Brown and was of the opinion that a third punch "could be fatal if he hit me right". IMHO his injuries don't look... well, they're practically invisible, let's be honest! That's not to say he wasn't in a compromised position and felt in fear of his life, but I'm not completely convinced he was in any danger of being punched to death.
Interestingly, immediately after the Browns death, a photo was circulating on the intertubes purporting to be of Wilson's injured face, apparently worded to discredit the idea that Brown was a "Gentle Giant". This picture has itself since been discredited... but I only just found out today, so I thought it was worth mentioning!
For what it's worth, I am really really not taking sides here. I'm perfectly happy to believe that Brown wasn't exactly a pillar of society... his apparent intimidation of a local shop owner and, I believe taking of goods without paying, immediately prior to his encounter with Wilson, do kind of suggest that. But I am very firmly of the opinion that officers of the law must be held to higher standards than the general public.
One question: Why can't the "majority" reign in the "minority" that are looting/etc? All it would take is the 'majority' of peaceful protestors to grab the looters (should be easy, remember, they vastly outnumber them, right?), and turn them over to the cops. (Or at the very least, rough them up and send them home.)
But this never happens. Just like the 'majority' of "good" cops never arrests the tiny, tiny minority of "Bad" cops. And the reason is simple: the "good" ones are really bad, too! They may not show it as... violently, but they are still on the same side as the 'bad' ones. There is no other excuse for not turning in the bad ones.
Complete and utter pure speculation on my part, but I'm guessing the looters are opportunistic criminals anyway, so they're good at spotting a chance to break in, steal, and get out quickly and whilst no one is really looking. And if you're a peaceful protester, you're not likely going to be looking for trouble, and likely you'll avoid that because you don't especially want to either be injured or arrested.
I did see one video clip of a bunch basically rioters... and it looked like probably 30 people, all with hoods up and faces covered, basically on a rampage. Probably a mix of looters and disenfranchised youth. They're moving quickly. Breaking what they can.
Despite my disgust, I know there's not a chance I'd be leaping in there to stop them, mostly because there's too many, all on a charge. They'd probably not even notice me... and they'd be gone in a minute, moving on to the next target.
Four... three... two... one... I am now authorized to use physical force!
More like:
K5: You have 20 seconds to comply.
K5: You have 19 seconds to comply.
K5: You have 1 hour 48 minutes and 34 seconds to comply.
K5: You have 4 minutes to comply.
K5: You have 29 days, 6 hours and 13 minutes to comply.
Slashdot Mirror
Ideally the people to stand up and shout loudest will be "main stream" muslims - just to make a statement to these murdering fuck-heads that they change nothing.
I was actually surprised the BBC posted a few.
I think the point was that you have no idea what the cost will be in 30 years time, and you will own nothing. Your options at that point will be no different to the parent-post, so if you do indeed have access to every song there is, so will the parent if they're so inclined to buy in to streaming. Plus they'll have an offline collection.
They'll be driving cars next!
It's very likely Apple have the fattest margins and are therefore in a better position to effect change. Plus they're kind of trading on their "ethical" status.
:D
But I agree it's them (Apple) and everyone else who is to blame. The investigation is _perhaps_ unfair in that it doesn't even mention other manufacturers, but I don't think it's unreasonable to at least start with Apple. Maybe they're investigating them alphabetically?!
Are Paramount not too sure about their IT security then?
Perhaps it would be better to highlight the insecurity either: (1). when there is a form, _or_ when the user starts using the form, OR (2). when the user enters data that looks like name/address/cc-number?
I get the feeling that Sony gave the theatres the option because they wanted them to choose not to show the movie. Why are Sony afraid of releasing the movie in any form? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the hacks are far far worse than we already know, and Sony high-ups have decided that on balance, it might be better if they forget about this movie all together.
Encryption has a cost, it isn't free. It increases CPU utilisation and power consumption. It interferes with caching and reduces network efficiency.
This. Therefore it also uses more energy and is worse for the environment!
I kind of get why Google engineers might think this is a good idea, but the problem is that there's so many sites that don't use or need encryption, that this won't change. And as a result, lots of users will be getting told that site xyz is insecure, when it isn't... and they'll use it anyway.... thus entirely negating the benefit of changing the browser in the first place.
If the vast majority of websites were encrypted, then I could see the logic, but as-is, I'd say....
This is a dumb idea. A very dumb idea.
I'm from the UK and I hadn't really heard of it either, but I ended up getting a few copies when EXE magazine folded and the remainder of my subscription was fulfilled as Dr Dobbs. I always kind of resented it though because I wanted EXE mag!
Pirate Bay? Knowing Sony they are attacking themselves. The battles between their electronics and media divisions have been pretty comic over the years...
Ironically, TPB prolly could have hosted on Sony servers for years without Sony actually noticing!
^ this.
Surely there are more obvious uses for (presumably) biodegradable materials, even for mundane uses like packaging. Using it for drones is waaaaaaaaaay down the list on things it could use useful for.
Detain? Phthth. Ignore works for me.
How about, detained... INSIDE THE ORION CAPSULE?!!! That'd learn them!
Microsoft ClipArt365, a subscription-based online product where you can the entirety of MS's ClipArt library anywhere in the world*. Never worry about not having the right piece of ClipArt at your fingertips; just use our quick ClipSearch** feature and you'll have the right art at your fingerprints in moments! Then simply insert the art into your Word(tm) document, Excel(tm) spreadsheet or Powerpoint(tm) presentation with a single-click!***. All this for $12/mo or $120/year!
Not sure I'd have even modded that funny. Right now, MS might be perfectly happy to play fast and loose with other peoples copyright, but it won't be long before they see a potential revenue stream and buy up someone like iStock.
Its chicken breast tissue.... thats just blatant click bait. However you want to look at it.
Or it might be chick bait.
cluck bait surely?
It's hard to even think of an analogy for this ... jumping out of a plane without a parachute and landing in a moving convertible which someone told you 10 years would be passing through the middle of Kansas somewhere around noon ... while blindfolded, knitting a sweater,assembling a piano, and juggling sharks. :-P
It's a car analogy... so it'll do! ;)
+1. I genuinely loled at that - thank you! :D
^This.
Also, the sooner all police have cameras on them the better - for all concerned. Assuming Wilson is giving a completely accurate account, a video would make his life *massively* easier.
I'm not going to rant about how guilty Darren Wilson was. To tell the truth, I don't know if he was guilty. But I just don't understand how there wasn't enough evidence to at least take this to trial. There were multiple witnesses saying that Mike Brown had his hands up and was not attacking Darren Wilson when he was shot. This alone to me is enough to at least take it to trial and see all the evidence to try and figure out exactly what happened.
It's Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson's Just Did, as in it basically never happens. So how "lucky" is Darren Wilson?!
The National Bar association doesn't seem to impressed with the decision either!
Interesting reads here (How Darren Wilson avoided criminal charges for killing Michael Brown) and here (New photos of Darren Wilson released as 'secret' letter written by police officer is revealed).
Oddly though, the Medical Examiner, who normally takes photos of the deceased, did not take photos of Brown. His/her reason? The battery was flat on his/her camera.
Sometimes these things happen, but it strikes me as a little strange that he/she didn't have a spare battery, spare camera, or even a camera phone... and presumably didn't ask if anyone else at the scene had one either. Thus leaving a _slight_ evidence gap... which someone far more suspicious than myself might suggest is the kind of gap you need if you want to [ahem] massage the facts after the event.
Someone did manage to find a working camera to get photos of Darren Wilson's injuries though. Wilson has said that he had been hit twice by Brown and was of the opinion that a third punch "could be fatal if he hit me right". IMHO his injuries don't look... well, they're practically invisible, let's be honest! That's not to say he wasn't in a compromised position and felt in fear of his life, but I'm not completely convinced he was in any danger of being punched to death.
Interestingly, immediately after the Browns death, a photo was circulating on the intertubes purporting to be of Wilson's injured face, apparently worded to discredit the idea that Brown was a "Gentle Giant". This picture has itself since been discredited... but I only just found out today, so I thought it was worth mentioning!
For what it's worth, I am really really not taking sides here. I'm perfectly happy to believe that Brown wasn't exactly a pillar of society... his apparent intimidation of a local shop owner and, I believe taking of goods without paying, immediately prior to his encounter with Wilson, do kind of suggest that. But I am very firmly of the opinion that officers of the law must be held to higher standards than the general public.
You have a problem with people being allowed to protest?
One question: Why can't the "majority" reign in the "minority" that are looting/etc? All it would take is the 'majority' of peaceful protestors to grab the looters (should be easy, remember, they vastly outnumber them, right?), and turn them over to the cops. (Or at the very least, rough them up and send them home.)
But this never happens. Just like the 'majority' of "good" cops never arrests the tiny, tiny minority of "Bad" cops. And the reason is simple: the "good" ones are really bad, too! They may not show it as... violently, but they are still on the same side as the 'bad' ones. There is no other excuse for not turning in the bad ones.
Complete and utter pure speculation on my part, but I'm guessing the looters are opportunistic criminals anyway, so they're good at spotting a chance to break in, steal, and get out quickly and whilst no one is really looking. And if you're a peaceful protester, you're not likely going to be looking for trouble, and likely you'll avoid that because you don't especially want to either be injured or arrested.
I did see one video clip of a bunch basically rioters... and it looked like probably 30 people, all with hoods up and faces covered, basically on a rampage. Probably a mix of looters and disenfranchised youth. They're moving quickly. Breaking what they can.
Despite my disgust, I know there's not a chance I'd be leaping in there to stop them, mostly because there's too many, all on a charge. They'd probably not even notice me... and they'd be gone in a minute, moving on to the next target.
Would there be a similar /. backlash if, say, Ubuntu would do a similar effort this week?
[cynicism...en-gage] Canonical would probably invent a new disease rather than just use an existing one! ;)
Simply "save as" the HTML and then modify to your heart's desire.
You don't even need to work that hard - just press F12 and edit the live page and print! I can't believe how dumb Walmart are... or maybe I can.
Four... three... two... one... I am now authorized to use physical force!
More like:
K5: You have 20 seconds to comply.
K5: You have 19 seconds to comply.
K5: You have 1 hour 48 minutes and 34 seconds to comply.
K5: You have 4 minutes to comply.
K5: You have 29 days, 6 hours and 13 minutes to comply.