Sources will own up to quotes attributed to them if its "close" to what they said, or if it makes them look good.
Had a case not too long ago where a guy was lifting quotes from other stories, attributing the quotes to people who didn't say them in his own stories, and the people he was "quoting" were INSISTING that they DID say those exact things.
At the same time, people who look like jackasses will swear afterward that they didn't say the stupid thing they said, even faced with irrefutable evidence (e.g digital recordings with consistent crowd noise, etc).
I think they'd rather try and keep their lock on certain segments of the software market. If everything that ran under Windows could run flawlessly under Wine, why would anyone stick with Windows?
They talked about that in the article. In a nutshell, if new pages keep linking to old pages, then the old page's trust rating goes up, and it ranks higher in searches because the new links indicqate to Google that the page is still relevant.
Wrong answer. I started this thread with a little ad hominem against the fricking RIAA. So, really this whole subthread is about nothing as much as how much I hate the RIAA.
And lo, look how relevant my sig is. Why don't you read what I actually said, before you start telling me what I think?
You know what I want, jackass? I want to be able to put a fricking CD in my computer and play it without having to color in the damn "Anti Computer Stripe" around the outside. I don't want to have to worry that when I copy a CD to my hard drive, and then lose the orginal, the RIAA is going to sue the crap out of me because I can't prove I paid for it.
And most of all, I want the absurdly large amount of money that I pay for CDs every year to go to the people who make the media, who make the album art and the case, move the CD, and, most importantly, SING THE DAMN SONG, not some money grubbing ass bandit who does nothing for a living but push recycled crap and screw naive artists out of their copyrights.
If you like taking it in the ass from the RIAA, more power to you, but I am seriously sick of their crap and anything that makes any of them unhappy is sweet to me.
Meh. If they don't have broadband, they are more a risk to themselves than to the rest of us. Someone with a dialup machine can only get in so much trouble.
It's the people with the unfirewalled broadband connections who never patch and never run anti-viruses that bug me.
Meh. I liked it, and there is some cool stuff in it, but you're right the farther you progress the more people you find who just want to argue silly minutia. I mainly took the logic and applied it to Comp Sci, and left the silly backbiting to other people.
There is some seriously cool modern philosophy going on regarding mechanisims of cognition, and theories of knowledge/perception. I'd originally thought to major in Cognitive Science, but I never got around to finishing my neuroanatomy requirements, which just left the philosophy and comp sci. I tend to divorce that in my head from fluffy contenental theories with little empirical study to back them up.
Just because your now thankfully soon to be ex-boss is an unprofessional jerkoff, doesn't mean you need to sink to his level.
I got forced to resign under threats of BS lawsuits (which I couldn't afford to fight) by a guy who was pushing me out specifically because I told him, when asked, that I believed our company problems stemmed from bad marketing tactics.
Since he was in charge, and since his son was head of marketing, I pretty much figured what the outcome was going to be, even saying it as politely as I could. But he went seriously overboard, and really screwed me, when it wouldn't have cost him anything to act like a professional instead of a child.
Even so, I told him I'd enjoyed working for his company, dealt professionally with the last few of my responsibilities and cut my losses. I did this to a degree that he's been trying to hire me freelance for the last two years, even after that company went Chapter 13.
I say "trying" because I'm professional, not stupid.
Sure, but how is that different from a BSOD? They're both fatal errors. If you were working on something at that time, it's gone.
Frankly the only times I'd expect to see a RSOD would be for about 2 seconds before the smell of charred components reached my nose and the screen snow crashed.
Proof by induction is valid in math, but not in pure logic because you can't prove by observation that a trend will continue into the future.
Just my philosophy major 2 cents.
Re:One statment in the article is not true...
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 1
You're so hilariously wrong. Why don't you, I don't know, use another browser besides IE for a minute before you start spouting out about what they don't have.
Businesses who need that sort of record access already subscribe to services like LexisNexis who already license that content and have better search capabilities as well. Why pay extra for less?
You know I hadn't really considered it, but this would definitely be a place in which the standard EULAs would get tested to death in court.
Because you're right, they'd defintiely try and disclaim all responsiblity for anything bad happening, but there is NO WAY that would fly in the auto industry...we have a long history of suing them to bits when something breaks.
The first time a MS car's cruise control screws up and plows someone into a Semi at 100 miles an hour their little fantasy world of "It's not our fault, it's never our fault" is going to go splat.
Fair use in parody only applies if you're not using their exact graphics/trademarks. If you are you're violating their copyrights, and possibly open for libel/fraud depending on what you're attributing to the company.
I don't know why this would fall under the DMCA, other than the fact that its a website. Standard copyright/trademark law would apply.
I haven't heard the word "Polymorphism" since college; took my memory banks a minute to bring the definition you wanted back to the surface.
The reason this was the case is because it was buried under 6 years of practical experience in which no one has used the word in my presence.
Sounds to me like you're throwing too much academic-ese at people. There is not one thing in that whole list that I don't deal with in some manner at least once a week, and I had read your post twice to figure out what the hell you were talking about.
Common mistake people make. Like referring to AIDS as "The AIDS", which is perfectly correct if you're using it as the acronym it is (e.g. The Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) and not as the proper name that it has come to be.
Same with UCLA. It's commonly used as a proper name, and you don't put a definite article in front of a proper name.
On the other hand, the letters stand for something, and it is perfectly correct to put "The" in front of "University of California Los Angeles".
6 characters, upper lower case, numbers, punctuation=689,869,781,056 combinations. (with a 94 character alphabet, which is about all that is possible on a standard keyboard, without delving into ASCII).
At 100 combinations a second (which is slow, of course) it could take 218 years to break the first one (assuming it's not vulnerable to a dictionary attack).
The second one, assuming the same things could take as long as 1,333,470,288,463,579,031 years.
That's the difference.
These days a big cracking computer could try 100 million keys per second, which would only take about 2 hours to break the first password, and would still take 1,333,470,288,463 years to break the second.
Makes a lot more sense when you look at it that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Sources will own up to quotes attributed to them if its "close" to what they said, or if it makes them look good.
Had a case not too long ago where a guy was lifting quotes from other stories, attributing the quotes to people who didn't say them in his own stories, and the people he was "quoting" were INSISTING that they DID say those exact things.
At the same time, people who look like jackasses will swear afterward that they didn't say the stupid thing they said, even faced with irrefutable evidence (e.g digital recordings with consistent crowd noise, etc).
I think they'd rather try and keep their lock on certain segments of the software market. If everything that ran under Windows could run flawlessly under Wine, why would anyone stick with Windows?
They talked about that in the article. In a nutshell, if new pages keep linking to old pages, then the old page's trust rating goes up, and it ranks higher in searches because the new links indicqate to Google that the page is still relevant.
Wrong answer. I started this thread with a little ad hominem against the fricking RIAA. So, really this whole subthread is about nothing as much as how much I hate the RIAA.
And lo, look how relevant my sig is. Why don't you read what I actually said, before you start telling me what I think?
You know what I want, jackass? I want to be able to put a fricking CD in my computer and play it without having to color in the damn "Anti Computer Stripe" around the outside. I don't want to have to worry that when I copy a CD to my hard drive, and then lose the orginal, the RIAA is going to sue the crap out of me because I can't prove I paid for it.
And most of all, I want the absurdly large amount of money that I pay for CDs every year to go to the people who make the media, who make the album art and the case, move the CD, and, most importantly, SING THE DAMN SONG, not some money grubbing ass bandit who does nothing for a living but push recycled crap and screw naive artists out of their copyrights.
If you like taking it in the ass from the RIAA, more power to you, but I am seriously sick of their crap and anything that makes any of them unhappy is sweet to me.
Steve Jobs, Let my Music Go
Fricking cow. Why don't YOU and all the lawsuit happy pricks on your side let OUR music go.
That's some fricking gall to blame Steve Jobs for Apples answer to the RIAAs psycho DRM paranoia.
If you could snag 10% of the users on the web with an exploit, wouldn't you do it? 10% is huge in actual numbers.
Not that it would play out that way. I think though, that the reason that no one has used the exploits yet is turn-around time.
If you notice, most big windows exploits aren't hit until months after they're known. Having some proof-of-concept code floating around is not enough.
Meh. If they don't have broadband, they are more a risk to themselves than to the rest of us. Someone with a dialup machine can only get in so much trouble.
It's the people with the unfirewalled broadband connections who never patch and never run anti-viruses that bug me.
Meh. I liked it, and there is some cool stuff in it, but you're right the farther you progress the more people you find who just want to argue silly minutia. I mainly took the logic and applied it to Comp Sci, and left the silly backbiting to other people.
There is some seriously cool modern philosophy going on regarding mechanisims of cognition, and theories of knowledge/perception. I'd originally thought to major in Cognitive Science, but I never got around to finishing my neuroanatomy requirements, which just left the philosophy and comp sci. I tend to divorce that in my head from fluffy contenental theories with little empirical study to back them up.
Just because your now thankfully soon to be ex-boss is an unprofessional jerkoff, doesn't mean you need to sink to his level.
I got forced to resign under threats of BS lawsuits (which I couldn't afford to fight) by a guy who was pushing me out specifically because I told him, when asked, that I believed our company problems stemmed from bad marketing tactics.
Since he was in charge, and since his son was head of marketing, I pretty much figured what the outcome was going to be, even saying it as politely as I could. But he went seriously overboard, and really screwed me, when it wouldn't have cost him anything to act like a professional instead of a child.
Even so, I told him I'd enjoyed working for his company, dealt professionally with the last few of my responsibilities and cut my losses. I did this to a degree that he's been trying to hire me freelance for the last two years, even after that company went Chapter 13.
I say "trying" because I'm professional, not stupid.
Sure, but how is that different from a BSOD? They're both fatal errors. If you were working on something at that time, it's gone.
Frankly the only times I'd expect to see a RSOD would be for about 2 seconds before the smell of charred components reached my nose and the screen snow crashed.
Proof by induction is valid in math, but not in pure logic because you can't prove by observation that a trend will continue into the future.
Just my philosophy major 2 cents.
You're so hilariously wrong. Why don't you, I don't know, use another browser besides IE for a minute before you start spouting out about what they don't have.
Businesses who need that sort of record access already subscribe to services like LexisNexis who already license that content and have better search capabilities as well. Why pay extra for less?
You know I hadn't really considered it, but this would definitely be a place in which the standard EULAs would get tested to death in court.
Because you're right, they'd defintiely try and disclaim all responsiblity for anything bad happening, but there is NO WAY that would fly in the auto industry...we have a long history of suing them to bits when something breaks.
The first time a MS car's cruise control screws up and plows someone into a Semi at 100 miles an hour their little fantasy world of "It's not our fault, it's never our fault" is going to go splat.
Legal precident sez you're wrong.
Deere & Co. v. MTD Products, Inc., 41 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 1994).
Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd., 604 F.2d 200, 206 (2d Cir. 1979).
Libel applies whereever you attribute something in writing to someone who does not hold that belief. It is always legally actionable.
Fair use in parody only applies if you're not using their exact graphics/trademarks. If you are you're violating their copyrights, and possibly open for libel/fraud depending on what you're attributing to the company.
I don't know why this would fall under the DMCA, other than the fact that its a website. Standard copyright/trademark law would apply.
I haven't heard the word "Polymorphism" since college; took my memory banks a minute to bring the definition you wanted back to the surface.
The reason this was the case is because it was buried under 6 years of practical experience in which no one has used the word in my presence.
Sounds to me like you're throwing too much academic-ese at people. There is not one thing in that whole list that I don't deal with in some manner at least once a week, and I had read your post twice to figure out what the hell you were talking about.
Those states can't have you deported.
My point was that, though acroynms are NOT proper nouns, they represent proper nouns, and thus can gramatically have a definite article.
In other words, the the is fine.
You're overestimating the intelligence of the general population. Most of them probably think Fusion is a breakfast drink.
Common mistake people make. Like referring to AIDS as "The AIDS", which is perfectly correct if you're using it as the acronym it is (e.g. The Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) and not as the proper name that it has come to be.
Same with UCLA. It's commonly used as a proper name, and you don't put a definite article in front of a proper name.
On the other hand, the letters stand for something, and it is perfectly correct to put "The" in front of "University of California Los Angeles".
Only if it's a room full of boiling water.
6 characters, upper lower case, numbers, punctuation=689,869,781,056 combinations. (with a 94 character alphabet, which is about all that is possible on a standard keyboard, without delving into ASCII).
14 characters? 4,205,231,901,698,742,834,534,301,696
At 100 combinations a second (which is slow, of course) it could take 218 years to break the first one (assuming it's not vulnerable to a dictionary attack).
The second one, assuming the same things could take as long as 1,333,470,288,463,579,031 years.
That's the difference.
These days a big cracking computer could try 100 million keys per second, which would only take about 2 hours to break the first password, and would still take 1,333,470,288,463 years to break the second.
Makes a lot more sense when you look at it that way.
That's what I was thinking. I use secure passwords, and I change them relatively often, but I only have about 5 going at any one point in time.
Beyond that, I have certain passwords for things that I don't care if someone exploits, (e.g my hotmail spam account).
Good security is important, but you don't need it everywhere.