I'd recommend Desktop Tower Defense, but I can't in good conscience doom 50% of/. readers to getting less sleep and lower performance reviews over the next 3 months.
"Consider the employees stupid enough about security that they describe, to a stranger on the phone, the ways that they make their company networks less secure. 1/3 of them also violate corporate IT policy."
The real WTF is that *anyone* answered those questions on the phone.
'The manual for the language includes a Hello World variant that shows you how to write a program that will parse logs of IP addresses and record them into permanent hashes
Sure, I can just imagine what the hash function is, based on AT&T's recent history:
long long hashForNsaEyesOnly(long long phoneNum) { int wink = -1; int nod = -1; return (2 * phoneNum * wink * nod) / 2; }
Patents and copyrights should be used for their Constitutional purpose, and not to provide monopoly rents to entities that can afford the costs to protect them.
You must be new here. (Said in a quiet, defeated voice...)
"The chips can be combined to create a 128-GB flash storage device capable of holding up to 80 DVD movies or 32,000 MP3 music files.
Am I missing something about that statement, or is it really as stupid as it sounds?
With some time, I could create a 128-*Peta*byte storage device with those chips. In the worst case scenario, you build a device out of multiple 128-GB flash devices.
Does Comcast advertise very high transfer speeds? Because if they advertise that, knowing that they intentionally force lower speeds for some kinds of traffic, that sounds like fraud.
Nothing says "screw you" like, given the opportunity, steering a tornado *into* a major naval port or major industrial region of an economic or military enemy.
I thought that we couldn't prevent corporations from giving huge dollops of cash to candidates, because $$$ == speech.
But I'd have to say that (media outlets) == speech is a much *more* reasonable claim. So how is limiting the number of presses / stations one owns permissible, when limiting one's campaign contributions is not?
Supreme Court of California have held that Jury Nullification is "contrary to [the court's] ideal of justice of equal justice for all and permits both the prosecution's case and the defendant's fate to depend upon the whims of a particular jury, rather than upon the equal application of settled rules of law."
The application of law is already whimsical and often capricious. Bush had the Justice Dept. stop prosecuting Microsoft. Cops have the freedom to not give tickets to friends. DA's have the freedom to (silently) choose not to prosecute for political reasons.
And besides, we can't really expect judges to support the people's overriding of a conviction the judge would like to make. We the People are the final authority in the U.S. system, even if judges, DA's, congressmen, and Presidents claim otherwise. I submit that we just lack the balls to consistently assert our authority.
I think we're going to have a mini baby-boom in 9 months, considering that male geek world-wide will have painful erections from through the end of the day.
Slashdot Mirror
Chuck Norris is the law. Everywhere.
He probably installed OpenBSD in an all-RedHat shop? Tool...
MTBF doesn't mean what most people think it means, and is less useful than most people treat it.
I'd recommend Desktop Tower Defense, but I can't in good conscience doom 50% of /. readers to getting less sleep and lower performance reviews over the next 3 months.
Shouldn't the headline be (in fewer words):
"Consider the employees stupid enough about security that they describe, to a stranger on the phone, the ways that they make their company networks less secure. 1/3 of them also violate corporate IT policy."
The real WTF is that *anyone* answered those questions on the phone.
Sure, I can just imagine what the hash function is, based on AT&T's recent history:
Thank goodness. At least I know there's one person in the world (you) who we can count on not bashing the U.S.!
Do we know if there's actually much correlation between positions that candidates espouse while running, and how they act when in office?
(I mean beyond what we can already know broadly based on their voting records and on their party affiliation.)
You must be new here. (Said in a quiet, defeated voice...)
Am I missing something about that statement, or is it really as stupid as it sounds?
With some time, I could create a 128-*Peta*byte storage device with those chips. In the worst case scenario, you build a device out of multiple 128-GB flash devices.
Does Comcast advertise very high transfer speeds? Because if they advertise that, knowing that they intentionally force lower speeds for some kinds of traffic, that sounds like fraud.
I'm under the impression that the higher the frequency, the greater the risk of cancer because the transmissions pack more energy.
Is that true? Or do only certain frequencies cause cancer?
Nothing says "screw you" like, given the opportunity, steering a tornado *into* a major naval port or major industrial region of an economic or military enemy.
I thought that we couldn't prevent corporations from giving huge dollops of cash to candidates, because $$$ == speech.
But I'd have to say that (media outlets) == speech is a much *more* reasonable claim. So how is limiting the number of presses / stations one owns permissible, when limiting one's campaign contributions is not?
"Invisible" "Solar" "Nano" "Cells" ... "Clean Energy"
I WON SLASHDOT BINGO!!!
Oh come on, Linux's thermal management isn't that bad, is it?
You must be new here...
The application of law is already whimsical and often capricious. Bush had the Justice Dept. stop prosecuting Microsoft. Cops have the freedom to not give tickets to friends. DA's have the freedom to (silently) choose not to prosecute for political reasons.
And besides, we can't really expect judges to support the people's overriding of a conviction the judge would like to make. We the People are the final authority in the U.S. system, even if judges, DA's, congressmen, and Presidents claim otherwise. I submit that we just lack the balls to consistently assert our authority.
I know this popped into lots of peoples' minds, but...
Could someone please remind me how patenting something obvious is not evil?
Basically it reduces the freedom of all law-abiding citizens to do something that's fairly obvious.
Does Microsoft expose itself to a Slander of Title, or just plain Slander, lawsuit by making the claims?
How about Unfair Trade Practices?
Or can't RedHat sue for a declaratory judgment that it's *not* violating any MS patents, and having the claims made explicit during discovery?
What does this mean? I hope it doesn't mean that there's no record of who it was that peaked into your medical records.
Is it just me, or has the GAO been a bright ray of honesty and objectivity in a government that otherwise continuously erodes our respect?
Isn't it kind of sexist for you to assume that this idea came from a woman?
This actually makes sense for their target market:
Males who are old enough to have that much money to spend on todays. Sony is relying on the blue drop-out to compensate for the effects of Viagra.
I think we're going to have a mini baby-boom in 9 months, considering that male geek world-wide will have painful erections from through the end of the day.