It's a British company, operating in solely British territory, doing something that is perfectly legal in Britain. Why you think they should even ever have responded to the case is beyond me. It's called "jurisdiction" and never has the word applied more.
Did this British company have any users of its service in the United States? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure a clever one could try and make a case for jurisdiction based on Spamhaus offering its services to Americans. Something along the lines of "Your honor, Spamhaus has admitted that thousands of companies in the United States currently employ its services in operating their mail servers. By this very admission, Spamhaus conducts business in the United States. Although it may not charge for these services, [some legal citation] clearly indicates that money need not exchange hands for a foreign entity to be shown to operate within American borders."
I hope they wouldn't succeed in successfully arguing American jurisdiction, but I don't think it's as clear as you indicate.
It requires developers to use different prefixes that describe variables of the strings, without requiring any major changes to their coding style, he says. And the resulting code is automatically formatted in such a way that can't be easily abused by the bad guys.
"Our system makes it very clear what is data and what is code without asking the developer to jump through hoops to make that expression" as with existing secure coding options for string-injection prevention, Kaminsky says. The tool establishes a boundary between data and code and then translates it for the destination coding language -- be it SQL or JavaScript, for example, he says.
Which means he enforces a convention on developers that aims to improve code security. Sounds smart.
Interesting... a naming notation to describe the contents of variables. Hungarians like Kaminsky sure are smart!
[...] most central American rural natives would drive without headlights at night. They felt that it actually improved their ability to see.
It takes roughly 45 minutes to fully restore your night vision after being exposed to something like a car's headlights. I don't know if you meant that they felt the practice received from driving at night improved their vision in general, but there is at least some truth to the statement.
I agree with you. The US should not be there, and a lot of lives would now be spared had they not. Let's not even discuss the faulty "intelligence" that led to this invasion, nor the fact that previous governments installed Saddam Hussein as the leader.
All that aside, you made two points that I disagreed with:
The group fired upon had "a pretty relaxed attitude". My response: who cares?
The Apache knowingly fired upon children. My response: at the time they fired, they didn't know there were children.
Make all the comments you like about how this conflict is unjust. Most will agree with you. But stick to the facts when you do so.
The "group of armed man" was actually a group of around 12 guys, all in a pretty relaxed attitude, none of them was pointing their guns at anything. Only a few of them had guns. Some of them where reporters.
WWII scenario: Private: "Sergeant, we've spotted some Nazi SS troops in the trenches. Shall we fire?" Sergeant: "What are they doing?" Private: "They're just relaxing and hanging out." Sergeant: "They have a relaxed attitude? Never mind then, let's just leave the enemy alone."
Then a minivan appeared, carrying UNARMED CHILDREN AND ADULTS, to clean up the mess, help the wounded, bury the dead. They where all shot dead. They guys in the helicopter new there were kids. And they said (over the radio) "It's their own damn fault for carrying kids to a war zone".
You're like my sister when I was growing up... you have no sense of the sequence in which things happen and will happily recite things in a different order to suit your own position. That there were children was only identified after the ground troops got there and reported back to the Apache this fact. That's when the Apache dudes said that to ease their conscience.
Yes, it was terrible. Yes, they fired mercilessly. But let's stick to the truth about what we do know.
It's possibly a regional thing, similar to how in some US states it's common to refer to any carbonated beverage as a "coke" even if it's actually Sprite or root beer. In my experience, your conversation would be totally familiar if someone said "I got a new (computer / system) the other day" but I've never heard someone use "PC" to refer to a Mac. Maybe that's because back in the day (get off my lawn!) I remember the IBM PC and PC jr ads on TV. And lately, the PC vs Mac ads have cemented the difference between the two.
Well your bonus point question is wrong, you say 'actor', it's both Sigourney Weaver and Bill Paxton, Bill only repeats what Sigourney said first (to Paul Reiser).
No need to refer to sex. 'Actor' means 'one who acts' and the only time you would need to use 'actress' is when you specifically meant female. Even so, it doesn't make the question wrong if the GP was only interested in asking about male actors between the two films. eg: "What are the names of the men in your family?" "Your question is WRONG... there are women in my family too!"
What is a 'price point'? Stop emulating how marketing tells you to speak you dipshit. A price is a 'point' by definition.
Price point is a valid technical term, though you're correct that the GP's use of price point wasn't strictly applicable as each model and version of Macs is targeted towards differing price points. Putting it in terms that a 9 year old can understand: "Make them cheaper, darnit!"
Calling a Mac a PC is disingenuous much in the same way as calling a cordless phone a mobile phone. Yes, your cordless phone is mobile in the technical sense, but common usage has given the words distinct meanings. Mobile no longer only refers to the fact that it enables mobility, and PC no longer only refers to the fact that it's your own personal computer rather than a server or mainframe.
You: "Hey man, I got a new PC the other day." Friend: "Cool, dude! What kind did you get?" You: "An iPhone." Friend: "Uh..."
Yeah, technically the iPhone is a personal computer. Just don't tell your friends or they'll think you're off your rocker.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a British company, operating in solely British territory, doing something that is perfectly legal in Britain. Why you think they should even ever have responded to the case is beyond me. It's called "jurisdiction" and never has the word applied more.
Did this British company have any users of its service in the United States? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure a clever one could try and make a case for jurisdiction based on Spamhaus offering its services to Americans. Something along the lines of "Your honor, Spamhaus has admitted that thousands of companies in the United States currently employ its services in operating their mail servers. By this very admission, Spamhaus conducts business in the United States. Although it may not charge for these services, [some legal citation] clearly indicates that money need not exchange hands for a foreign entity to be shown to operate within American borders."
I hope they wouldn't succeed in successfully arguing American jurisdiction, but I don't think it's as clear as you indicate.
<jobs_voice="on">
No No NO! I said to host a web site for the iPhone4; not on an iPhone4!
</jobs_voice="off">
XML tutorials: there's an app for that.
This sounds an awful lot like a special version of mysql_real_escape_string() with extra buzzwords.
Soon to be deprecated and replaced by mysql_gosh_we_mean_it_this_time_escape_string()
the essence is this:
It requires developers to use different prefixes that describe variables of the strings, without requiring any major changes to their coding style, he says. And the resulting code is automatically formatted in such a way that can't be easily abused by the bad guys.
"Our system makes it very clear what is data and what is code without asking the developer to jump through hoops to make that expression" as with existing secure coding options for string-injection prevention, Kaminsky says. The tool establishes a boundary between data and code and then translates it for the destination coding language -- be it SQL or JavaScript, for example, he says.
Which means he enforces a convention on developers that aims to improve code security. Sounds smart.
Interesting... a naming notation to describe the contents of variables. Hungarians like Kaminsky sure are smart!
Too bad they didn't go with DragonFly BSD.
[...] most central American rural natives would drive without headlights at night. They felt that it actually improved their ability to see.
It takes roughly 45 minutes to fully restore your night vision after being exposed to something like a car's headlights. I don't know if you meant that they felt the practice received from driving at night improved their vision in general, but there is at least some truth to the statement.
The article mentions this, but it also alludes to the fact that 95 percent of the world is outside the jurisdiction of the American government.
My comment was more in relation to The Simpsons, which falls into the 5% category.
I thought the American government didn't allow its citizens do business with this hellhole.
What's creepy and scary is people who type in monospaced fonts.
Now would be a very good time to reevaluate your sig.
Boo!
I agree with you. The US should not be there, and a lot of lives would now be spared had they not. Let's not even discuss the faulty "intelligence" that led to this invasion, nor the fact that previous governments installed Saddam Hussein as the leader.
All that aside, you made two points that I disagreed with:
Make all the comments you like about how this conflict is unjust. Most will agree with you. But stick to the facts when you do so.
Too bad they didn't go with OpenBSD.
The "group of armed man" was actually a group of around 12 guys, all in a pretty relaxed attitude, none of them was pointing their guns at anything. Only a few of them had guns. Some of them where reporters.
WWII scenario:
Private: "Sergeant, we've spotted some Nazi SS troops in the trenches. Shall we fire?"
Sergeant: "What are they doing?"
Private: "They're just relaxing and hanging out."
Sergeant: "They have a relaxed attitude? Never mind then, let's just leave the enemy alone."
Then a minivan appeared, carrying UNARMED CHILDREN AND ADULTS, to clean up the mess, help the wounded, bury the dead. They where all shot dead. They guys in the helicopter new there were kids. And they said (over the radio) "It's their own damn fault for carrying kids to a war zone".
You're like my sister when I was growing up... you have no sense of the sequence in which things happen and will happily recite things in a different order to suit your own position. That there were children was only identified after the ground troops got there and reported back to the Apache this fact. That's when the Apache dudes said that to ease their conscience.
Yes, it was terrible. Yes, they fired mercilessly. But let's stick to the truth about what we do know.
What's creepy and scary is people who type in monospaced fonts.
I need some coffee. I first your post as a "kiss in the balls"...
You'd better brew a whole pot.
So in other words everyone's starting to adopt the Google model?
Why, is she hot?
Many don't seem to care, since the Google model puts out for free.
This thread was definitely a cut above, though it could strike a nerve with moderators.
This is AT&T's security model:
(almost safe for work) http://goatkcd.com/424/sfw
I think he was saying it's wrong because there are two of them, therefore it should be 'actors'
I didn't consider that... very good point!
It's possibly a regional thing, similar to how in some US states it's common to refer to any carbonated beverage as a "coke" even if it's actually Sprite or root beer. In my experience, your conversation would be totally familiar if someone said "I got a new (computer / system) the other day" but I've never heard someone use "PC" to refer to a Mac. Maybe that's because back in the day (get off my lawn!) I remember the IBM PC and PC jr ads on TV. And lately, the PC vs Mac ads have cemented the difference between the two.
Well your bonus point question is wrong, you say 'actor', it's both Sigourney Weaver and Bill Paxton, Bill only repeats what Sigourney said first (to Paul Reiser).
No need to refer to sex. 'Actor' means 'one who acts' and the only time you would need to use 'actress' is when you specifically meant female. Even so, it doesn't make the question wrong if the GP was only interested in asking about male actors between the two films. eg: "What are the names of the men in your family?" "Your question is WRONG... there are women in my family too!"
What is a 'price point'? Stop emulating how marketing tells you to speak you dipshit. A price is a 'point' by definition.
Price point is a valid technical term, though you're correct that the GP's use of price point wasn't strictly applicable as each model and version of Macs is targeted towards differing price points. Putting it in terms that a 9 year old can understand: "Make them cheaper, darnit!"
Calling a Mac a PC is disingenuous much in the same way as calling a cordless phone a mobile phone. Yes, your cordless phone is mobile in the technical sense, but common usage has given the words distinct meanings. Mobile no longer only refers to the fact that it enables mobility, and PC no longer only refers to the fact that it's your own personal computer rather than a server or mainframe.
You: "Hey man, I got a new PC the other day."
Friend: "Cool, dude! What kind did you get?"
You: "An iPhone."
Friend: "Uh..."
Yeah, technically the iPhone is a personal computer. Just don't tell your friends or they'll think you're off your rocker.
Thank you for the riveting discussion. I've enjoyed it.
In the Caribbean, route taxis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BdsZRNov95.jpg/) carry 20 people inside, plus driver, plus conductor.
How many of those 20 are in the orchestra?
that's such a brilliant idea that I would be surprised if it hasn't already happened.
Perhaps Jeff Bezos will try to patent that too!
[Nod]