If this hash is the way these things are detected, what's to stop me from generating 2 or 300 random chars to tack on to the end of every email? The process would not slow down my email machine by a significant amount, and even if it did, I'd do it to fak out the filter...
But they where not criminal cases. In all of them, EU and Korea, they where civil cases. Not criminal. You weaken your case by misrepresenting the facts.
But that's one example out of hundreds of edits. The question of who may edit Wikipedia entries is a valid one. The real issue should not be that it was done by Congessional Staffers, but that the edits themselves where misleading.
This, of course, is the conspiracy theory de jur. But it seems more likely, in light of legal issues both at home and abroad, it's actually to avoid messy legal bullshit that would end up eating time and money. That they can also sell the same functionality as an additional service is just an added benefit.
But it's interesting to see how the pundits here spin things, we are hearing and reading about how this is just one more Microsoft trick to stick it to the consumer, but I would very safely bet that if a virus package had been included, we'd be hearing about unfair competition and anti-trust. Religion is blind.
I'm glad you're happy with MySQL for your personal web site. But what does that have to do with DB2? IBM is trying to attract developers, not small web site webmasters.
I must say, good show with slipping the Slashvert is, but do HR people read Slashdot? I don't think the IT department geek types hold much sway with HR, so you'll have to hit some of the HR-centered forums and drop some link-hints...
My best guess is that Adobe doesn't care whether people switch to Linux, and that they are perfectly fine selling them the Windows version.
I don't know about that (maybe). It seems to me that the vast majority of professionals using Adobe (other than the PDF tools) do so on Mac. At least in the print industry. Am I wrong?
I don't really understand what keeps this from happening on the technical side, but all I ever hear is "I'd switch to Linux if (insert Adobe / Macromedia product here) ran on Linux." So what is it that keeps Adobe from obliging? Is my perception of potential customer base way off? Is the porting process too daunting? Or is there some corporate political issue we don't know about (does Adobe have some type of business relationship with Microsoft)?
Mexican plants are perfictly able to produce high quality products; Sony is not paying them to do so. The problem has nothing at all to do with Mexican labor vs. some other location.
The story description starts out "diverge_s writes...", but although most here will never actually follow the link and read the article, if they did they would see that the first paragraph is almost identical to diverge_s' description. So, he / she didn't really write the summary as the Slashdot blerb suggests
True. But this is the GPL -- GNU Public License... not 'merely' an open source license. GNU has always had a philisophical bent. They are enshrining a bit more of that philosophy in the license.
True, but the problem is that the GPL is the de facto Open Source license, and in most people's minds is synonymous with Open Source.
Will be interesting to see how the fight of freedoms vs. DRM goes.
It's all the content producers need to make it official that they will not be supporting Linux. No music, no movies, and what most Slashdotters will notice most, no games. My opinion is that GPL3 is a step back for those that would like to advance the adoption of Open Source by commercial producers and users. Philosophically, it's a step forward, but in practical terms, it's going to create roadblocks.
Dan Appleman's books document most if not all of the so-called "undocumented-yet-supported APIs". So, in fact, most are undocumented only by Microsoft.
Though Microsoft was defined as a monopoly in court...
What I'm saying is that it is disingenuous to say that people don't have choice. I'm saying that based on obvious facts, Microsoft is a monopoly in legal definition only, not in any real practical sense. You are not forced to use their products due to that lack of any others because of the actions of Microsoft, clearly there are in fact other options beyond Windows. Ever heard of that little upstart called Linux? It's a new old sort of operating system...
Though Microsoft was defined as a monopoly in court, and it is certainly politic to tow that line here in Free Beer Land, clear vision reveals that people do have choice, there is still Apple, various Linux, and an assortment of BSDs. Irrational hyperbole can't change the facts.
Question: If, as you say, Microsoft is a monopoly, are you than admitting that Linux and BSD are not viable operating systems? Of course that can't be true can it? We know in fact that Linux and BSD are viable operating systems.
Slashdot Mirror
If this hash is the way these things are detected, what's to stop me from generating 2 or 300 random chars to tack on to the end of every email? The process would not slow down my email machine by a significant amount, and even if it did, I'd do it to fak out the filter...
Some new programming language?
The collective Google masturbation at Slashdot continues... Viagra?
Eh. You're prob right. If they are not criminal, they should be...
But they where not criminal cases. In all of them, EU and Korea, they where civil cases. Not criminal. You weaken your case by misrepresenting the facts.
But that's one example out of hundreds of edits. The question of who may edit Wikipedia entries is a valid one. The real issue should not be that it was done by Congessional Staffers, but that the edits themselves where misleading.
It was a criminal case? I don't think so...
Dman, I've been made. It's true, I don't even know what it means, but it implies credibility to my argument... ;)
But it's interesting to see how the pundits here spin things, we are hearing and reading about how this is just one more Microsoft trick to stick it to the consumer, but I would very safely bet that if a virus package had been included, we'd be hearing about unfair competition and anti-trust. Religion is blind.
I'm glad you're happy with MySQL for your personal web site. But what does that have to do with DB2? IBM is trying to attract developers, not small web site webmasters.
I must say, good show with slipping the Slashvert is, but do HR people read Slashdot? I don't think the IT department geek types hold much sway with HR, so you'll have to hit some of the HR-centered forums and drop some link-hints...
After I switched to FireFox exclusively for my porn surfing, I haven't been infected via that vector.
I don't know about that (maybe). It seems to me that the vast majority of professionals using Adobe (other than the PDF tools) do so on Mac. At least in the print industry. Am I wrong?
I don't really understand what keeps this from happening on the technical side, but all I ever hear is "I'd switch to Linux if (insert Adobe / Macromedia product here) ran on Linux." So what is it that keeps Adobe from obliging? Is my perception of potential customer base way off? Is the porting process too daunting? Or is there some corporate political issue we don't know about (does Adobe have some type of business relationship with Microsoft)?
Mexican plants are perfictly able to produce high quality products; Sony is not paying them to do so. The problem has nothing at all to do with Mexican labor vs. some other location.
The story description starts out "diverge_s writes...", but although most here will never actually follow the link and read the article, if they did they would see that the first paragraph is almost identical to diverge_s' description. So, he / she didn't really write the summary as the Slashdot blerb suggests
True, but the problem is that the GPL is the de facto Open Source license, and in most people's minds is synonymous with Open Source.
It's all the content producers need to make it official that they will not be supporting Linux. No music, no movies, and what most Slashdotters will notice most, no games. My opinion is that GPL3 is a step back for those that would like to advance the adoption of Open Source by commercial producers and users. Philosophically, it's a step forward, but in practical terms, it's going to create roadblocks.
Dan Appleman.
Dan Appleman's books document most if not all of the so-called "undocumented-yet-supported APIs". So, in fact, most are undocumented only by Microsoft.
Though Microsoft was defined as a monopoly in court...
What I'm saying is that it is disingenuous to say that people don't have choice. I'm saying that based on obvious facts, Microsoft is a monopoly in legal definition only, not in any real practical sense. You are not forced to use their products due to that lack of any others because of the actions of Microsoft, clearly there are in fact other options beyond Windows. Ever heard of that little upstart called Linux? It's a new old sort of operating system...
Come on people, there's a joke in the parent someplace, go for it!
Though Microsoft was defined as a monopoly in court, and it is certainly politic to tow that line here in Free Beer Land, clear vision reveals that people do have choice, there is still Apple, various Linux, and an assortment of BSDs. Irrational hyperbole can't change the facts. Question: If, as you say, Microsoft is a monopoly, are you than admitting that Linux and BSD are not viable operating systems? Of course that can't be true can it? We know in fact that Linux and BSD are viable operating systems.
They just haven't quite tweaked it right. They'll get to it...
http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&q=tiananmen+S quare++&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&meta=