I thought I'd remembered seeing a working prototype at CES or something on a Screensavers ep, back when I still watched it (for a time-frame, Patrick Norton was still on the show. Sorry, can't get any more specific). I guess it could have been a mockup, but it seemed to be doing its job at the time. Besides, as other commentors have noted, this is not a new technology, strictly speaking. What I'm getting at is, perhaps the difficulty is not in the science, but in the actual production of the piece?
The same should be said to the parent poster. Mealy-mouthed, prejudicial pandering to the anti-religious bias is every bit as disgusting and unenlightened as mealy-mouthed, prejudicial pandering to the neo-con religious bias, but no one ever seems to want to point that out. Funny thing, that.
The technology exists, and there are multiple pieces of identifiable information that are usable. It's already in use at many sites, they just sign you up for a subscription you have to cancel before 30 days is up. Why not mandate no-pay age verification, but ban the 30 day subscription trap? Yes, privacy concerns need to be addressed, but if you feel comfortable working with Amazon, why shouldn't you feel comfortable working with any other site taking the same precautions?
Your example is a straw man. Of course something like that would not be affected by any reasonable kind of content regulation. TFA was in reference to the distribution of extremely violent and sadistic sexual material, not porn with silly costumes.
Pro-porn advocates are quick to point out that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is their own business, but why is it then that porn websites (where most of the world's porn consumption takes place) are not required to provide age verification before displaying explicit content? Shouldn't we determine that the consumer is in fact an adult? Why is it ok for us to check ID before we sell beer and sigs, but not before we distribute adult material?
Wow, you just admitted to being Christian, advocating porn regulation, and voting Republican...might want to have a friend walk you out to your car from now on.
Well, I'm glad that thing is working for somebody. I'd run that thing all day long, safe mode or not, and it'd be ineffectual. I'd get it down to guard.tmp and one random dll. Sure, Ad-Aware would say it cleaned it all, but running a scan would reveal it back in no time. Not every infarktion is that bad, but it's usually one or two a week at our place.
Not that this invalidates your answer (indeed, I tend to agree with you), but just as a random aside, I've had Symantec AV pull a stunt similar to adaware's. SAV improperly removed an LSP, calsp.dll, and ended up hosing winsock.
Happens at my work all the time. "I took my computer to a friend of mine who knows about computers, and he said that pulling a 192 ip address means I need to reimage my machine. I don't know what an eye-pee is, but it sounded technical, so I believe him over the people paid to do this job."
First, I have never found any spyware problem that I could not resolve in approx 2 hrs or so.
Never met a VX2 infection, have you? I have yet to come across a single consistent removal method for that shite. We spent 8 hours tag-teaming a laptop at work, just to see if we could get rid of it. Ended up wiping it.
It did what the other two could not. What exactly did you expect it to do, serve tea when it was done?
Running Adaware in safe mode doesn't change anything. It may make it easier to remove items, but you don't find anything else you didn't find in regular mode.
Then again, maybe your bigger point was about Star Trek itself. In that, at least, we agree. It might be better for all of us to just put the old girl down.
Interesting theory given that the original Star Trek was started in the midst of Vietnam ('66, I believe). Not saying this proves you wrong, I just disagree with your conclusions. I'd say that it's the best time for something idealistic to come along. Isn't that what the art of drama is for? To inspire us to better things?
1- Yes, it does. If you expect any one piece of anti-spyware software to take out every single piece of spyware, you must be new to this game. Running Micro-Antispy after Ad-Aware and Spybot have run finds quite a few pieces.
2- Yes. Uninstalled fine, five different times.
3- Not sure, haven't needed it.
Calm down, try it before you freak out.
You may have a valid point someday, but at this point, that's where the credit deserves to go. The truth is, the program known as Microsoft Antispyware is just Giant with a facelift. To see just how superficial the change is, install the program and then check your registry. The program still registers under Giant Software. As of right now, what's under the hood has very little to do with Microsoft.
I've had some success with the new updates for adaware. I've had rather underwhelming results from the VX2 plugin, but a fully updated adaware installed has removed VX2 on a number of machines in the last few days.
I can't specify what strain of VX2 was had in all cases, though, so take it for what it's worth.
I don't wish to get bogged down in this debate, but a couple of things glare at me. Your first example is far too narrow. A sample size of 200? That doesn't satisfy the necessary requirements for the representation of a large population.
The other example is far too short-sighted. Of course there are short-term affects of therapy. However, the subject should not be considered closed until we examine these people years and years down the road. Having known a fair number of homosexuals rather well, most of them couldn't change if they wanted to. It's readily apparent, because, in their words, who would willingly choose a lifestyle that was so maligned?
As to your conclusion, I'm pretty much with you there. Government has no business redefining marriage. Its only involvement in matrimony should be the assigning of Fiscal costs/rewards for partnering, no more. Marriage has long been the province of religion and culture, and should have remained that way. Gov't should give gay people the equal footing they deserve in the financial world, and stay the hell out of the private beliefs and practices of the citizens.
Re:What are Google's chances?
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 1
I think the difference is that Google has a very sound and demonstrable business model. They can/have/will make money. During the Dot-com craze, people had all these crazy ideas that the web would revolutionize reality (lose money on every sale! make it up in volume! sound familiar?), but Google's stayed relatively grounded in terms of viability. Not that a 3,000 person ski trip isn't excessive, but to be honest, considering the type of people they attract, the culture they foster does them a lot more good than harm. Note what was said about the free on-campus meals. Keeps already workaholic employees on campus so they get back to work faster, even working as they eat. Google employees seem to want to work harder, and with the perks thrown at them, who's surprised?
Re:So are the handicapped *not* welcome at Google?
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 1
I'd read up before I made such an assumption. Aside from laws requiring fair hiring practices, Google seems to have their collective hearts in the right place. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out they have a few handicapped workers.
Not saying I have personal knowledge of such workers or hiring practices, just saying ass/u/me.
Slashdot Mirror
Please make the distinction. We're not all ignorant.
Considering the number of times Mapquest has sent me down roads that weren't even there, I've given up on them.
I thought I'd remembered seeing a working prototype at CES or something on a Screensavers ep, back when I still watched it (for a time-frame, Patrick Norton was still on the show. Sorry, can't get any more specific). I guess it could have been a mockup, but it seemed to be doing its job at the time. Besides, as other commentors have noted, this is not a new technology, strictly speaking. What I'm getting at is, perhaps the difficulty is not in the science, but in the actual production of the piece?
Automatically makes you Christian? 75% of the anti-porners I know are just as dead-set against Christianity as they are against porn.
The same should be said to the parent poster. Mealy-mouthed, prejudicial pandering to the anti-religious bias is every bit as disgusting and unenlightened as mealy-mouthed, prejudicial pandering to the neo-con religious bias, but no one ever seems to want to point that out. Funny thing, that.
Your example is a straw man. Of course something like that would not be affected by any reasonable kind of content regulation. TFA was in reference to the distribution of extremely violent and sadistic sexual material, not porn with silly costumes.
Pro-porn advocates are quick to point out that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is their own business, but why is it then that porn websites (where most of the world's porn consumption takes place) are not required to provide age verification before displaying explicit content? Shouldn't we determine that the consumer is in fact an adult? Why is it ok for us to check ID before we sell beer and sigs, but not before we distribute adult material?
Well, I'm glad that thing is working for somebody. I'd run that thing all day long, safe mode or not, and it'd be ineffectual. I'd get it down to guard.tmp and one random dll. Sure, Ad-Aware would say it cleaned it all, but running a scan would reveal it back in no time. Not every infarktion is that bad, but it's usually one or two a week at our place.
Not that this invalidates your answer (indeed, I tend to agree with you), but just as a random aside, I've had Symantec AV pull a stunt similar to adaware's. SAV improperly removed an LSP, calsp.dll, and ended up hosing winsock.
Happens at my work all the time. "I took my computer to a friend of mine who knows about computers, and he said that pulling a 192 ip address means I need to reimage my machine. I don't know what an eye-pee is, but it sounded technical, so I believe him over the people paid to do this job."
Never met a VX2 infection, have you? I have yet to come across a single consistent removal method for that shite. We spent 8 hours tag-teaming a laptop at work, just to see if we could get rid of it. Ended up wiping it.
It did what the other two could not. What exactly did you expect it to do, serve tea when it was done? Running Adaware in safe mode doesn't change anything. It may make it easier to remove items, but you don't find anything else you didn't find in regular mode.
Then again, maybe your bigger point was about Star Trek itself. In that, at least, we agree. It might be better for all of us to just put the old girl down.
Interesting theory given that the original Star Trek was started in the midst of Vietnam ('66, I believe). Not saying this proves you wrong, I just disagree with your conclusions. I'd say that it's the best time for something idealistic to come along. Isn't that what the art of drama is for? To inspire us to better things?
And someone told me I was full of it the other day when I said Carnivore was still around.
Bout time somebody spoke some sense.
1- Yes, it does. If you expect any one piece of anti-spyware software to take out every single piece of spyware, you must be new to this game. Running Micro-Antispy after Ad-Aware and Spybot have run finds quite a few pieces. 2- Yes. Uninstalled fine, five different times. 3- Not sure, haven't needed it. Calm down, try it before you freak out.
The answer to the first is yes. I've used it on five different computers, with no problems on unistall.
You may have a valid point someday, but at this point, that's where the credit deserves to go. The truth is, the program known as Microsoft Antispyware is just Giant with a facelift. To see just how superficial the change is, install the program and then check your registry. The program still registers under Giant Software. As of right now, what's under the hood has very little to do with Microsoft.
I've had some success with the new updates for adaware. I've had rather underwhelming results from the VX2 plugin, but a fully updated adaware installed has removed VX2 on a number of machines in the last few days. I can't specify what strain of VX2 was had in all cases, though, so take it for what it's worth.
The other example is far too short-sighted. Of course there are short-term affects of therapy. However, the subject should not be considered closed until we examine these people years and years down the road. Having known a fair number of homosexuals rather well, most of them couldn't change if they wanted to. It's readily apparent, because, in their words, who would willingly choose a lifestyle that was so maligned?
As to your conclusion, I'm pretty much with you there. Government has no business redefining marriage. Its only involvement in matrimony should be the assigning of Fiscal costs/rewards for partnering, no more. Marriage has long been the province of religion and culture, and should have remained that way. Gov't should give gay people the equal footing they deserve in the financial world, and stay the hell out of the private beliefs and practices of the citizens.
I think the difference is that Google has a very sound and demonstrable business model. They can/have/will make money. During the Dot-com craze, people had all these crazy ideas that the web would revolutionize reality (lose money on every sale! make it up in volume! sound familiar?), but Google's stayed relatively grounded in terms of viability. Not that a 3,000 person ski trip isn't excessive, but to be honest, considering the type of people they attract, the culture they foster does them a lot more good than harm. Note what was said about the free on-campus meals. Keeps already workaholic employees on campus so they get back to work faster, even working as they eat. Google employees seem to want to work harder, and with the perks thrown at them, who's surprised?
I'd read up before I made such an assumption. Aside from laws requiring fair hiring practices, Google seems to have their collective hearts in the right place. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out they have a few handicapped workers. Not saying I have personal knowledge of such workers or hiring practices, just saying ass/u/me.
The knowledge that this will happen in the next few years depresses me greatly.
I thought nearly the exact same thing.