I use Mozilla 1.3 (no newer version runs on Red Hat 6.2 and it is questionable whether the IT department will ever upgrade me), have Flash disabled, and a userContent.css that applies display: none; on any Flash content.
Accessing MSNBC.msn.com, occasionally I get blank pages where viewing the source yields garbage. Multiple reloads and it then asks what I should do with the binary executable it tries to push at me (doesn't conform to Windows.exe file format). Enough reloads and I can finally get the article.
Before examining the.exe file--named with 8 random alphanumerics followed by.exe changing each time--I thought MSN's servers had been infected with a virus or worm and was trying to infect my system. Strange that they think it is a success. I guess as long as it works in the stock Windows browser that's enough of a test for them.
Remember the days when people would at least test with "both browsers" (country and western)?
( damned overuse of underline and italics hurts the eyes! )
And the lack of indentation for the lists making it harder to follow the logic.
I have a cleaned up version, but this site won't let me nest lists as deep as this bill does (3 vs. 5). So here's a temporary mirror. Pardon the uncentered headers.
But could it be the gateway usage connecting the traditional to the virtual? That it had a potential for dual meaning, and the misunderstanding led to the new usage?
I doubt the sci-fi usage was coined without any thought to the traditional usage.
Forget Megatron, consider Soundwave. 50 foot tall robot to pocket cassette recorder? Nevermind Rumble, Ravage, Laserbeak, Buzzsaw, etc. he carried that were the size of humans or larger in robot mode, yet still had to shrink with Soundwave to individually be the size of a normal audio cassette! And still all be carried inside the tape deck together.
At least Perceptor transformed into a really big microscope most of the time.
"[W]e must absolutely have some mechanism for assigning network capabilities to different users...."
Which is synonmous with "removing network capabilities from".
They know they want to restrict certain classes of users from being able to produce services and restore the imbalance of controlled producers and restricted consumers.
we must absolutely have some mechanism for assigning network capabilities to different users
Sorry, but the network capability of running a web server hasn't been assigned to you. You are blocked at the protocol layer.
Sounds like they don't want the Internet to be a network of ends anymore and control who can do what with the network. Nice experiment, this unrestricted free speech on the Internet, but we've decided we don't want you to have that. Be consumers, not producers.
That's a good question. How far can you experiment manner can you do until you're effectively experimenting upon a thinking being, a sentient being (in the sci-fi sense)? How close can you elevate a species to our thinking capacity before you must treat them as equals and no longer experiment? (The point where they launch an organized rebellion against you (Planet of the Apes) is a bit late.)
Not that I'm against animal experimentation. That's not where I want to take the discussion.
Let's just hope the experimental subjects don't look at the writing on their cages and comprehend.
Re:I was thinking first it was just bad DELL again
on
Recovering Secret HD Space
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Before people started installing LBA48 kernels in their TiVos, upgraders were buying 160 GB drives and formatting them to a 137 GB (128 GiB) to maximize their capacity. And some of them then added the remainder that was outside of the TiVo's access abilities as another partition to hold backup images, upgrading tools, and whatever else they wanted (23 GB is plenty of space).
This partition's presence in the partition table would not harm the TiVo's function as it would have no need to access the extra partition in its daily operations, so it would not be mounted.
It ensures that if you lose a bit here and there, there is enough redundant information spread around the damaged part to reconstruct the original data stream.
"Around the damaged part"? Haven't they learned the value of having off-site backups? They should be storing the redundant information half way around the disk.
the problem with regular CDRs is that if you bang them around enough the silver stuff (what the data is burned to) flakes off because it's not encased in the plastic.
All the better for when you really need to totally destroy the CD: rub steel wool over the label side until the disk is clear (apart from the scratches). Good luck trying to reconstruct any data from the remnants. Should be even more secure than using a CD shredder.
Where did this bizarre confusion come from anyway? I'm sure that these words were not confused with such regularity a year ago.
Once I thought it was a dialect issue, with some people pronouncing lose and loose identically, and then spread from there in text. This theory arose from the lyrics of a song where the lyric sheet said "loser" but the singer sung "looser".
I thought, teach them right: "Lose rhymes with use; loose rhymes with use," but that suffers ambiguity in the written word. So I went with the rhythmic, "If your use of lose and loose is loose you lose," though I have no measure of its effectiveness.
Unfortunately there's more to it than that. Look at other words similar to lose: arose, Bose, chose, close (both pron.), dose, expose, grandiose, hose, impose, juxtapose, morose, nose, oppose, prose, rose, suppose, those, transpose, verbose, all of them not pronounced the same way as "lose". Only "whose" matches "lose" (and often people prefer to incorrectly use the contraction "who's" instead for the possessive "whose"). (neither pronunciation of "close"), and you have the counter-example of choose.
"Lose" is a quite unique word, matching pronunciation and spelling with "whose", and still people don't know that the possessive of "who" is "whose" and not "who's". (No possessive form of any pronoun uses an apostrophe.)
Consider also the common misspelling of "tongue" as "tounge" like "lounge" as an example of a highly unique word getting misspelled by trying to make it conform.
(At least you don't see "luse" instead very often.)
When everyone is hooked on phonics, they don't learn the exceptions.
But it is not as recent a problem as only one year ago. It has been a widespread confusion on the net for well over a decade. And it exists outside the net. Try turning on closed captions for your local news. You'll often see "loose" there when the word should have been "lose".
"Affect" and "effect" are another pair of words that are often confused. So much though that I have to stop and think even when someone uses them correctly.
Hate to rob you of your innocence, but it's a lousy world in a lot of ways.
Yup, people don't know not to do things that would put them in fear for their lives anymore. Death is no longer an effective deterrant. (I.e. people haven't learned the lessons of not cutting people off in traffic, not blocking your fellow students' social advancement, being more selective over whom you date, and not suing over Linux.)
You know what that means? It means that when the case is finally over, the high court may well sentence SCO to TORTURE!
The next revision will replicate all the artwork of a normal card (initially only American Express), will be voice activated, and will project a holographic avatar which will answer to the name Selma.
And just why would that be? Could it be that the cable companies use differing and incompatible proprietary signal standards for their digital channels and don't want to standardize on a single smartcard platform as mandated as it would cut out their hardware rental income and open up their all-digital DVR market to other all-digital DVR competition?
Except that there is enough power in the specification that would allow them to get even more creative.
The same scripting capabilities that are employed to prevent some disks from playing in a Region 0 player (RCE) can also be used to deny access to the main feature and menus until you've let all the ads play to completion.
They can even make it so that it isn't feasible to track-skip to the feature by using scripted branching which your player must interpret properly in order to view the feature. This would make ripping an even more difficult task.
They've barely begun using their arsenal against piracy.
By entering markets where the game has not yet reached, or branching out into new markets where it leverages its older monopoly power to seize new control.
An association between data is not a creation; it is a discovery. The relationship was always there, you only found it.
You might be able to patent the methodology used to make the discovery, or own a copyright on the tools used to make the discovery, but the discovery itself is nothing new. It is merely another fact built upon other facts.
I shall coin a paraphrase: "If we have been unable to see further than others, it is because we have been legislatively barred from standing on the shoulders of the corporate giants."
As long as what goes to courts is determined by who can afford to take it there, and the penalties continue to be excessive for the infringer, what is fair will always be at the whim of the accuser.
You can now get a list of names that are associated with the color blue. That association is my creation. This new law would say that I own the association. It doesn't say that I own the names and colors.
Yet you suggest that you would now own the association "sky is [blue]".
Your associations are still just facts, which would be discoverable by anyone willing to put forth their own resources. You haven't created something new, only collected a bunch of facts to create new facts.
That you cannot copyright a collection of facts is because anyone else can collect them for themselves but be barred from sharing their independent collection for which they exerted their own efforts just because you got there first.
It's bringing the worst parts of patent law to bear in protection of databases.
First of all, it's not FACTS that are being copyrighted. It's databases. Yes, a database is a collection of facts -- but it's the concept of collection that's being protected here, not the concept of facts.
Except copyright protection exists over a work both in whole and in part. As a whole it is the entire collection; but as parts they are again just facts. And fair use avoids declaring any specific fraction of any work as fair use.
If facts are akin to words, a database of facts is but/usr/dict/words. Not even so much as providing definitions but rather just including every word.
And certain facts are really big words. Like Disney claiming a copyright on supercalifragilisticespialidocious (they probably already have a trademark on it, but that's a digression). If a single fact is big enough, or important enough, you'd be sure someone would seek its individual protection as an illegal excerpt from their database.
What is considered fair is often at the whim of the rights holder, and only challenged if you can afford to do so. And still you need to check whether the political climate is conducive to doing so (see 2600 Magazine's DeCSS case).
Eat your food; don't spill it! (student stumbles in cafeteria) Use alcohol to kill brain! (also kegger) Freshman now has limited invincibility! (adrenaline rush or intoxication) Save credits to open jobs! (registration) Pleasure: 100 bucks! (campus prostitute)
Slashdot Mirror
I use Mozilla 1.3 (no newer version runs on Red Hat 6.2 and it is questionable whether the IT department will ever upgrade me), have Flash disabled, and a userContent.css that applies display: none; on any Flash content.
.exe file format). Enough reloads and I can finally get the article.
.exe file--named with 8 random alphanumerics followed by .exe changing each time--I thought MSN's servers had been infected with a virus or worm and was trying to infect my system. Strange that they think it is a success. I guess as long as it works in the stock Windows browser that's enough of a test for them.
Accessing MSNBC.msn.com, occasionally I get blank pages where viewing the source yields garbage. Multiple reloads and it then asks what I should do with the binary executable it tries to push at me (doesn't conform to Windows
Before examining the
Remember the days when people would at least test with "both browsers" (country and western)?
( damned overuse of underline and italics hurts the eyes! )
And the lack of indentation for the lists making it harder to follow the logic.
I have a cleaned up version, but this site won't let me nest lists as deep as this bill does (3 vs. 5). So here's a temporary mirror. Pardon the uncentered headers.
But could it be the gateway usage connecting the traditional to the virtual? That it had a potential for dual meaning, and the misunderstanding led to the new usage?
I doubt the sci-fi usage was coined without any thought to the traditional usage.
Forget Megatron, consider Soundwave. 50 foot tall robot to pocket cassette recorder? Nevermind Rumble, Ravage, Laserbeak, Buzzsaw, etc. he carried that were the size of humans or larger in robot mode, yet still had to shrink with Soundwave to individually be the size of a normal audio cassette! And still all be carried inside the tape deck together.
At least Perceptor transformed into a really big microscope most of the time.
easing censorship of "bad" websites
"[W]e must absolutely have some mechanism for assigning network capabilities to different users...."
Which is synonmous with "removing network capabilities from".
They know they want to restrict certain classes of users from being able to produce services and restore the imbalance of controlled producers and restricted consumers.
we must absolutely have some mechanism for assigning network capabilities to different users
Sorry, but the network capability of running a web server hasn't been assigned to you. You are blocked at the protocol layer.
Sounds like they don't want the Internet to be a network of ends anymore and control who can do what with the network. Nice experiment, this unrestricted free speech on the Internet, but we've decided we don't want you to have that. Be consumers, not producers.
That's a good question. How far can you experiment manner can you do until you're effectively experimenting upon a thinking being, a sentient being (in the sci-fi sense)? How close can you elevate a species to our thinking capacity before you must treat them as equals and no longer experiment? (The point where they launch an organized rebellion against you (Planet of the Apes) is a bit late.)
Not that I'm against animal experimentation. That's not where I want to take the discussion.
Let's just hope the experimental subjects don't look at the writing on their cages and comprehend.
Before people started installing LBA48 kernels in their TiVos, upgraders were buying 160 GB drives and formatting them to a 137 GB (128 GiB) to maximize their capacity. And some of them then added the remainder that was outside of the TiVo's access abilities as another partition to hold backup images, upgrading tools, and whatever else they wanted (23 GB is plenty of space).
This partition's presence in the partition table would not harm the TiVo's function as it would have no need to access the extra partition in its daily operations, so it would not be mounted.
It ensures that if you lose a bit here and there, there is enough redundant information spread around the damaged part to reconstruct the original data stream.
"Around the damaged part"? Haven't they learned the value of having off-site backups? They should be storing the redundant information half way around the disk.
the problem with regular CDRs is that if you bang them around enough the silver stuff (what the data is burned to) flakes off because it's not encased in the plastic.
All the better for when you really need to totally destroy the CD: rub steel wool over the label side until the disk is clear (apart from the scratches). Good luck trying to reconstruct any data from the remnants. Should be even more secure than using a CD shredder.
Where did this bizarre confusion come from anyway? I'm sure that these words were not confused with such regularity a year ago.
Once I thought it was a dialect issue, with some people pronouncing lose and loose identically, and then spread from there in text. This theory arose from the lyrics of a song where the lyric sheet said "loser" but the singer sung "looser".
I thought, teach them right: "Lose rhymes with use; loose rhymes with use," but that suffers ambiguity in the written word. So I went with the rhythmic, "If your use of lose and loose is loose you lose," though I have no measure of its effectiveness.
Unfortunately there's more to it than that. Look at other words similar to lose: arose, Bose, chose, close (both pron.), dose, expose, grandiose, hose, impose, juxtapose, morose, nose, oppose, prose, rose, suppose, those, transpose, verbose, all of them not pronounced the same way as "lose". Only "whose" matches "lose" (and often people prefer to incorrectly use the contraction "who's" instead for the possessive "whose"). (neither pronunciation of "close"), and you have the counter-example of choose.
"Lose" is a quite unique word, matching pronunciation and spelling with "whose", and still people don't know that the possessive of "who" is "whose" and not "who's". (No possessive form of any pronoun uses an apostrophe.)
Consider also the common misspelling of "tongue" as "tounge" like "lounge" as an example of a highly unique word getting misspelled by trying to make it conform.
(At least you don't see "luse" instead very often.)
When everyone is hooked on phonics, they don't learn the exceptions.
But it is not as recent a problem as only one year ago. It has been a widespread confusion on the net for well over a decade. And it exists outside the net. Try turning on closed captions for your local news. You'll often see "loose" there when the word should have been "lose".
"Affect" and "effect" are another pair of words that are often confused. So much though that I have to stop and think even when someone uses them correctly.
Hate to rob you of your innocence, but it's a lousy world in a lot of ways.
Yup, people don't know not to do things that would put them in fear for their lives anymore. Death is no longer an effective deterrant. (I.e. people haven't learned the lessons of not cutting people off in traffic, not blocking your fellow students' social advancement, being more selective over whom you date, and not suing over Linux.)
You know what that means? It means that when the case is finally over, the high court may well sentence SCO to TORTURE!
And just whose security are they talking about: ours or theirs?
The next revision will replicate all the artwork of a normal card (initially only American Express), will be voice activated, and will project a holographic avatar which will answer to the name Selma.
Sometime between the parent post and this post, someone finally got around to fixing it.
Is there any solution that does work with cable?
And just why would that be? Could it be that the cable companies use differing and incompatible proprietary signal standards for their digital channels and don't want to standardize on a single smartcard platform as mandated as it would cut out their hardware rental income and open up their all-digital DVR market to other all-digital DVR competition?
Except that there is enough power in the specification that would allow them to get even more creative.
The same scripting capabilities that are employed to prevent some disks from playing in a Region 0 player (RCE) can also be used to deny access to the main feature and menus until you've let all the ads play to completion.
They can even make it so that it isn't feasible to track-skip to the feature by using scripted branching which your player must interpret properly in order to view the feature. This would make ripping an even more difficult task.
They've barely begun using their arsenal against piracy.
Enter the M.A.N.T.I.S.?
By entering markets where the game has not yet reached, or branching out into new markets where it leverages its older monopoly power to seize new control.
An association between data is not a creation; it is a discovery. The relationship was always there, you only found it.
You might be able to patent the methodology used to make the discovery, or own a copyright on the tools used to make the discovery, but the discovery itself is nothing new. It is merely another fact built upon other facts.
I shall coin a paraphrase: "If we have been unable to see further than others, it is because we have been legislatively barred from standing on the shoulders of the corporate giants."
As long as what goes to courts is determined by who can afford to take it there, and the penalties continue to be excessive for the infringer, what is fair will always be at the whim of the accuser.
See the RIAA v. their customers.
You can now get a list of names that are associated with the color blue. That association is my creation. This new law would say that I own the association. It doesn't say that I own the names and colors.
Yet you suggest that you would now own the association "sky is [blue]".
Your associations are still just facts, which would be discoverable by anyone willing to put forth their own resources. You haven't created something new, only collected a bunch of facts to create new facts.
That you cannot copyright a collection of facts is because anyone else can collect them for themselves but be barred from sharing their independent collection for which they exerted their own efforts just because you got there first.
It's bringing the worst parts of patent law to bear in protection of databases.
First of all, it's not FACTS that are being copyrighted. It's databases. Yes, a database is a collection of facts -- but it's the concept of collection that's being protected here, not the concept of facts.
/usr/dict/words. Not even so much as providing definitions but rather just including every word.
Except copyright protection exists over a work both in whole and in part. As a whole it is the entire collection; but as parts they are again just facts. And fair use avoids declaring any specific fraction of any work as fair use.
If facts are akin to words, a database of facts is but
And certain facts are really big words. Like Disney claiming a copyright on supercalifragilisticespialidocious (they probably already have a trademark on it, but that's a digression). If a single fact is big enough, or important enough, you'd be sure someone would seek its individual protection as an illegal excerpt from their database.
What is considered fair is often at the whim of the rights holder, and only challenged if you can afford to do so. And still you need to check whether the political climate is conducive to doing so (see 2600 Magazine's DeCSS case).
Eat your food; don't spill it! (student stumbles in cafeteria)
Use alcohol to kill brain! (also kegger)
Freshman now has limited invincibility! (adrenaline rush or intoxication)
Save credits to open jobs! (registration)
Pleasure: 100 bucks! (campus prostitute)