Except they don't suffer nearly as much as the ISPs spending buku bucks on bandwidth to carry the viruses... and the poor sysadmins trying to save their POP3/SMTP servers from the crapflooding.
Seems that this thing fakes e-mail addresses as well. Got several complaints that I was sending viruses, but of course that's absurd, as I am running GNU/Linux. I can only guess that picks an e-mail address at random from some list (address book, mayhaps?) and says it comes from there.
That's all very nice, but why should I believe this? Don't mean to flame myself, but could it be that anti-Debian posts are -1ed simply due to the leanings of the community, and not due to the editors? I am not saying it isn't true, either, but rather that as it stands now, it's a "he said, she said."
Besides, wouldn't be a bit of a hassle to manually close threads like that?
Problem is, a "byte-sized" article would be one-half of a Unicode character, or shorter than all but two words in the English language. Not probably a constructive article.
However, this causes a problem if the corporations work together to surpress speech that opposes them, whilst allowing that which supports them. Here, we have the same dilema that afflicts gov't with an extra wrinkle: it's private property. However, there is a solution, and one that is often ignored. A corporation is not a person, and has no inherent rights as such. Thus, a corporation may be restricted in its speech, up to and including forcing it to allow speech it does not support. This has problems, yes, but then no one said this was an easy issue.
Not the same thing. You can actively choose to browse/., at 0 or -1, thus enabling. You can even, if you have mod points, change the rating of a given post. This is much more akin to someone putting up posters over someone elses: you can look underneath if you wish to take the time. Close to censorship? Yes, but not the same thing.
Not quite.
It's a freedom thing. The First Ammendment does not give you freedom of speech, but recognizes it in a limited fashion. Likewise, a corporation poses many of the same threats now that a government did when the 1A was drafted, leading me to believe that perhaps the government ought to recognize the freedom of speech in a broader fashion- that is, one which recognizes private relationships as well.
Frankly, I don't. Disney is making a big mistake, and this will most likely, while not bringing about an end to Disney, open up the market for many other animation studios such as the aforementioned Legacy Studios. Indeed, Pixar succeeded because they knew how to make a good story, and good characters, and to use the medium. While I don't think that 3-D CG is inherently better (or worse), I do think that variety is important, and that using the appropiate medium for the appropiate story is crucial. Toy Story, for instance, was wonderful, not just because of the lovable characters, but because the quirks of CG lend themselves to doing well at rendering plastic-y models. FF:TSW was wonderful because the CG animation let them paint a world that was at once real and surreal, and to pull off effects that would be damn near impossible otherwise (the Phantoms for instance...).
In short, it seems to me that Disney is shooting themselves in the foot by reducing the available avenues for them to express themselves through, and that this will open up for more creative studios to finally grab the market.
Just because everyone else jumped off the cliff, will you too? Really, this is simply setting yet another precedent of invasion of one's privacy when ever "security" or "crime" is involved. This, as mentioned before, can be defeated easily. Use other versions, use the GIMP, whatever. So why do this? I wasn't aware that counterfeiting was such a major problem these days, anyway. I mean with pens that can check any questionable bill, and the amazing level of complexity to the ink that the US uses (color-changing and all), to say nothing of band running through the bills and of microprinting, is it even nessasary? Just one more layer of invasion to attempt to, and fail, to fix a problem that isn't really too big of a problem.
Ya know, this isn't just Knoppix. People would bring in Dreamcasts with custom boot CDs, hook them up to the network, and walk away. The DC would blast a hole in the firewall, and let the hacker in.
Despite of this obvious threat, Dreamcasts were not banned, nor made to implement stronger security measures. Why? Because if any device on a network, w/o a password or any type of authorization other than its physical location can destroy a firewall, then the network itself has larger problems to deal with. To me, this calls into question the assumption of trusted devices. In short, Knoppix cannot forsee it's use, thus placing the burden on those who create and administer networks to do so in a safe and responsible manner.
At college we have some poorly run lab computers (most labs were run beautifully, except this one) that had one login account for everyone on the system. Some punk changed the password, so I just popped in Knoppix and surfed the Net that way w/o losing sleep over the insolent fool. Chalk up another win for Knoppix.
you can buy american, let the MPAA get their membership fee, and fund terrorism. You know, you pay US taxes on many imports, too. Oh, you meant the MPAA fee funds terrorism...
Of course, the same argument can be made for many things. I have the same feeling about American cars... you're likely to have a Ford or GM last 5 years. Now, before everyone floods me about how "my truck has been around for 40 years," let me pre-emptively defend myself: 1) trucks are a little bit different still, 2) there are always exceptions (I have a friend who loves his CyberHome brand DVD player) and 3) well, 20 or 40 years is a long time removed from now.
Getting back OT, it seems like the parent poster is right on, but I would extend this argument to a much larger scope of problems, and one that doesn't just affect China, but all nations.
Not exactly. Consider that VoIP requires, by nessesity, an IP network such as the Internet. Currently, this IP network exists in most homes by one of several methods: dial-up, cable or DSL. In two of those three cases, it is the POTS provider (telco) that enables VoIP, and in the third, it's a cable provider. In all of these cases, the IP provider has a natural monopoly. Thus, while the VoIP service itself may not be a natural monopoly, the prerequisites generally are.
Just because it defaults to 1956 doesn't mean that's the zero point... don't know why they'd have chosen that date in particular as the default date, but I see no reason why it would have to default to the zero point.
Wasn't CAN-SPAM meant to help spammers? I mean, it had loopholes large enough to fly a 747 through, for Christ's sakes.... so why is he complaining?
Re:XForms look very interesting, but ...
on
XForms Essentials
·
· Score: 1
I care not up until Mozilla Firebird and Mozilla support it. Then I'll start caring. As a web designer who does all personal stuff, I have the luxury of sticking to W3C standards all the way, and if Mozilla is the only one that supports them, then that's what I'll use. For the same reason, I haven't worked to hard on XUL. Not that it isn't great for what it's designed for, but I won't use XUL on a web page, shutting out fully compliant browsers (after all, XUL isn't W3C!).
Slashdot Mirror
Except they don't suffer nearly as much as the ISPs spending buku bucks on bandwidth to carry the viruses... and the poor sysadmins trying to save their POP3/SMTP servers from the crapflooding.
Seems that this thing fakes e-mail addresses as well. Got several complaints that I was sending viruses, but of course that's absurd, as I am running GNU/Linux. I can only guess that picks an e-mail address at random from some list (address book, mayhaps?) and says it comes from there.
That's all very nice, but why should I believe this? Don't mean to flame myself, but could it be that anti-Debian posts are -1ed simply due to the leanings of the community, and not due to the editors? I am not saying it isn't true, either, but rather that as it stands now, it's a "he said, she said."
Besides, wouldn't be a bit of a hassle to manually close threads like that?
Problem is, a "byte-sized" article would be one-half of a Unicode character, or shorter than all but two words in the English language. Not probably a constructive article.
However, this causes a problem if the corporations work together to surpress speech that opposes them, whilst allowing that which supports them. Here, we have the same dilema that afflicts gov't with an extra wrinkle: it's private property. However, there is a solution, and one that is often ignored. A corporation is not a person, and has no inherent rights as such. Thus, a corporation may be restricted in its speech, up to and including forcing it to allow speech it does not support. This has problems, yes, but then no one said this was an easy issue.
Not the same thing. You can actively choose to browse /., at 0 or -1, thus enabling. You can even, if you have mod points, change the rating of a given post. This is much more akin to someone putting up posters over someone elses: you can look underneath if you wish to take the time. Close to censorship? Yes, but not the same thing.
Not quite.
It's a freedom thing. The First Ammendment does not give you freedom of speech, but recognizes it in a limited fashion. Likewise, a corporation poses many of the same threats now that a government did when the 1A was drafted, leading me to believe that perhaps the government ought to recognize the freedom of speech in a broader fashion- that is, one which recognizes private relationships as well.
Frankly, I don't. Disney is making a big mistake, and this will most likely, while not bringing about an end to Disney, open up the market for many other animation studios such as the aforementioned Legacy Studios.
Indeed, Pixar succeeded because they knew how to make a good story, and good characters, and to use the medium. While I don't think that 3-D CG is inherently better (or worse), I do think that variety is important, and that using the appropiate medium for the appropiate story is crucial.
Toy Story, for instance, was wonderful, not just because of the lovable characters, but because the quirks of CG lend themselves to doing well at rendering plastic-y models. FF:TSW was wonderful because the CG animation let them paint a world that was at once real and surreal, and to pull off effects that would be damn near impossible otherwise (the Phantoms for instance...).
In short, it seems to me that Disney is shooting themselves in the foot by reducing the available avenues for them to express themselves through, and that this will open up for more creative studios to finally grab the market.
Unless we are so evil as to not click the ads, in which case we just /.ed not only jrrtolkien.com, but also their crummy adservers.
Somehow the juxtaposition of your post and the ad (in your .sig) for Discordianism seems just and appropiate.
Screw that. Vote off the winners!
Just because everyone else jumped off the cliff, will you too?
Really, this is simply setting yet another precedent of invasion of one's privacy when ever "security" or "crime" is involved. This, as mentioned before, can be defeated easily. Use other versions, use the GIMP, whatever. So why do this? I wasn't aware that counterfeiting was such a major problem these days, anyway. I mean with pens that can check any questionable bill, and the amazing level of complexity to the ink that the US uses (color-changing and all), to say nothing of band running through the bills and of microprinting, is it even nessasary? Just one more layer of invasion to attempt to, and fail, to fix a problem that isn't really too big of a problem.
Hell, why bother? You'd need a picture of the money to compare against, right? Just hack PSCS and get the money image from there!
Ya know, this isn't just Knoppix. People would bring in Dreamcasts with custom boot CDs, hook them up to the network, and walk away. The DC would blast a hole in the firewall, and let the hacker in.
Despite of this obvious threat, Dreamcasts were not banned, nor made to implement stronger security measures. Why? Because if any device on a network, w/o a password or any type of authorization other than its physical location can destroy a firewall, then the network itself has larger problems to deal with. To me, this calls into question the assumption of trusted devices. In short, Knoppix cannot forsee it's use, thus placing the burden on those who create and administer networks to do so in a safe and responsible manner.
At college we have some poorly run lab computers (most labs were run beautifully, except this one) that had one login account for everyone on the system. Some punk changed the password, so I just popped in Knoppix and surfed the Net that way w/o losing sleep over the insolent fool. Chalk up another win for Knoppix.
Knoppix saves, too, you know.
Guess that means there's more than one way, eh?
you can buy american, let the MPAA get their membership fee, and fund terrorism.
You know, you pay US taxes on many imports, too. Oh, you meant the MPAA fee funds terrorism...
Of course, the same argument can be made for many things. I have the same feeling about American cars... you're likely to have a Ford or GM last 5 years. Now, before everyone floods me about how "my truck has been around for 40 years," let me pre-emptively defend myself: 1) trucks are a little bit different still, 2) there are always exceptions (I have a friend who loves his CyberHome brand DVD player) and 3) well, 20 or 40 years is a long time removed from now.
Getting back OT, it seems like the parent poster is right on, but I would extend this argument to a much larger scope of problems, and one that doesn't just affect China, but all nations.
I would say ChuChu Rocket, but it's too violent... the KapuKapus eat the ChuChus!
Not exactly. Consider that VoIP requires, by nessesity, an IP network such as the Internet. Currently, this IP network exists in most homes by one of several methods: dial-up, cable or DSL. In two of those three cases, it is the POTS provider (telco) that enables VoIP, and in the third, it's a cable provider. In all of these cases, the IP provider has a natural monopoly. Thus, while the VoIP service itself may not be a natural monopoly, the prerequisites generally are.
Just because it defaults to 1956 doesn't mean that's the zero point... don't know why they'd have chosen that date in particular as the default date, but I see no reason why it would have to default to the zero point.
Note that the other nine ways also end in "and post it on /."...
Wasn't CAN-SPAM meant to help spammers? I mean, it had loopholes large enough to fly a 747 through, for Christ's sakes.... so why is he complaining?
I care not up until Mozilla Firebird and Mozilla support it. Then I'll start caring. As a web designer who does all personal stuff, I have the luxury of sticking to W3C standards all the way, and if Mozilla is the only one that supports them, then that's what I'll use. For the same reason, I haven't worked to hard on XUL. Not that it isn't great for what it's designed for, but I won't use XUL on a web page, shutting out fully compliant browsers (after all, XUL isn't W3C!).
I suppose it'd be easier to find the former, were he to make an insanely large trip as this... in lieu of that, what's a NORAD to do?