They want to make an example of McKinnon. Mess with the government and you'll spend the rest of your life in prison. Screwing with banks? Cause financial damage? Yeah, we'll give you hell for it. But screw with the government. Oh, you are SO going down. Never mind that it's already been established that security on U.S. government systems is horribly inept to the point of being almost ridiculous.
Those with faith in their security don't need to make examples and thus rarely do.
It's the ones who can't sleep at night because they know a kid with a Cap'n Crunch whistle can walk right into and own the joint that feel they must resort to instilling fear into their would be 'attackers'. After all, if the walls can't keep you out, maybe the knowledge of what will happen to you when we catch up to you will.
As someone who lived through the rise of Microsoft, the only people I remember 'loving' them were their stockholders.
Then again, my first computer was a Timex Sinclair ZX81, my next an Atari 520 ST, and I used Mac's in college because the PC's didn't even have a hard drive.
The primary difference, and the reason I don't expect Google to become the next Microsoft, is Larry and Sergey have never come off as arseholes IMO. While Bill Gates always acted like one IMO.
The founders of a company may not control it's every decision, but they do have a huge influence over its actions and the culture that forms around it. Bill G. has always been of the old school robber baron, pull every nasty trick you can to get ahead, philosophy. And that level of dickweedness is exactly why most people who hate Microsoft today, hate it.
That isn't to say that Google is perfect, or never makes mistakes or decisions that aren't solely for the purpose of its own gain. When you look at the rational complaints people have about Google, it's less "OMG they are teh eViL!" and more "Microsoft has made me paranoid! Google could do something bad with this! Do not want!"
The rendering engine is based on Webkit, which is the same engine Safari (Apple's dog in this 'fight') uses, which was based on the KHTML engine built by the KDE group for their browser, Konqueror. KHTML was orginally based on khtmlw, which was the previous HTML library for KDE.
In other words, yes, they built their's on the shoulders of others.
The JavaScript engine is custom built code called V8, designed by a Google team in Denmark.
Hmm, given overly is defined as "To an excessive degree" in the three online dictionaries I looked at, I'm not certain I would agree that excessively would be more correct as much as just an alternative.
However, there is an arguement that Slashdot is not the realm of the overly pedantic as much as it is a realm infested with the same. After all, "realm of" implies a measure of control or 'rulership', and as we've all seen Slashdot's editors are far from pedantic.
And that's only a small selection of the articles and discussions. I think the thing you are missing is the same thing many miss but the poster I was actually replying to pointed out:
Few actually follow the tenets of their religion in all matters. Regardless of what our upbringing tells us, we can and often do act or believe in a manner contrary to it.
However, I believe my point still stands. The vast majority of established religions include the idea that it is our responsibility (for whatever reason as my "summarily wiped out" comment was factiousness) to use and preserve the resources of this world.
As long as they don't cannibalize the installed Firefox base to build their own, it's not an attack. On the other hand, if 90% of the people who install Chrome are the ones who would have gone Firefox anyway, and the rest still mope around with IE, then it's an attack. Intended or not.
...just because she believes in a deity who will end the world you assume she also believes that deity put us in charge of taking care of the earth? I know this is Slashdot, but don't put everyone who believes in a God or Gods into a single group please...
Pretty much every established religion I know of sets forward the premise that one of our obligations for not being wiped off the planet summarily is being the caretakers.
The various Abrahamic, the Dharmic, and the Taoic religions all present the idea in one form or the other.
I know this is Slashdot, the realm of the overly pedantic, but please try not to have such a hair trigger. It was a valid assumption to make.
Would be funny if it wasn't true - my mother-in-law just told me that global warming doesn't matter because when the world ends it will be an act of God and there will be nothing we can do about it anyway. The implications of this worldview are frightening.
The real sad part is, if she truely believed that then she would also believe/realize that we've been charged by God to be stewards of the land till that time. In other words, we should still care because he'll be taking it out of our security deposit.
Sure, as Peter Schiff says, it's fine when you jump off the top of a large building, you get to the 40th floor and say "everything's fine!". You get to the 30th floor and say "everything's fine!". Eventually you hit the pavement in front of the building.
If you are falling, what's the point of looking down? The moment before you jumped was the point in time you should be worried about.
Again though, I'm not saying "Horray! This is great, lets throw a toga party!" Just that you reach the limits of credibility by comparing current events to the history of the Roman empire or attempting to draw connections between the two to 'prove' our demise is on the way.
I remember the same thoughts being shared with me in 98. And in 88, and in 78. What people forget is Rome 'fell' for a very, very long time and 'fell' for a number of reasons.
No, this isn't a great development. But there should be some corollary to Godwin's that covers comparing stuff to the "Fall of the Roman Empire".
The Chinese government now is arguably less oppressive than it was under Mao, and the Chinese people are experiencing greater economic growth than they have for decades. Why on Earth would they want to start a revolution now? Compared to the way it was, China is a utopia these days.
Not saying they would, but the easy answer is the exact same statement. The people there have learned that there is something better, and they can learn to desire it. Why would they willingly allow themselves to be forced back under a more oppressive regime if they could help it?
The fan has been coated with several layers of excrement in China for a long time now. And for the most part, no one has really noticed. They don't need to shut anything down for that, because the only people who have access to the internet are the ones who aren't dealing with the famines and abject poverty.
This is purely about control and the fact that the Chinese government shuts down anything they don't feel they can control.
I too was addicted to the Atari. Both the 2600 and later the ST when we had one. But for me it was always the deeply held belief that if I could just last a bit longer, I might reach the end. Or at least 'something special' would happen.
I wanted to beat Pitfall. I wanted to see if there was an end to River Raid.
Cosmic Ark, Riddle of the Sphinx, the Swordquest games. These all surely had to have some sort of ending... and I wanted to know what it was. The 'stories' that came with the games certainly implied they did.
Of course, when the ST came along many of those games actually had endings. But I still wanted to see how deep the game went. I played Dungeon Master for months, well after my party had gotten to the end and trapped Lord Chaos. I ran them daily and repeatidly up and down the dungeon from the level that had reliably spawning 'food' creatures and water to the levels where monsters that could actually be leveled against were. And I did it simply because I wanted to see if anything happened if you leveled your party up to "ArchMaster" in every class. After all, according to the novella that came with the game, that's what the Grey Lord was. So what would happen if my party got to that level?
That's a bit of what's missing in today's games. Yes, they all have some sort of depth. But there is very little 'side story' depth to them.
Atari probably should have created a separate business division with its own separate identity as Commodore did.
They did, in 1984. Atari Games and Atari Corporation.
The real problem with Atari as a computer maker is that Atari Corporation was run by Jack Trameil (also known for being the guy who brought us the PET, C64) who wanted to use it to bludgeon his old company for getting rid of him.
The original Atari has been dead and buried for a long time now.
Atari is a corporate and brand name owned by several entities since its inception in 1972. It is currently owned by Atari Interactive, a wholly owned subsidiary of the French publisher Infogrames Entertainment SA (IESA).[1]Atari Interactive has in turn licensed the brand name and assets to Atari, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATAR), a 51% majority owned subsidiary of Infogrames Entertainment SA (IESA), encompassing its North American operations.
The original Atari Inc. was founded in 1972 by Nolan Bushnell and Ted Dabney. It was a pioneer in arcade games, home video game consoles, and home computers. The company's products, such as Pong and the Atari 2600, helped define the computer entertainment industry from the 1970s to the mid 1980s.
In 1984, the original Atari Inc. was split, and the arcade division was turned into Atari Games Inc..Atari Games received the rights to use the logo and brand name with appended text "Games" on arcade games, as well as rights to the original 1972 - 1984 arcade hardware properties. The Atari Consumer Electronics Division properties were in turn sold to Jack Tramiel's Tramel Technology Ltd., which then renamed itself to Atari Corporation. In 1996, Atari Corporation reverse merged with disk drive manufacturer JT Storage (JTS), becoming a division within the company.
Atari Interactive started as a subsidiary of Hasbro Interactive, after Hasbro Interactive acquired all Atari Corporation related properties from JTS in 1998.IESA in turn acquired Hasbro Interactive in 2001, and proceeded to rename it to Infogrames Interactive. In 2003, IESA then changed the company name entirely to Atari Interactive.
The company that currently bears the name Atari Inc. was founded in 1993 under the name GT Interactive. IESA acquired a 62% controlling interest in GT Interactive in 1999, and proceeded to rename it Infogrames, Inc. After IESA's acquirement of Hasbro Interactive and its related Atari properties in 2001, Infogrames, Inc. intermittently published Atari branded titles for Infogrames Interactive. In 2003, Infogrames Inc. licensed the Atari name and logo from Atari Interactive and changed its name to Atari Inc. Currently, Atari Inc. develops, publishes and distributes games for all major video game consoles, as well as for the personal computer, and is currently one of the largest third-party publishers of video games in the United States.
The current "Atari" is actually a company that used to be known as Infogrames and mostly changed their name to get out from under their rep of being purveyors of crap.
Speaking of subjectivity, this summary is rife with it. Even though I agree 100% with it, I would prefer my news fed to me in the form of low grade homogeneous neutral gruel. I know it's more boring to read that way but it allows me, the reader, to form my own opinions
Let me highlight something in the summary I believe you missed.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "US District Judge Jeremy Fogel has ruled that an 'allegation that a copyright owner acted in bad faith by issuing a takedown notice without proper consideration...
Did you notice it this time? The submitter's name?
I expect objectivity from people claiming to be objective. When someone who states up front they have an agenda; I expect an agenda. That isn't duplicitous.
With enough exposure to non-human reactions, you pitiful humans lose your sensitivity to this. Why do you think we gave the world Anime and GTA. By the time our warriors have reached your planet, you will be ripe for.... *ahem*
I mean, of course, you are right my fellow human. We could easily see through such disguises. Come let us enjoy a chilled liquid at the local poison dispensary together.
Except (at least in general) I don't think we've seen anyone get to the other side of that valley. We've seen plenty of people who get 'side show attraction' labels, but no "yeah, he's all right" labels.
Slashdot Mirror
Those with faith in their security don't need to make examples and thus rarely do.
It's the ones who can't sleep at night because they know a kid with a Cap'n Crunch whistle can walk right into and own the joint that feel they must resort to instilling fear into their would be 'attackers'. After all, if the walls can't keep you out, maybe the knowledge of what will happen to you when we catch up to you will.
Works for organized crime, doesn't it?
Let all wait and see.
As someone who lived through the rise of Microsoft, the only people I remember 'loving' them were their stockholders.
Then again, my first computer was a Timex Sinclair ZX81, my next an Atari 520 ST, and I used Mac's in college because the PC's didn't even have a hard drive.
The primary difference, and the reason I don't expect Google to become the next Microsoft, is Larry and Sergey have never come off as arseholes IMO. While Bill Gates always acted like one IMO.
The founders of a company may not control it's every decision, but they do have a huge influence over its actions and the culture that forms around it. Bill G. has always been of the old school robber baron, pull every nasty trick you can to get ahead, philosophy. And that level of dickweedness is exactly why most people who hate Microsoft today, hate it.
That isn't to say that Google is perfect, or never makes mistakes or decisions that aren't solely for the purpose of its own gain. When you look at the rational complaints people have about Google, it's less "OMG they are teh eViL!" and more "Microsoft has made me paranoid! Google could do something bad with this! Do not want!"
The rendering engine is based on Webkit, which is the same engine Safari (Apple's dog in this 'fight') uses, which was based on the KHTML engine built by the KDE group for their browser, Konqueror. KHTML was orginally based on khtmlw, which was the previous HTML library for KDE.
In other words, yes, they built their's on the shoulders of others.
The JavaScript engine is custom built code called V8, designed by a Google team in Denmark.
Hmm, given overly is defined as "To an excessive degree" in the three online dictionaries I looked at, I'm not certain I would agree that excessively would be more correct as much as just an alternative.
However, there is an arguement that Slashdot is not the realm of the overly pedantic as much as it is a realm infested with the same. After all, "realm of" implies a measure of control or 'rulership', and as we've all seen Slashdot's editors are far from pedantic.
Taoism and the Environment
Bhudism and the Envirnment
Islam and the Environment
Christianity and the Environment
And that's only a small selection of the articles and discussions. I think the thing you are missing is the same thing many miss but the poster I was actually replying to pointed out:
Few actually follow the tenets of their religion in all matters. Regardless of what our upbringing tells us, we can and often do act or believe in a manner contrary to it .
However, I believe my point still stands. The vast majority of established religions include the idea that it is our responsibility (for whatever reason as my "summarily wiped out" comment was factiousness) to use and preserve the resources of this world.
This is the first and only book I've ever regretted buying: The Guardsman.
Compared to it, SOTR sounds like just your average wannabe blog writer's vanity book.
Read this, and then decide if you really want to be greedy and take the risk or take the high road and just attempt to recoup your costs.
If you are going to be greedy, prepare and talk to a lawyer.
As long as they don't cannibalize the installed Firefox base to build their own, it's not an attack. On the other hand, if 90% of the people who install Chrome are the ones who would have gone Firefox anyway, and the rest still mope around with IE, then it's an attack. Intended or not.
Pretty much every established religion I know of sets forward the premise that one of our obligations for not being wiped off the planet summarily is being the caretakers.
The various Abrahamic, the Dharmic, and the Taoic religions all present the idea in one form or the other.
I know this is Slashdot, the realm of the overly pedantic, but please try not to have such a hair trigger. It was a valid assumption to make.
The real sad part is, if she truely believed that then she would also believe/realize that we've been charged by God to be stewards of the land till that time. In other words, we should still care because he'll be taking it out of our security deposit.
gmail also ignores periods.
this.is.an.example@gmail.com is the same as th.is.isan.example@gmail.com or thisisanexample@gmail.com.
You can still salt without needing a +
*eye roll*
Yes. Yes that is exactly what I said. Bravo. Way to build a strawman! Would you like me to go find a nice pair of overalls to dress him in?
If you are falling, what's the point of looking down? The moment before you jumped was the point in time you should be worried about.
Again though, I'm not saying "Horray! This is great, lets throw a toga party!" Just that you reach the limits of credibility by comparing current events to the history of the Roman empire or attempting to draw connections between the two to 'prove' our demise is on the way.
I remember the same thoughts being shared with me in 98. And in 88, and in 78. What people forget is Rome 'fell' for a very, very long time and 'fell' for a number of reasons.
No, this isn't a great development. But there should be some corollary to Godwin's that covers comparing stuff to the "Fall of the Roman Empire".
You should talk to Ellen Feiss. I'm sure she could shed some light into the advantages of being baked while using a computer.
Not saying they would, but the easy answer is the exact same statement. The people there have learned that there is something better, and they can learn to desire it. Why would they willingly allow themselves to be forced back under a more oppressive regime if they could help it?
The fan has been coated with several layers of excrement in China for a long time now. And for the most part, no one has really noticed. They don't need to shut anything down for that, because the only people who have access to the internet are the ones who aren't dealing with the famines and abject poverty.
This is purely about control and the fact that the Chinese government shuts down anything they don't feel they can control.
I too was addicted to the Atari. Both the 2600 and later the ST when we had one. But for me it was always the deeply held belief that if I could just last a bit longer, I might reach the end. Or at least 'something special' would happen.
I wanted to beat Pitfall. I wanted to see if there was an end to River Raid.
Cosmic Ark, Riddle of the Sphinx, the Swordquest games. These all surely had to have some sort of ending... and I wanted to know what it was. The 'stories' that came with the games certainly implied they did.
Of course, when the ST came along many of those games actually had endings. But I still wanted to see how deep the game went. I played Dungeon Master for months, well after my party had gotten to the end and trapped Lord Chaos. I ran them daily and repeatidly up and down the dungeon from the level that had reliably spawning 'food' creatures and water to the levels where monsters that could actually be leveled against were. And I did it simply because I wanted to see if anything happened if you leveled your party up to "ArchMaster" in every class. After all, according to the novella that came with the game, that's what the Grey Lord was. So what would happen if my party got to that level?
That's a bit of what's missing in today's games. Yes, they all have some sort of depth. But there is very little 'side story' depth to them.
They did, in 1984. Atari Games and Atari Corporation.
The real problem with Atari as a computer maker is that Atari Corporation was run by Jack Trameil (also known for being the guy who brought us the PET, C64) who wanted to use it to bludgeon his old company for getting rid of him.
The original Atari has been dead and buried for a long time now.
The current "Atari" is actually a company that used to be known as Infogrames and mostly changed their name to get out from under their rep of being purveyors of crap.
Let me highlight something in the summary I believe you missed.
Did you notice it this time? The submitter's name?
I expect objectivity from people claiming to be objective. When someone who states up front they have an agenda; I expect an agenda. That isn't duplicitous.
For some reason I thought he was a Supreme Court Justice.
With enough exposure to non-human reactions, you pitiful humans lose your sensitivity to this. Why do you think we gave the world Anime and GTA. By the time our warriors have reached your planet, you will be ripe for.... *ahem*
I mean, of course, you are right my fellow human. We could easily see through such disguises. Come let us enjoy a chilled liquid at the local poison dispensary together.
Except (at least in general) I don't think we've seen anyone get to the other side of that valley. We've seen plenty of people who get 'side show attraction' labels, but no "yeah, he's all right" labels.