It appears that there's a number of customers willing to pay a lot to be in possession of a lifelike replica of someone else's face or even their whole head...
1. Produce the original. 2. I am? Where? Did I mention Word at all? (No.)
Were I in charge of such a division, I would have a process put in place to guarantee that no information that was redacted could be found in the redacted copy before it was released. But then, you're just looking for a way to feel superior.
Considering I wouldn't have my current career if this guy had his way, I would just like to say a hearty "fuck you" to Francis Gurry and all that agree with him on this issue.
Yeah, I got the email as well. It's remarkably reasonable (at least as much as it can be with an opt-out system, and they wouldn't have bought the data if it was strictly opt-in because it wouldn't make business sense). Note that the section on how to opt-out is bolded in the original.
B&N already had my email so it's a moot point for me.
And all the variables are changed as well to have smaller names, like a, b, c, etc. Tell you what, let's do a test.
1. Grab minified jQuery. 2. Go to jsbeautifier.org and paste it in.
You'll get code that looks a little something like this:
function bZ(a, c, d) {
var e = a.contents,
f = a.dataTypes,
g = a.responseFields,
h, i, j, k;
for (i in g) i in d && (c[g[i]] = d[i]);
while (f[0] === "*") f.shift(), h === b && (h = a.mimeType || c.getResponseHeader("content-type"));
if (h) for (i in e) if (e[i] && e[i].test(h)) {
f.unshift(i);
break
}
}
You're so right, it's as clear as day.
I've been doing web development for more than a decade, I know what minified means.
Copying HTML 5 minified Javascript is likely to be about as useful as downloading and reverse engineering the SWF of a Flash game; which is to say, you can use it to duplicate the functionality, but it'll be damn hard to edit or understand.
Wow, really? You really consider the differences between Chrome and Chromium to be major changes? You're surprised that Adobe, which has always been a closed source company, wants to remain closed source with their plugins and are actually annoyed that Google worked with them to make them more stable for their browser?
We're not worried about not having control over Windows. We're worried that UEFI will get so entrenched in motherboard design that it will be difficult to obtain consumer-level motherboards that don't have UEFI pre-locked to Windows.
And as an aside, I don't think it's fair for the assembler to be able to exercise that level of control over a system I buy. Once I buy it, I should be able to do what I want with it.
The problem is the CEO is more or less the head of making decisions. So the first CEO ages back made the decision that CEOs should get a ton of money when they leave, regardless of the reason, the only way such a boneheaded policy can be removed is if the next CEO pushes for it. The problem is... where on earth do you find a CEO that will fight against giving himself money.
Replace CEO with politician and the same applies (which is also why you see the two interchange so often).
The nice thing about the Wii is that (per your analogy) A's checking of B was broken so we could insert our own second level code in the boot process. They fixed it in later generation consoles but since it was in ROM, earlier consoles are permanently vulnerable. It works both ways.
Slashdot Mirror
It appears that there's a number of customers willing to pay a lot to be in possession of a lifelike replica of someone else's face or even their whole head...
FTFY
I wouldn't use Word were I working on a Secret or higher level document. See my sibling post for more details. I don't respond to ad hominem.
1. Produce the original.
2. I am? Where? Did I mention Word at all? (No.)
Were I in charge of such a division, I would have a process put in place to guarantee that no information that was redacted could be found in the redacted copy before it was released. But then, you're just looking for a way to feel superior.
Or, y'know, replace the text with "[redacted]". If you black out the text, you're still giving away information on its length.
Nobody ever got fired for recommending IB^H^HMicrosoft.
Considering I wouldn't have my current career if this guy had his way, I would just like to say a hearty "fuck you" to Francis Gurry and all that agree with him on this issue.
News at eleven.
I'm sorry, that information is copyrighted.
Jetpacks for all!
You have been eaten by Darth Grue.
Yeah, I got the email as well. It's remarkably reasonable (at least as much as it can be with an opt-out system, and they wouldn't have bought the data if it was strictly opt-in because it wouldn't make business sense). Note that the section on how to opt-out is bolded in the original.
B&N already had my email so it's a moot point for me.
And all the variables are changed as well to have smaller names, like a, b, c, etc. Tell you what, let's do a test.
1. Grab minified jQuery.
2. Go to jsbeautifier.org and paste it in.
You'll get code that looks a little something like this:
function bZ(a, c, d) {
var e = a.contents,
f = a.dataTypes,
g = a.responseFields,
h, i, j, k;
for (i in g) i in d && (c[g[i]] = d[i]);
while (f[0] === "*") f.shift(), h === b && (h = a.mimeType || c.getResponseHeader("content-type"));
if (h) for (i in e) if (e[i] && e[i].test(h)) {
f.unshift(i);
break
}
}
You're so right, it's as clear as day.
I've been doing web development for more than a decade, I know what minified means.
Oh, the throttling they'll do to traffic they can't identify...
Your non-car analogy is strange and disturbing.
Sure, if you don't mind not having variable names and having to decrypt what everything means.
But then they'd identify you as the silly walk guy. :^P
On the note of Doctor Demento, have you ever considered a collaboration with Weird Al?
No worries, gait analysis will still get you.
Copying HTML 5 minified Javascript is likely to be about as useful as downloading and reverse engineering the SWF of a Flash game; which is to say, you can use it to duplicate the functionality, but it'll be damn hard to edit or understand.
And if the manufacturer disables the ability to turn off Secure Boot due to terms in their distribution agreement with Microsoft, what then?
Wow, really? You really consider the differences between Chrome and Chromium to be major changes? You're surprised that Adobe, which has always been a closed source company, wants to remain closed source with their plugins and are actually annoyed that Google worked with them to make them more stable for their browser?
Can I get you some cheese with that whine?
We're not worried about not having control over Windows. We're worried that UEFI will get so entrenched in motherboard design that it will be difficult to obtain consumer-level motherboards that don't have UEFI pre-locked to Windows.
And as an aside, I don't think it's fair for the assembler to be able to exercise that level of control over a system I buy. Once I buy it, I should be able to do what I want with it.
Mr. Fusion by 2015!
Replace CEO with politician and the same applies (which is also why you see the two interchange so often).
The nice thing about the Wii is that (per your analogy) A's checking of B was broken so we could insert our own second level code in the boot process. They fixed it in later generation consoles but since it was in ROM, earlier consoles are permanently vulnerable. It works both ways.