The mere fact that IE doesn't prevent the display of hundreds of "install this extension" dialogs is a security hole. How many users accidentally click yes if even one is displayed (the yes and no buttons on many dialogs are frequently reversed) and how many click yes just to get rid of the hundreds that may pop up when under attack?
The First Amendment doesn't prevent the government from doing things that are against the religion of any individual, it prohibits the government from compelling or prohibiting an individual to do or from doing something against or required by their religion (usually). To restrict government action to that subset of actions consistent with all religions would be a de facto establishment of those religions' views as laws on par with the Constitution. This is not only contrary to the First Amendment, I think it would be abhorrent to most people of faith, not to mention those of reason.
No, don't you realize that it's left-wing drivel because the poster fancies himself as some sort of paragon of right-wing virtue and, since he disagrees with something he seems to have read into the commentary, it must be left-wing drivel.
More users will undoubtedly increase its visibility as a malware target. However, the design of the program (limiting extension installation being a big part of security) and the fact that it is not so tightly integrated with windows as to make it a conduit for the exploitation of unrelated flaws in the underlying operating system should make it a more secure browser than IE regardless of the size of its user base.
Of course soap operas are protected speech, otherwise they could be banned entirely like obscenity and child pornography. Simply because they are not absolutely protected does not mean that they are not protected at all. And the reason speech that can kill is prohibited is not because of the speech component, but because of the action component. It doesn't matter if I yell "fire" in a crowded theater or if I yell "free pr0n" on slashdot. The content of the speech is irrelevant to the prohibition, which is not on saying certain things, but on saying things that have a certain result. When you understand the content based/content neutral distinction, come back and try again.
The government does not have the right to squash political speech. Desparate Housewives is not political speech.
Go read the First Amendment again. It says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." It is absolute in its prohibition and unlimited in the types of speech it protects. Now, the Court has not always been so generous in its interpretation of that Amendment, but it has consistently stated that more than simply political speech is protected.
Coincidence ... or something more?
on
Adieu to Ken Jennings
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Nightline ran a special on Ken's loss tonight and, who should be the sponsor at the first station break? FedEx, of course!
why anti-competitive intent would have any bearing on a patent suit? Aren't patents intended as monopolies that will be used, at least in many cases, anti-competitively?
Gentoo does something similar where ebuilds are "masked" until it is known that they will compile properly and coexist with the rest of the system. Dependencies can also be specified with comparators such as = and so forth to ensure that a newer version of a dependency won't be installed (or will be slotted if possible) if it will break something.
The stage tarballs themselves, iirc, are pretty small. If you use stage 3 there should be enough to alllow you to emerge bittorrent if it isn't on the livecd already and then use it to get the GRP or whatever other CDs you want.
Not really, I did that a few months back when I switched to gcc34 and did emerge -e world, didn't notice much difference. Just keep gcc33 around and eventually most packages will recompile during the normal update process with gcc34. Now, I'm not using an AMD64 though, so you have to decide whether whatever improvements have been made in gcc34 are worth doing it all over again.
so just link/etc/make.profile to the new profile in/usr/portage/profiles and emerge -uD world. It's not like you have to recompile the entire system from stage1.
I wish I could agree with your sentiment. But the Bush Administration has consistently shown that it has only two masters: corporations and biblethumpers. This Administration has consistently used all available machinery of the Federal Government to support the extension of the control religious institutions already weild into virtually every area of our lives. Don't like the fact that your tax dollars are going to support religious schools, too bad, work harder until you're in a tax bracket Bush thinks shouldn't be taxed (namely, his). Don't like the fact that your tax dollars are going to support religious organizations attempting to convert captive audiences under the guise of "faith-based" social welfare initiatives, too bad, Bush has a "mandate" from those fundamentalist wackos. I've never been one to think that the First Amendment should prevent any miscegenation between church and state, but that idea is looking more and more appealing as sectarian forces gain significantly more influence over the machinery of government.
Generally true, yes. However, there is also a concept known as "piercing the corporate veil" which allows a stakeholder, usually a director or officer, but potentially a dominant shareholder, especially in closely held corporations, to be held liable for misdeeds of the company on the theory that the stakeholder and the company were indistinguishable in the eyes of the law.
One, how do you know I'm not a Windows user? Two, where did I try to sweep any Linux problems under the rug? I didn't. I simply pointed out that the problem he was referring to was a Windows problem and not a Firefox problem. It was a nifty attempt at poking holes in the competitor's mindshare though.
Exactly. When was this interview done that he had just installed the shell exploit fix that morning? Besides, that's a fix for a *Windows* problem and he should be more concerned with fixing it than making hay about someone else's patch for their problem.
It is necessary that you communicate your assent or take actions which reasonably convey the appearance that you assent. Taking the walking on Mars example from before, if you walk on Mars that is action indicating your assent to the terms (and, indeed, performance of your part of the contract). There is no requirement that the offeror be aware of your acceptance unless such a requirement is part of the offer.
Are you talking about artists or executives when you cite those numbers? I'm sure you could say that, when looking at employees, the automotive industry, for example, donates more to Democrats than Republicans, but I somehow doubt the distribution is the same at the upper ranks of management.
If you don't have a clue what you're talking about, keep your damn mouth shut. Sony made the Betamax and was sued by Universal Studios. Also, it was the Supreme Court, nine Justices, not one judge, who ruled that technolgies that have "significant non-infringing uses" cannot result in contributory or vicarious liability for copyright infringement against their manufacturers.
Slashdot Mirror
The mere fact that IE doesn't prevent the display of hundreds of "install this extension" dialogs is a security hole. How many users accidentally click yes if even one is displayed (the yes and no buttons on many dialogs are frequently reversed) and how many click yes just to get rid of the hundreds that may pop up when under attack?
The First Amendment doesn't prevent the government from doing things that are against the religion of any individual, it prohibits the government from compelling or prohibiting an individual to do or from doing something against or required by their religion (usually). To restrict government action to that subset of actions consistent with all religions would be a de facto establishment of those religions' views as laws on par with the Constitution. This is not only contrary to the First Amendment, I think it would be abhorrent to most people of faith, not to mention those of reason.
No, don't you realize that it's left-wing drivel because the poster fancies himself as some sort of paragon of right-wing virtue and, since he disagrees with something he seems to have read into the commentary, it must be left-wing drivel.
More users will undoubtedly increase its visibility as a malware target. However, the design of the program (limiting extension installation being a big part of security) and the fact that it is not so tightly integrated with windows as to make it a conduit for the exploitation of unrelated flaws in the underlying operating system should make it a more secure browser than IE regardless of the size of its user base.
Bah! No more confusing than using GCC to compile GCC.
Of course soap operas are protected speech, otherwise they could be banned entirely like obscenity and child pornography. Simply because they are not absolutely protected does not mean that they are not protected at all. And the reason speech that can kill is prohibited is not because of the speech component, but because of the action component. It doesn't matter if I yell "fire" in a crowded theater or if I yell "free pr0n" on slashdot. The content of the speech is irrelevant to the prohibition, which is not on saying certain things, but on saying things that have a certain result. When you understand the content based/content neutral distinction, come back and try again.
Go read the First Amendment again. It says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." It is absolute in its prohibition and unlimited in the types of speech it protects. Now, the Court has not always been so generous in its interpretation of that Amendment, but it has consistently stated that more than simply political speech is protected.
Nightline ran a special on Ken's loss tonight and, who should be the sponsor at the first station break? FedEx, of course!
why anti-competitive intent would have any bearing on a patent suit? Aren't patents intended as monopolies that will be used, at least in many cases, anti-competitively?
Gentoo does something similar where ebuilds are "masked" until it is known that they will compile properly and coexist with the rest of the system. Dependencies can also be specified with comparators such as = and so forth to ensure that a newer version of a dependency won't be installed (or will be slotted if possible) if it will break something.
emerge sync && emerge -uD world
The stage tarballs themselves, iirc, are pretty small. If you use stage 3 there should be enough to alllow you to emerge bittorrent if it isn't on the livecd already and then use it to get the GRP or whatever other CDs you want.
Bah! zsh is all the installer I need!
Not really, I did that a few months back when I switched to gcc34 and did emerge -e world, didn't notice much difference. Just keep gcc33 around and eventually most packages will recompile during the normal update process with gcc34. Now, I'm not using an AMD64 though, so you have to decide whether whatever improvements have been made in gcc34 are worth doing it all over again.
so just link /etc/make.profile to the new profile in /usr/portage/profiles and emerge -uD world. It's not like you have to recompile the entire system from stage1.
I wish I could agree with your sentiment. But the Bush Administration has consistently shown that it has only two masters: corporations and biblethumpers. This Administration has consistently used all available machinery of the Federal Government to support the extension of the control religious institutions already weild into virtually every area of our lives. Don't like the fact that your tax dollars are going to support religious schools, too bad, work harder until you're in a tax bracket Bush thinks shouldn't be taxed (namely, his). Don't like the fact that your tax dollars are going to support religious organizations attempting to convert captive audiences under the guise of "faith-based" social welfare initiatives, too bad, Bush has a "mandate" from those fundamentalist wackos. I've never been one to think that the First Amendment should prevent any miscegenation between church and state, but that idea is looking more and more appealing as sectarian forces gain significantly more influence over the machinery of government.
Generally true, yes. However, there is also a concept known as "piercing the corporate veil" which allows a stakeholder, usually a director or officer, but potentially a dominant shareholder, especially in closely held corporations, to be held liable for misdeeds of the company on the theory that the stakeholder and the company were indistinguishable in the eyes of the law.
Why can't they just say "encapsulation works"?
Yeah, INDUCE was introduced by a Democrat, oh, wait, it wasn't. How aboute that PIRATE crap, no, that was the Senator from Disney, Mr. Hatch again.
Hmm, did you not notice that he mentioned the CERT advisory in the article?
One, how do you know I'm not a Windows user? Two, where did I try to sweep any Linux problems under the rug? I didn't. I simply pointed out that the problem he was referring to was a Windows problem and not a Firefox problem. It was a nifty attempt at poking holes in the competitor's mindshare though.
Exactly. When was this interview done that he had just installed the shell exploit fix that morning? Besides, that's a fix for a *Windows* problem and he should be more concerned with fixing it than making hay about someone else's patch for their problem.
It is necessary that you communicate your assent or take actions which reasonably convey the appearance that you assent. Taking the walking on Mars example from before, if you walk on Mars that is action indicating your assent to the terms (and, indeed, performance of your part of the contract). There is no requirement that the offeror be aware of your acceptance unless such a requirement is part of the offer.
Are you talking about artists or executives when you cite those numbers? I'm sure you could say that, when looking at employees, the automotive industry, for example, donates more to Democrats than Republicans, but I somehow doubt the distribution is the same at the upper ranks of management.
If you don't have a clue what you're talking about, keep your damn mouth shut. Sony made the Betamax and was sued by Universal Studios. Also, it was the Supreme Court, nine Justices, not one judge, who ruled that technolgies that have "significant non-infringing uses" cannot result in contributory or vicarious liability for copyright infringement against their manufacturers.