Come now. The Saudis couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag. They just supply petrodollars and the American military gets to decide which occupation it gets invested in.
And I'm not just armchairing, I lived there for a year in 1994.
I'm implying that anyone who manages to get commit rights, or even a contributor who's good as obfuscating code, could implant a backdoor into a project. Remember the Debian SSL fiasco? Well, that sort of thing could happen maliciously. In a closed source development environment it's harder (note, I didn't say impossible) to get this sort of thing in, as the effort and/or expense required to inject a mole into the developer circle is higher and the personnel are typically more carefully vetted.
However, the strength of open source is that there are many people looking over each others' shoulders. In a closed source environment, if you manage to get your mole into an area of code development where there are only a small number of developers, well-hidden and obfuscated malicious code could stay buried potentially forever, as once those few guys move on (and they will in corporate land), nobody who comes after then will aggressively pursue legacy code as they won't want to break anything that's already working. Nothing short of a full code audit will catch it.
And thank you for making me explain myself in full.
The fact that this can get into the program is a weakness of the open source model. The fact that it can be found so quickly is a strength of the open source model.
Here in Australia, Google officials are trying to claim that they didn't know the data was being collected because it was being collected accidentally. Over there they're claiming "we knew, and we told you we were doing it."
If you accept that wars, by necessity must be dirty, and that one side should do what it must to win, then the September 11 attacks come into a whole new focus. That was just one side striking out the only way they could. Had they an industrial economy, a seat at the UN and a decent counterintelligence machine, I'm sure their objections to the US's economic and military adventures in their region would have been voiced differently.
Don't ever justify what is wrong. It's one hell of a slippery slope.
So long as "our" generation does not get lobotomized, we just have to wait until the young are old and the old are dead. Hopefully, the generation of subservient acceptance of authority will end with the outgoing generation, and any manipulative shits from our generation (who knows, Google's Page and Brin may be next decade's Murdochs) will have to contend with an empowered population less inclined to swallow shit just because it has a seal of approval from some authority on it.
I sincerely hope the age of "It's the news. Believe it." will end with the generation older than me.
It was, but it retroactively changed to "regime change for the betterment of regional stability" when WMDs were not found. It's vaguer, and thus harder to argue against.
Indeed. Today's LEDs are vastly more efficient at producing light from low current sources than yesteryear's incandescent bulbs. Furthermore, capacitors are far better at storing larger amounts of energy and discharging it evenly than those of years gone past. Look at the Faraday light, (which I can't call anything other than a WanikLight) which uses a capacitor, magnet and coil to produce light. If they were built with decent build quality, they should be able to last several decades without malfunction.
Today's tech would make bike dynamos work so well that I have no idea why they don't make them any more. Perhaps battery tech is so good that there's little advantage?
Criticizing Apple for making a showcase of what they can do with standards not comply with standard browsers is trolling?! What does Apple have to do for fanboys to realize that they are just another GenericBigCompany(tm) who will rape you to death if they thought it'd add 1% to their quarterly bottom line?
The growing importance of networking and the emphasis on the "persona" in "personal computer" (i.e., everyone has their own physical machine that they have exclusive use of) has made local permission escalations far less relevant than they were in the old days. I mean really, who telnets (or SSH'es) into a university machine to use a remote client to access email and store their files on a shared drive? Nobody that I know of since about 1997.
Remote exploits are far more important, given that most servers are physically restricted and that most people own their own exclusive laptop or PC, I don't see a problem with trading off a bit of local security if there are significant gains in performance to be had.
Of course, it's not even demonstrated that increased use of shared memory and unidie processing units will result in a necessary increase in attack vectors. It's probably more likely that kernel developers will just need to adjust defense mechanisms to account for a new set of attack vectors.
Nobody has mentioned the DOCBOOK format, which is specifically intended to store semantic content while allowing the representation to vary depending on the viewer or viewer's device. Thus far, DOCBOOk has received little attention, but as far as I can tell, it is to date the best that we've come up with when looking for standardized storing of structured content.
Flamebait? Funny? This should be informative. I mean, who here hasn't met an Apple fan so excited about getting some new Apple device that he blows his load the moment he gets to touch it for the first time?
Yea we should undermine leaders we disagree with. We could even engage in military action. We could call it a "War For Freedom"or something cool like that. We already did it in South America when they were all like communist and stuff, we freed them from evil communists and see how now they all love us.
There are plenty of people who do work on finding ways around energy and production-material dependence on oil. A battery of patents held by oil companies who sue anyone who works in that field out of existence as well as a "buy and shelve" policy by shell companies owned by the oil industry is what prevents anything from happening.
Don't shovel that crap you fucking industry shill.
Nothing but a very small number of anaerobic microbes can survive in an oil-saturated environment, as oil coats cell surfaces and prevents oxygen transfer. A dumping of that much oil into the world's ecosystem will have catastrophic results, and if it makes its way into the Gulf Stream, it'll be spread globally with results too great for me to describe without sounding like a crazed religious apocalyptic doomsayer.
If the entire well is emptied into the global current system, it will be enough to reduce fish populations to levels where seafood is taken off of humanity's menu. It's unlikely that whales will survive, as krill cannot survive even with trace amounts of oil in their water. And the effect on atmospheric oxygen with phytoplankton levels reduces is impossible to predict, but it'll be large.
This is a catastrophe, not some "shift in ecological balance". Take your misinformation and downplaying tactics elsewhere.
Nutters, or people who are parodied by the big media because they say the things that are not in the interests of the incumbent commercial-political cartel?
There are alternatives to all of those products. If the oil industry wasn't so heavily involved in politics, the absurd regulatory structure that makes oil the best way to do just about anything would not exist, and alternative methods of producing many goods would come about.
Have a look through the dormant patents held by oil companies for a taste of how things could be, but aren't thanks to businesses run amok.
This is exactly what happened here. A government addicted to petroleum taxes as well as a band of politicians personally heavily invested in the oil industry makes for just such a desperate patient, who needs no assurance and asks no questions about the complex, expensive and dangerous procedures being conducted.
If the government was truly objective about its handling of industry, oil companies would have been required to demonstrate contingencies for all outcomes, including total catastrophic failure of equipment or processes. It's not like the industry operates on the knife's edge of profitability and can't afford to be held to account for their safety and recovery procedures; the oil industry has both the means and the funds necessary to keep such contingencies at the ready. However, they buy political apathy, and can put the money they would otherwise spend on safety into big bonuses for their directors and major stakeholders.
No, the notice has to go to the original copyright holder. In this case, you'd have to send it to Tetris Co LLC, get them to agree and then tell Google that it doesn't infringe.
This is why walled gardens suck; you are at the mercy of big, powerful groups who don't necessarily give a shit about a single person's plight, rendering void even the tiny individual protections like those in the DMCA. The Corporate System ensures that even if an individual has a case, the machinery is too big, too heavy and has too much inertia for a single person to be able to take control of their own affairs.
I guess you're typing this on your original IBM branded PC, right?
(To everyone else: I hope to God he's not using a Mac, coz if he is, my flippant remark will be blown out of the water and then buried under a veritable Mt Everest of smug)
Slashdot Mirror
Come now. The Saudis couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag. They just supply petrodollars and the American military gets to decide which occupation it gets invested in.
And I'm not just armchairing, I lived there for a year in 1994.
I'm implying that anyone who manages to get commit rights, or even a contributor who's good as obfuscating code, could implant a backdoor into a project. Remember the Debian SSL fiasco? Well, that sort of thing could happen maliciously. In a closed source development environment it's harder (note, I didn't say impossible) to get this sort of thing in, as the effort and/or expense required to inject a mole into the developer circle is higher and the personnel are typically more carefully vetted.
However, the strength of open source is that there are many people looking over each others' shoulders. In a closed source environment, if you manage to get your mole into an area of code development where there are only a small number of developers, well-hidden and obfuscated malicious code could stay buried potentially forever, as once those few guys move on (and they will in corporate land), nobody who comes after then will aggressively pursue legacy code as they won't want to break anything that's already working. Nothing short of a full code audit will catch it.
And thank you for making me explain myself in full.
The fact that this can get into the program is a weakness of the open source model. The fact that it can be found so quickly is a strength of the open source model.
No, it's not good for all concerned.
Here in Australia, Google officials are trying to claim that they didn't know the data was being collected because it was being collected accidentally. Over there they're claiming "we knew, and we told you we were doing it."
Well, which is it?
China is as communist as America is capitalist.
If you accept that wars, by necessity must be dirty, and that one side should do what it must to win, then the September 11 attacks come into a whole new focus. That was just one side striking out the only way they could. Had they an industrial economy, a seat at the UN and a decent counterintelligence machine, I'm sure their objections to the US's economic and military adventures in their region would have been voiced differently.
Don't ever justify what is wrong. It's one hell of a slippery slope.
So long as "our" generation does not get lobotomized, we just have to wait until the young are old and the old are dead. Hopefully, the generation of subservient acceptance of authority will end with the outgoing generation, and any manipulative shits from our generation (who knows, Google's Page and Brin may be next decade's Murdochs) will have to contend with an empowered population less inclined to swallow shit just because it has a seal of approval from some authority on it.
I sincerely hope the age of "It's the news. Believe it." will end with the generation older than me.
It was, but it retroactively changed to "regime change for the betterment of regional stability" when WMDs were not found. It's vaguer, and thus harder to argue against.
Indeed. Today's LEDs are vastly more efficient at producing light from low current sources than yesteryear's incandescent bulbs. Furthermore, capacitors are far better at storing larger amounts of energy and discharging it evenly than those of years gone past. Look at the Faraday light, (which I can't call anything other than a WanikLight) which uses a capacitor, magnet and coil to produce light. If they were built with decent build quality, they should be able to last several decades without malfunction.
Today's tech would make bike dynamos work so well that I have no idea why they don't make them any more. Perhaps battery tech is so good that there's little advantage?
What, you mean like a fleshy cone like structure surrounding a biological tube at the bottom of which is an organ known as a "cochlear"?
Yea, I hate it when people wear those things. It makes me so nervous.
Criticizing Apple for making a showcase of what they can do with standards not comply with standard browsers is trolling?! What does Apple have to do for fanboys to realize that they are just another GenericBigCompany(tm) who will rape you to death if they thought it'd add 1% to their quarterly bottom line?
Trolling... Indeed... *shakes head*
The growing importance of networking and the emphasis on the "persona" in "personal computer" (i.e., everyone has their own physical machine that they have exclusive use of) has made local permission escalations far less relevant than they were in the old days. I mean really, who telnets (or SSH'es) into a university machine to use a remote client to access email and store their files on a shared drive? Nobody that I know of since about 1997.
Remote exploits are far more important, given that most servers are physically restricted and that most people own their own exclusive laptop or PC, I don't see a problem with trading off a bit of local security if there are significant gains in performance to be had.
Of course, it's not even demonstrated that increased use of shared memory and unidie processing units will result in a necessary increase in attack vectors. It's probably more likely that kernel developers will just need to adjust defense mechanisms to account for a new set of attack vectors.
"spell checkers have made spelling obsolete anyway"
Your mistaken if you think that kid's spelling can be improved using there computers alone.
Nobody has mentioned the DOCBOOK format, which is specifically intended to store semantic content while allowing the representation to vary depending on the viewer or viewer's device. Thus far, DOCBOOk has received little attention, but as far as I can tell, it is to date the best that we've come up with when looking for standardized storing of structured content.
Flamebait? Funny? This should be informative. I mean, who here hasn't met an Apple fan so excited about getting some new Apple device that he blows his load the moment he gets to touch it for the first time?
Yea we should undermine leaders we disagree with. We could even engage in military action. We could call it a "War For Freedom"or something cool like that. We already did it in South America when they were all like communist and stuff, we freed them from evil communists and see how now they all love us.
Why don't "we"?
There are plenty of people who do work on finding ways around energy and production-material dependence on oil. A battery of patents held by oil companies who sue anyone who works in that field out of existence as well as a "buy and shelve" policy by shell companies owned by the oil industry is what prevents anything from happening.
Don't shovel that crap you fucking industry shill.
Nothing but a very small number of anaerobic microbes can survive in an oil-saturated environment, as oil coats cell surfaces and prevents oxygen transfer. A dumping of that much oil into the world's ecosystem will have catastrophic results, and if it makes its way into the Gulf Stream, it'll be spread globally with results too great for me to describe without sounding like a crazed religious apocalyptic doomsayer.
If the entire well is emptied into the global current system, it will be enough to reduce fish populations to levels where seafood is taken off of humanity's menu. It's unlikely that whales will survive, as krill cannot survive even with trace amounts of oil in their water. And the effect on atmospheric oxygen with phytoplankton levels reduces is impossible to predict, but it'll be large.
This is a catastrophe, not some "shift in ecological balance". Take your misinformation and downplaying tactics elsewhere.
Nutters, or people who are parodied by the big media because they say the things that are not in the interests of the incumbent commercial-political cartel?
There are alternatives to all of those products. If the oil industry wasn't so heavily involved in politics, the absurd regulatory structure that makes oil the best way to do just about anything would not exist, and alternative methods of producing many goods would come about.
Have a look through the dormant patents held by oil companies for a taste of how things could be, but aren't thanks to businesses run amok.
Flamebait?
This is exactly what happened here. A government addicted to petroleum taxes as well as a band of politicians personally heavily invested in the oil industry makes for just such a desperate patient, who needs no assurance and asks no questions about the complex, expensive and dangerous procedures being conducted.
If the government was truly objective about its handling of industry, oil companies would have been required to demonstrate contingencies for all outcomes, including total catastrophic failure of equipment or processes. It's not like the industry operates on the knife's edge of profitability and can't afford to be held to account for their safety and recovery procedures; the oil industry has both the means and the funds necessary to keep such contingencies at the ready. However, they buy political apathy, and can put the money they would otherwise spend on safety into big bonuses for their directors and major stakeholders.
Fuck modern politics.
No, the notice has to go to the original copyright holder. In this case, you'd have to send it to Tetris Co LLC, get them to agree and then tell Google that it doesn't infringe.
This is why walled gardens suck; you are at the mercy of big, powerful groups who don't necessarily give a shit about a single person's plight, rendering void even the tiny individual protections like those in the DMCA. The Corporate System ensures that even if an individual has a case, the machinery is too big, too heavy and has too much inertia for a single person to be able to take control of their own affairs.
Will the rest of your body be joining your head on its expedition?
I guess you're typing this on your original IBM branded PC, right?
(To everyone else: I hope to God he's not using a Mac, coz if he is, my flippant remark will be blown out of the water and then buried under a veritable Mt Everest of smug)
Dude, they're the ones responsible for the spill. Environmental agencies are referring to the oil slick as the "black screen of death".