Back when I had a WinXP box... I had to disable the firewall (on as default) so that I could send and receieve files through Windows Messenger... stupid Microsoft. I never used any other firewall or virus protection either and the only thing that destroyed all my data was when I installed over Windows with SuSE.
Thank you, knowledgeble stranger.
Damn statistics, damn them to/dev/null
And who modded me funny in parent's parent (I'm my own grandparent, hmm)? I was making a serious point...
Am in support of using stem-cells to repair organs. It's not really unehical at all. I mean an embryo doesn't have a personality or a self so it's hardly going to miss being alive.
It's probably not legally (IANAL, thank god) classed as a trojan because it tells you exactly what it does before you install it. I don't think 'I didn't RTFEULA' would stand up in court.
Like Windows? What I want to know is where I find 'Windows' in the Add/Remove Programs dialog. No wonder people call it a monopoly, you can't uninstall it!
copying or saving of digital image files or other content... requires prior written permission of the rights owner(s) and payment of a fee, and severe penalties apply for theft and unauthorized publication, which is also a crime.</i>
I have to write to them unless I disable my cache...
<i>You agree that your use of this website is irrefutable acknowledgment by you that you have read, understood, and agreed to each and every term and provision of this User Agreement . . ..</i>
If I use their website and don't notce their user agreement (it's in small a small type) then have I actually agreed? IANAL but I believe I should have seen their user agreement before or a link to it in huge type at the top of the page.
<i>BY CLICKING ON ANY IMAGE OR LINK TO INDICATE "I ACCEPT," BY ACCESSING AND BROWSING THIS WEBSITE, OR BY SENDING US AN E-MAIL OR OTHER COMMUNICATION, WHETHER DIRETLY OR INDIRECTLY, YOU ARE ASSERTING THAT YOU HAVE READ AND AGREE TO THIS USER AGREEMENT...</i>
So I can download stuff from the homepage, it's when I download stuff off ANOTHER page that I have to ask for permission. Also, I can't find their postal address on their homepage so how can I get written permission to cache the website?
What I find strange is that speed cameras have to be brightly coloured and sign-posted because if somebody wants to do something illegal they should be given warning that they'll get caught? I think people shouldn't speed because unless it's an emergency (i.e. taking somebody to hospital in a hurry) the risk of killing somebody does not outweigh the advantage of getting to work on time. Also I think a big grey box is warning enough for anybody who can see well enough to drive.
I think the amount of CCTV in Britain is fairly reasonable. It's not really an issue of privacy if the cameras are in a public place. If you're in your own home you can commit all the crimes you like until you get caught.
(and I can write poshly when I want to) but I didn't learn it from German (which I passed), I learned it from using it. I guess there must be something more to learn about like the words to describe grammer? I didn't really learn the weird words like superlative or whatever in school, I actually found a website and learned a lot of them when my friend who speaks 7+ languages took the piss out of me and I got annoyed.
I just thought about the posters who were tutting at poor grammer/spelling these days but couldn't some of those poor gramatical/spelling things be incorporated into the language in the future if enough people use it. For example it's meant to be "I and Alice went to the pictures" but lots of people say "Me and Alice went to the pictures". Is it possible that both forms will be acceptable in future? I certainly use the "me and..." way. And is that really so bad? English is living and therefore evolving - to evolve something has to change and the most successful forms survive. From how I notice people talking the "Me and" form is fairly successful.
In the article 'Linux cyber-battle turns nasty', Stephen Evans seems to be presenting a very biased opinion as fact. Where's this so-called BBC objectivity? He only presents the evidence that suggests MyDoom.A was made by annoyed Linux users. He completely forgets that MyDoom opens a backdoor to allow the host machine to be used as a spamming tool or that if the creator was such a zelous Linux/open source user they probably wouldn't be caught dead near a Windows machine (let alone know how to create a very efficient virus for one). Also the writer of MyDoom may have been trying (and successfully) to cover their tracks by using the SCO controvacy to set the blame on a Linux zealot. Also, (this is just me being picky) the writer of the article could have mentioned that SCO has so far refused to show what code in the Linux kernel was stolen from them. I believe Linus Torvalds, the inventor of Linux and the maintainer of the latest version of it would be happy to remove any code belonging to SCO and replace it with new code.
And the comparison of "run-of-the-mill geeks" to vandals and arsonists is just insulting. I believe the actual definition of a 'geek' is more like somebody with a passion for a particular field, i.e. computers. This is no better than saying that the average Muslim is a terrorist or that the average doctor takes the organs of dead babies. I have no doubt that SOME geeks write viri and SOME Muslims are terrorists, but this sort of over-generalisation is discriminatory and unneccesary. Thank you for reading my little complaint and I hope in future the BBC will regain its objectivity.
After going on to say the average geek wreaks havok on the computing world and that the issue is of patents and not copyrights (which is wrong IIRC) they then remind readers that "there's no proof, of course"
Of course...
Slashdot Mirror
Back when I had a WinXP box... I had to disable the firewall (on as default) so that I could send and receieve files through Windows Messenger... stupid Microsoft. I never used any other firewall or virus protection either and the only thing that destroyed all my data was when I installed over Windows with SuSE.
Thank you, knowledgeble stranger. Damn statistics, damn them to /dev/null
And who modded me funny in parent's parent (I'm my own grandparent, hmm)? I was making a serious point...
If humans are 99.84% accurate and these filters are ten times as accurate, wouldn't that make these filters 998.4% accurate or am I missing something?
to serve up pages, one to view them... and one Firebird to rule them all?
Send out lots of rockets but only on one side of the planet... I don't know, leave it to NASA... oh wait.
When they ran out of countries they sent them to business school. ``This is how to file a patent and this is how to file a law-suit.''
If they didn't want it copying they should have put better DRM on their website...
Sure it will. The real question is whether you install the DVD libraries or the uzi libraries first...
I'll download it when Java's free(dom) or when it's not in Java. Then maybe I'll think about donating.
It was only about 5% of the source that got released so we'll only see about 20 backdoors.
I didn't realise 'Linux' was a registered trademark. Who owns that trademark?
Maybe SCO registered it because they clearly own it...
Yes... it would be easier. *creeps up behind previous poster*
The fact that my logic isn't foolproof is proof that I shouldn't make the laws. So be happy I am not a dictator, yet...
They should train monkeys to do it then make the training a little simpler. Then maybe...
Am in support of using stem-cells to repair organs. It's not really unehical at all. I mean an embryo doesn't have a personality or a self so it's hardly going to miss being alive.
It's probably not legally (IANAL, thank god) classed as a trojan because it tells you exactly what it does before you install it. I don't think 'I didn't RTFEULA' would stand up in court.
Like Windows? What I want to know is where I find 'Windows' in the Add/Remove Programs dialog. No wonder people call it a monopoly, you can't uninstall it!
Break down in families like this means break down in society.
I hate the phrase 'family/moral/societal/* break down'. Like there's some morally <b>correct</b> way for things to be.<br><br>
Anyway, I think the internet should be controlled by its denizens in a decentralised, communist, anarchist sort of way.
You're making me reminisce.
copying or saving of digital image files or other content ... requires prior written permission of the rights owner(s) and payment of a fee, and severe penalties apply for theft and unauthorized publication, which is also a crime.</i>
.</i>
I have to write to them unless I disable my cache...
<i>You agree that your use of this website is irrefutable acknowledgment by you that you have read, understood, and agreed to each and every term and provision of this User Agreement . . .
If I use their website and don't notce their user agreement (it's in small a small type) then have I actually agreed? IANAL but I believe I should have seen their user agreement before or a link to it in huge type at the top of the page.
<i>BY CLICKING ON ANY IMAGE OR LINK TO INDICATE "I ACCEPT," BY ACCESSING AND BROWSING THIS WEBSITE, OR BY SENDING US AN E-MAIL OR OTHER COMMUNICATION, WHETHER DIRETLY OR INDIRECTLY, YOU ARE ASSERTING THAT YOU HAVE READ AND AGREE TO THIS USER AGREEMENT...</i>
So I can download stuff from the homepage, it's when I download stuff off ANOTHER page that I have to ask for permission. Also, I can't find their postal address on their homepage so how can I get written permission to cache the website?
What I find strange is that speed cameras have to be brightly coloured and sign-posted because if somebody wants to do something illegal they should be given warning that they'll get caught? I think people shouldn't speed because unless it's an emergency (i.e. taking somebody to hospital in a hurry) the risk of killing somebody does not outweigh the advantage of getting to work on time. Also I think a big grey box is warning enough for anybody who can see well enough to drive.
I think the amount of CCTV in Britain is fairly reasonable. It's not really an issue of privacy if the cameras are in a public place. If you're in your own home you can commit all the crimes you like until you get caught.
(and I can write poshly when I want to) but I didn't learn it from German (which I passed), I learned it from using it. I guess there must be something more to learn about like the words to describe grammer? I didn't really learn the weird words like superlative or whatever in school, I actually found a website and learned a lot of them when my friend who speaks 7+ languages took the piss out of me and I got annoyed.
I just thought about the posters who were tutting at poor grammer/spelling these days but couldn't some of those poor gramatical/spelling things be incorporated into the language in the future if enough people use it.
For example it's meant to be "I and Alice went to the pictures" but lots of people say "Me and Alice went to the pictures". Is it possible that both forms will be acceptable in future? I certainly use the "me and..." way. And is that really so bad? English is living and therefore evolving - to evolve something has to change and the most successful forms survive. From how I notice people talking the "Me and" form is fairly successful.
Cuba's ahead of the rest of the world - they already have internet lisences.
"after being slashdotted with a record number of complaints."
In the article 'Linux cyber-battle turns nasty', Stephen Evans seems to be presenting a very biased opinion as fact. Where's this so-called BBC objectivity? He only presents the evidence that suggests MyDoom.A was made by annoyed Linux users. He completely forgets that MyDoom opens a backdoor to allow the host machine to be used as a spamming tool or that if the creator was such a zelous Linux/open source user they probably wouldn't be caught dead near a Windows machine (let alone know how to create a very efficient virus for one). Also the writer of MyDoom may have been trying (and successfully) to cover their tracks by using the SCO controvacy to set the blame on a Linux zealot.
Also, (this is just me being picky) the writer of the article could have mentioned that SCO has so far refused to show what code in the Linux kernel was stolen from them. I believe Linus Torvalds, the inventor of Linux and the maintainer of the latest version of it would be happy to remove any code belonging to SCO and replace it with new code.
And the comparison of "run-of-the-mill geeks" to vandals and arsonists is just insulting. I believe the actual definition of a 'geek' is more like somebody with a passion for a particular field, i.e. computers. This is no better than saying that the average Muslim is a terrorist or that the average doctor takes the organs of dead babies. I have no doubt that SOME geeks write viri and SOME Muslims are terrorists, but this sort of over-generalisation is discriminatory and unneccesary.
Thank you for reading my little complaint and I hope in future the BBC will regain its objectivity.
After going on to say the average geek wreaks havok on the computing world and that the issue is of patents and not copyrights (which is wrong IIRC) they then remind readers that "there's no proof, of course" Of course...