The prize is glory and renoun. If you win, you get to say you're the most secure sysadmin in the world. If you lose, you just keep it quiet. That seems like a good gamble to me.
Sure, they could, but I believe that the purpose of this innane rule is to stop people from using bots to collect important dynamic information from their website.
So, to circumvent such a plan, all somebody would have to do is write a bot that instead of delivering a sneaky URL, sneakily types in the appropriate values into the form fields just like a human user would and then collect the information that way.
Of course, now that I've thought of that, It's clear that their plain is doomed to failure from the beginning. Orbitz.com blows.
Self-contained keyboards are portable and more stable. I don't want to lug a big keyboard and a computer and all the requisite wires to a gig, hook them up, plug them in, start playing, and then find out that something wasn't hooked up right, or that my computer is feeling buggy that day.
Your powerbook doesn't have any midi interfaces to begin with. You can buy one that will plug into the firewire, but then that's an extra piece of hardware or two, plus more software putting a bigger load on your processor which increases the number of things that can go wrong by an unacceptable amount.
Your point that modularity is good for long-term maintanance in general is probibly a good one, but in the musical performing arts, what counts is sounding good right now. Telling your audiance that something went wrong with one of your components, and bending over to tinker with wires for half an hour in the middle of a show is not "sounding good."
If someone invented such a technology because they were being paid by the porn industry, then that person would in fact be part of the porn industry. You are what you do. The first post was right all along.
"If someone drugged you, raped you, took pictures of the rape, do they automatically have the right to put distribute those photos on the Internet? What about your rights?"
You're conflating two unrelated ideas. If someone drugged me and raped me, they've already broken the law, and ought to be arrested, tried, and put into prison. The photos are a non-issue.
People are allowed to take photographs, even of bad things. Photojournalists are allowed to take photos of people comitting crimes. It's important to not confuse the issue of what the real crime in your example is. The crime is the drugging and the rape, not taking a photo.
A photograph is a record of an event, just like a written story, or even an orally told story. If you're suggesting that photographing crimes is wrong, you're also strongly suggesting that writing about them or even talking about them is wrong. Is that really the position you want to take?
Because that is the very nature of a monopoly, or a monoculture.
If a Republican says something ludicrous, there is always a Democrat close to a TV camera who will invariably say, "That's ludicrous!"
If a scientist says something ludicrous, there are about one hundred thousand other scientists with access to journal publication and mainstream media to say, "That's ludicrous!"
Who is the opposition to Microsoft? Who does the mainstream world listen to on a regular basis about computing matters other than Microsoft?
I, as a proud atheist, in order to protect our children, call for the removal of all indecent sites from the internet, starting with www.700club.com
P.S. Remember, the U.S.S.R. was officially an athiest government, hated religion, and was one of the most opressive governments ever. China is the same way.
Just because you're an atheist, doesn't mean you're actually smart.
"I was in in Pittsburgh one year when the KKK was given the right to march and hold a rally espousing their racist views. Is this what Freedom of Speech was meant for?"
Yes. This is exactly what freedom of speech is good for. I mean, we could lock people up in jail for expressing stupid views, but that would only enrage them, give them a few martyrs, and fuel the fire. So, we let them march around our streets once in a while so that we can point and laugh at them. Even the kids get to point and laugh. It's a good old time for the whole family. Plus, it lets the idiots blow off some steam, and keeps them right in front of us, where we can keep track of them, instead of forcing them underground, where they could be doing who knows what.
Bringing up Mozilla is interesting. It's a great error that Mandrake can lose a lawsuit over naming themselves after a plant because of a totally unrelated cartoon character that nobody cares about anymore which just happens to be named after the same plant, but Mozilla is powerless to do anything about the computer application "Popzilla" which is clearly trying to capitalize on Mozilla's success by creating confusion in the marketplace.
"Personally, I'd rather not see this happen at all, but if it does, I don't want any responsibility or culpability to fall on me or my elected representatives."
It will happen. Stop worrying about who's going to be blamed, and start worrying about how to deal with the problem.
"This is why we have to make decisions about what research to do BEFORE it is researched."
But the fact is that we can't make such decisions. Even if most of us agree that X shouldn't be researched, someone will research X, and develop X, and beat the world to the punch. This is why we need as many people as possible looking in X so that we generate a heterogenious set of ideas about X, rather than a single group with a single set of homogenious, and probibly flawed ideas about X. In this way, we'll be much better suited to control X and use it for our benefit, and protect ourselves from any potential harms that X has for us. More knowledge is better than less knowlege.
"Or maybe life is a sacred thing. One that man cannot rightfully take"
The point of laws is not to enforce whatever you personally think the higher, sacred laws of the universe dictate. The purpose of laws is to keep the peace and keep people happy. If you think that life is sacred, great. Defend the sacredness of life, but don't distract our government and our police force from their duty to keep society well-ordered. Don't be lazy. If you want to stop abortion, then go for it. Stop it yourself. Don't try to get the police to do your dirty work for you.
"it's fucking stupid and dangerous"
Sure. It's dangerous. All new things are. However, history shows that science marches on no matter who is doing it. The A-Bomb was dangerous. However, if the U.S. hadn't developed it, Germany would have. Everything is dangerous. That's why we have to learn to control new technology, not ignore it. If we ignore it, someone else will pick up the slack.
The question is not: Is this to dangerous for us to do?; but rather: Is this to dangerous for us to miss the boat on?
Everybody's point of view seems objective to one's self.
The fact is that the anti-abortion christian right isn't basing their argument on science, they're basing it on nonsence. Their attempt to define the argument in scientific terms is just a front. They don't want a compromise. They see the world in black and white. It wouldn't fly with them.
Language is defined by usage, however, the argument goes that since the new definition of the word "hacker" has been put in place by people who know nothing about computers, it's a useless definition.
It's like the way that most people call the U.S. a democracy. Anyone who knows anything about civics knows that the U.S. is a representative republic, not a democracy, and even though it's accepted by the hoards of the ignorant that the U.S. is a democracy, it's simply incorrect.
Language isn't just defined by usage, it's defined by the educated through educated usage. If language were truly defined by all usage, then all regional slang would be have to accepted by the O.E.D. They don't accept regional slang, because doing so would be asinine.
Anyway, I think that despite the bemoaning of the term "hacker" which has been lost to the masses, your average, law-abiding, computer geek guy actually likes being called a hacker because of the current, oblique criminal connotations of the word. It makes them feel like a space pirate or something. Just let them have their make-believe fun.
Lots of people seem to be saying that backwards compatability doesn't matter now because it never mattered before. It's true that in the past, people bought their Super Nintendos and Sega Genesises and they liked it.
However, the fact is that the market has changed. The Super Nintendo was bought for kids who were to young to know any better by parents who didn't get it.
Now that adults own and play so many gaming systems, frugality and long-term play is a great deal more important that it was 20 years ago. A kid won't think "if my new console won't play my old games, it's like I've wasted hundreds of dollars on them, and I won't stand for that.", but an adult will.
This reminds me of the episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where they go up against the Borg for the first time. They shoot at the one Borg guy, it's a direct hit, and he goes down. It they nail the second Borg guy too. The third one, though, generates a shield against the good guy's phasers and the shot just bounces right off. The good guys then realize that the Borg adapt to whatever they'll throw at them after a few shots.
Their solution was to do something that they called something like a "random phase fluctuation" on their phasers. Now, while that's just typical Trek techno-babble, the idea is a neat one.
What happens if a spam filter uses a different randomly generated algorithm every minute? Could that solve this problem?
This reminds me of the episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where they go up against the Borg for the first time. They shoot at the one Borg guy, it's a direct hit, and he goes down. It they nail the second Borg guy too. The third one, though, generates a shield against the good guy's phasers and the shot just bounces right off. The good guys then realize that the Borg adapt to whatever they'll throw at them after a few shots.
Their solution was to do something that they called something like a "random phase fluctuation" on their phasers. Now, while that's just typical Trek techno-babble, the idea is a neat one.
What happens if a spam filter uses a different randomly generated algorithm every minute? Could that solve this problem?
Slashdot Mirror
The prize is glory and renoun. If you win, you get to say you're the most secure sysadmin in the world. If you lose, you just keep it quiet. That seems like a good gamble to me.
Sure, they could, but I believe that the purpose of this innane rule is to stop people from using bots to collect important dynamic information from their website.
So, to circumvent such a plan, all somebody would have to do is write a bot that instead of delivering a sneaky URL, sneakily types in the appropriate values into the form fields just like a human user would and then collect the information that way.
Of course, now that I've thought of that, It's clear that their plain is doomed to failure from the beginning. Orbitz.com blows.
I thought they destroyed the Enterprise in that movie *years* ago.
Self-contained keyboards are portable and more stable. I don't want to lug a big keyboard and a computer and all the requisite wires to a gig, hook them up, plug them in, start playing, and then find out that something wasn't hooked up right, or that my computer is feeling buggy that day.
Your powerbook doesn't have any midi interfaces to begin with. You can buy one that will plug into the firewire, but then that's an extra piece of hardware or two, plus more software putting a bigger load on your processor which increases the number of things that can go wrong by an unacceptable amount.
Your point that modularity is good for long-term maintanance in general is probibly a good one, but in the musical performing arts, what counts is sounding good right now. Telling your audiance that something went wrong with one of your components, and bending over to tinker with wires for half an hour in the middle of a show is not "sounding good."
If someone invented such a technology because they were being paid by the porn industry, then that person would in fact be part of the porn industry. You are what you do. The first post was right all along.
"If someone drugged you, raped you, took pictures of the rape, do they automatically have the right to put distribute those photos on the Internet? What about your rights?"
You're conflating two unrelated ideas. If someone drugged me and raped me, they've already broken the law, and ought to be arrested, tried, and put into prison. The photos are a non-issue.
People are allowed to take photographs, even of bad things. Photojournalists are allowed to take photos of people comitting crimes. It's important to not confuse the issue of what the real crime in your example is. The crime is the drugging and the rape, not taking a photo.
A photograph is a record of an event, just like a written story, or even an orally told story. If you're suggesting that photographing crimes is wrong, you're also strongly suggesting that writing about them or even talking about them is wrong. Is that really the position you want to take?
Is it too early to sue them yet for warping my impressionable, young child's mind, or do I need to wait until the game is actually released?
Because that is the very nature of a monopoly, or a monoculture.
If a Republican says something ludicrous, there is always a Democrat close to a TV camera who will invariably say, "That's ludicrous!"
If a scientist says something ludicrous, there are about one hundred thousand other scientists with access to journal publication and mainstream media to say, "That's ludicrous!"
Who is the opposition to Microsoft? Who does the mainstream world listen to on a regular basis about computing matters other than Microsoft?
Things seem perfect to you?
Bartender, I'll have what he's having.
Hey, kids!
Kill your parents while they're sleeping, have sex with their corpses, then eat them.
I, as a proud atheist, in order to protect our children, call for the removal of all indecent sites from the internet, starting with www.700club.com
P.S. Remember, the U.S.S.R. was officially an athiest government, hated religion, and was one of the most opressive governments ever. China is the same way.
Just because you're an atheist, doesn't mean you're actually smart.
"I was in in Pittsburgh one year when the KKK was given the right to march and hold a rally espousing their racist views. Is this what Freedom of Speech was meant for?"
Yes. This is exactly what freedom of speech is good for. I mean, we could lock people up in jail for expressing stupid views, but that would only enrage them, give them a few martyrs, and fuel the fire. So, we let them march around our streets once in a while so that we can point and laugh at them. Even the kids get to point and laugh. It's a good old time for the whole family. Plus, it lets the idiots blow off some steam, and keeps them right in front of us, where we can keep track of them, instead of forcing them underground, where they could be doing who knows what.
When you add in shipping, $13.86 US isn't even enough to buy the new #1 CD by Norah Jones
Bringing up Mozilla is interesting. It's a great error that Mandrake can lose a lawsuit over naming themselves after a plant because of a totally unrelated cartoon character that nobody cares about anymore which just happens to be named after the same plant, but Mozilla is powerless to do anything about the computer application "Popzilla" which is clearly trying to capitalize on Mozilla's success by creating confusion in the marketplace.
"Personally, I'd rather not see this happen at all, but if it does, I don't want any responsibility or culpability to fall on me or my elected representatives." It will happen. Stop worrying about who's going to be blamed, and start worrying about how to deal with the problem.
"This is why we have to make decisions about what research to do BEFORE it is researched." But the fact is that we can't make such decisions. Even if most of us agree that X shouldn't be researched, someone will research X, and develop X, and beat the world to the punch. This is why we need as many people as possible looking in X so that we generate a heterogenious set of ideas about X, rather than a single group with a single set of homogenious, and probibly flawed ideas about X. In this way, we'll be much better suited to control X and use it for our benefit, and protect ourselves from any potential harms that X has for us. More knowledge is better than less knowlege.
"Or maybe life is a sacred thing. One that man cannot rightfully take"
The point of laws is not to enforce whatever you personally think the higher, sacred laws of the universe dictate. The purpose of laws is to keep the peace and keep people happy. If you think that life is sacred, great. Defend the sacredness of life, but don't distract our government and our police force from their duty to keep society well-ordered. Don't be lazy. If you want to stop abortion, then go for it. Stop it yourself. Don't try to get the police to do your dirty work for you.
"it's fucking stupid and dangerous" Sure. It's dangerous. All new things are. However, history shows that science marches on no matter who is doing it. The A-Bomb was dangerous. However, if the U.S. hadn't developed it, Germany would have. Everything is dangerous. That's why we have to learn to control new technology, not ignore it. If we ignore it, someone else will pick up the slack. The question is not: Is this to dangerous for us to do?; but rather: Is this to dangerous for us to miss the boat on?
Everybody's point of view seems objective to one's self.
The fact is that the anti-abortion christian right isn't basing their argument on science, they're basing it on nonsence. Their attempt to define the argument in scientific terms is just a front. They don't want a compromise. They see the world in black and white. It wouldn't fly with them.
Language is defined by usage, however, the argument goes that since the new definition of the word "hacker" has been put in place by people who know nothing about computers, it's a useless definition.
It's like the way that most people call the U.S. a democracy. Anyone who knows anything about civics knows that the U.S. is a representative republic, not a democracy, and even though it's accepted by the hoards of the ignorant that the U.S. is a democracy, it's simply incorrect.
Language isn't just defined by usage, it's defined by the educated through educated usage. If language were truly defined by all usage, then all regional slang would be have to accepted by the O.E.D. They don't accept regional slang, because doing so would be asinine.
Anyway, I think that despite the bemoaning of the term "hacker" which has been lost to the masses, your average, law-abiding, computer geek guy actually likes being called a hacker because of the current, oblique criminal connotations of the word. It makes them feel like a space pirate or something. Just let them have their make-believe fun.
This is a great idea, because anything that is digital is fraud-proof.
Lots of people seem to be saying that backwards compatability doesn't matter now because it never mattered before. It's true that in the past, people bought their Super Nintendos and Sega Genesises and they liked it.
However, the fact is that the market has changed. The Super Nintendo was bought for kids who were to young to know any better by parents who didn't get it.
Now that adults own and play so many gaming systems, frugality and long-term play is a great deal more important that it was 20 years ago. A kid won't think "if my new console won't play my old games, it's like I've wasted hundreds of dollars on them, and I won't stand for that.", but an adult will.
This reminds me of the episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where they go up against the Borg for the first time. They shoot at the one Borg guy, it's a direct hit, and he goes down. It they nail the second Borg guy too. The third one, though, generates a shield against the good guy's phasers and the shot just bounces right off. The good guys then realize that the Borg adapt to whatever they'll throw at them after a few shots.
Their solution was to do something that they called something like a "random phase fluctuation" on their phasers. Now, while that's just typical Trek techno-babble, the idea is a neat one.
What happens if a spam filter uses a different randomly generated algorithm every minute? Could that solve this problem?
Woah. Wrong article. Whoops!
This reminds me of the episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where they go up against the Borg for the first time. They shoot at the one Borg guy, it's a direct hit, and he goes down. It they nail the second Borg guy too. The third one, though, generates a shield against the good guy's phasers and the shot just bounces right off. The good guys then realize that the Borg adapt to whatever they'll throw at them after a few shots.
Their solution was to do something that they called something like a "random phase fluctuation" on their phasers. Now, while that's just typical Trek techno-babble, the idea is a neat one.
What happens if a spam filter uses a different randomly generated algorithm every minute? Could that solve this problem?