This article seems to be a bit of FUD to me.
Most of the sandboxed systems it refers to in the article are anti(virus/spyware/malware) programs. If the machine is already compromised with some malware, there's no real incentive for a virus to become active only when Symantec's VM runs across them. If it's already on the system, there's no limit to the damage a file could do through other (more direct) methods.
Referring to a cousin comment, it's probably better for the malware to lay low when scanned rather than to take advantage of the virus scanner.
Yeah, why should I vote 'no' on potentially devastating and exploitative laws
Surely I can always elect someone who will represent my opinions about every conceivable subject without error!
At best, politicians are ignorant about many subjects, and do the best they can representing the interests in their locality. Personally, with my representatives, I wouldn't trust them further than I could throw them. Considering that even the most sober, realistic and intelligent politician can only make decisions on almost entirely distorted information presented to them, I'm glad that in America we get the chance to petition for a vote on controversial issues. Walking in and checking a box opens the door to too much exploitation even without electronic voting machines (Consider Italy).
There would be nothing wrong with Microsoft adding in an advertisement blocking utility given that they showed that they were either not in control of it themselves or that it blocked a reasonably uniform set of advertisers. Given the difficulty of the 2nd one, I have a feeling that Microsoft placing a "Do Not Display Content" button (wherein users would put the URLs/blocking services much like AdBlock Plus) is the most likely scenario.
Any ideas how else this might be put in without provoking (let's pretend) unwinnable lawsuits?
Who would they have an affair with? The other married couple within 5 feet?
Would they fight over leaving the space-toilet seat up?
TFA talks about stricter, more controversial psychological testing over multiple month periods for the astronauts, even for NASA. A lot of the catalysts that break up relationships seem to disappear in space; No new lovers, no change of job, no friends to come over, play cards, watch football and piss off your wife for you.
Seems to me that if they modify the beds (longer adjustable elastic straps), sound-proof the walls a bit, stock (and mandate) contraceptives, the couples would be set.
I'm honestly wondering if the topic was even considered "too hot to handle", or just obvious enough not to mention.
Shoot up couples that have been in a relationship for a long time. If they pass the other psychological tests, then they're deemed sane enough to get shot up into space in a metal tube for about a year by themselves. I don't see why having a spouse or long term partner along for the trip would make it more of a hassle.
Fuck man, these people are given chores to do by NASA anyhow, it's not like she can nag you to mow the lawn or get off/.
With music/movies/software, we tend to support the college kids, families, and whomever is in the defense of the *AA lawsuits due to the fact that it appears about 90% of the time the "mafiaa" sue without enough incriminating evidence to actually win a lawsuit. Furthermore, it's highly doubtful that the music pirates would have actually bought the copyrighted material in the first place, and, as individuals, generally aren't distributing the music past 2-3 people.
This guy is blatantly copying and selling (for a profit) the artwork of others. I think I speak for most of the/. readers when I say that if this guy had printed out the other artists' work from the website and hung it on his wall, it'd be the same scale of copyright violation as the *AA sue people for.
Or, more concisely; mass reproduction, claiming ownership and selling for a profit != reproduction (solely) for home use.
Kill leftie.
Wars with warcrimes are about the same as wars without. The orphans and hearts are small potatoes in comparison to the tyrants, placed for sympathy, as is the loved one.
The secondary benefits are about the only difference, and it comes down to whether you would like cancer or moral philosophy. As I would rather have no cancer and no stupid shit questions like this, Kill leftie and cure cancer.
all it takes is overhauling fuel systems to use (m)ethanol. The manhattan-project grade research has already been done by the racing industry. Midwestern states would benefit greatly from this, getting more money into the historically poor farmers, and minimizing foreign oil dependance. 'Course, we'd be putting roughly 140 octane fuel into our motor-vehicles, initial re-tooling of the vehicles would be hell, but managable, given a long enough build-up time (increasing amount of Ethanol required per gallon of gas until only a fraction of Gasoline is used to help build the agricultural side of things, and such).
the laser isn't for dealing with Osama, it's for dealing with North Korea, and all those other governmental powers that can launch ICBM's.
and, of course, the many, many missing nuclear warheads from Russia.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering they're looking for atmospheric distortion,
No.
- I seriously doubt you're going to space.
- This will likely be the bottom most layer in a series of materials while spacewalking.
- When NOT spacewalking, people would likely wear uniforms or other apparel over this.
Sorry to destroy hundreds of nerds' dreams.They fire a reference laser into the sky and correct based on that.
I missed the joke...
I guess it requires sound to work properly?
This article seems to be a bit of FUD to me.
Most of the sandboxed systems it refers to in the article are anti(virus/spyware/malware) programs. If the machine is already compromised with some malware, there's no real incentive for a virus to become active only when Symantec's VM runs across them. If it's already on the system, there's no limit to the damage a file could do through other (more direct) methods.
Referring to a cousin comment, it's probably better for the malware to lay low when scanned rather than to take advantage of the virus scanner.
Couldn't they just remove 3 cents and use the same method, adding 3 cents at the end?
Never seen 9's compliment before... never been a cashier.
Neat.
Did you even read what you quoted?
Yeah, why should I vote 'no' on potentially devastating and exploitative laws
Surely I can always elect someone who will represent my opinions about every conceivable subject without error!
At best, politicians are ignorant about many subjects, and do the best they can representing the interests in their locality. Personally, with my representatives, I wouldn't trust them further than I could throw them.
Considering that even the most sober, realistic and intelligent politician can only make decisions on almost entirely distorted information presented to them, I'm glad that in America we get the chance to petition for a vote on controversial issues. Walking in and checking a box opens the door to too much exploitation even without electronic voting machines (Consider Italy).
Actually, the correct answer for that question was a write in:
"Train them as hunting dogs"
I don't know about you, but... I'm being paid for programming.
It sounds to me like a Simpsons reproduction of Conker's Bad Fur Day, except substitute squirrel for yellow person, and movies with videogames.
What about "Microsoft"?
There would be nothing wrong with Microsoft adding in an advertisement blocking utility given that they showed that they were either not in control of it themselves or that it blocked a reasonably uniform set of advertisers. Given the difficulty of the 2nd one, I have a feeling that Microsoft placing a "Do Not Display Content" button (wherein users would put the URLs/blocking services much like AdBlock Plus) is the most likely scenario.
Any ideas how else this might be put in without provoking (let's pretend) unwinnable lawsuits?
Who would they have an affair with? The other married couple within 5 feet?
Would they fight over leaving the space-toilet seat up?
TFA talks about stricter, more controversial psychological testing over multiple month periods for the astronauts, even for NASA. A lot of the catalysts that break up relationships seem to disappear in space; No new lovers, no change of job, no friends to come over, play cards, watch football and piss off your wife for you.
Seems to me that if they modify the beds (longer adjustable elastic straps), sound-proof the walls a bit, stock (and mandate) contraceptives, the couples would be set.
I'm honestly wondering if the topic was even considered "too hot to handle", or just obvious enough not to mention.
/.
Shoot up couples that have been in a relationship for a long time. If they pass the other psychological tests, then they're deemed sane enough to get shot up into space in a metal tube for about a year by themselves. I don't see why having a spouse or long term partner along for the trip would make it more of a hassle.
Fuck man, these people are given chores to do by NASA anyhow, it's not like she can nag you to mow the lawn or get off
Fuck Einstein! Light doesn't bend with gravity any more!
With music/movies/software, we tend to support the college kids, families, and whomever is in the defense of the *AA lawsuits due to the fact that it appears about 90% of the time the "mafiaa" sue without enough incriminating evidence to actually win a lawsuit. Furthermore, it's highly doubtful that the music pirates would have actually bought the copyrighted material in the first place, and, as individuals, generally aren't distributing the music past 2-3 people.
/. readers when I say that if this guy had printed out the other artists' work from the website and hung it on his wall, it'd be the same scale of copyright violation as the *AA sue people for.
This guy is blatantly copying and selling (for a profit) the artwork of others. I think I speak for most of the
Or, more concisely; mass reproduction, claiming ownership and selling for a profit != reproduction (solely) for home use.
no, no.
The *new* monkey overlords.
I for one welcome our new monkey overlords.
Kill leftie. Wars with warcrimes are about the same as wars without. The orphans and hearts are small potatoes in comparison to the tyrants, placed for sympathy, as is the loved one. The secondary benefits are about the only difference, and it comes down to whether you would like cancer or moral philosophy. As I would rather have no cancer and no stupid shit questions like this, Kill leftie and cure cancer.
we didn't build those. they were made by the god things.
all it takes is overhauling fuel systems to use (m)ethanol. The manhattan-project grade research has already been done by the racing industry. Midwestern states would benefit greatly from this, getting more money into the historically poor farmers, and minimizing foreign oil dependance. 'Course, we'd be putting roughly 140 octane fuel into our motor-vehicles, initial re-tooling of the vehicles would be hell, but managable, given a long enough build-up time (increasing amount of Ethanol required per gallon of gas until only a fraction of Gasoline is used to help build the agricultural side of things, and such).
of course, to build it requires some brand spankin new materials so that it could support it's own weight.
I'm claiming no other knowlege than what I read in This article, but it appeared to cover everything I had questions aboot.
the laser isn't for dealing with Osama, it's for dealing with North Korea, and all those other governmental powers that can launch ICBM's. and, of course, the many, many missing nuclear warheads from Russia.
Apple just needs to patent a new design of window, of course. IT'S ALL SO SIMPLE!!!