Whatever you do to take care of your body, it will be weaker by time. You can only make the pace of it slow, though eventually it will. If you think you'll be as healthy, as energetic you are today, you're only fooling yourself and you might be surprised enough to see year by year you'll lose your skills and turn back to what you had when you're a new born.
Life has a cycle, you start with nothing, and die with nothing. But it gives you a chance when you're younger to have something before you die. If you don't use your chance, you postpone worst days of your life to its end. When you're a young or baby, people would give you a hand, but when you're old, nobody would care about you if you hadn't used your chance.
According to TFA, this cheat is discovered by their own federation, and disclosed so at least these cheaters can be considered as violator of their own ethics and the rest of the French chess players on that level won't have a bad reputation or leave a doubt in future events.
It's wise, and also fortunate, that they solved this problem in house.
Well, they won't actually whine but just increase the prices. At the end of the day, it's the consumers who will get affected, not the vendors. They don't need mercy of yours at all, better prepare to pay more.
Because MS abuses its monopolistic status. You can't migrate over other operating system easily, even if you can. There're still too many incompatibilities. For almost every implementation of technology now there's a classification of Unix-based couple of OS and Windows ones (which was actually Unix based at the beginning). MS diverged its operating system too much and never released any reliable specs for considerably long time to cause vendor lock-in. Not any other implementation could ever existed apart from theirs...
Only benchmark I care is the real usage of web. Is there any benchmark available that tests sites such as top 30 sites listed on alexa.com, and have some automated usage profiles and compare load time, render time, memory usage etc.?
I'm against non-sense censorship as well. But I wish in this kind of situation, *all* Google products to be blocked (including Google Search Engine), if Google does not change its arrogant behavior. This is not censorship in a known sense. Once they would see that they will lose such a market and other sites would stop using Google for their services, they would do their auto-control more efficient. I don't understand, how someone do accept idea of a company to have its own 'laws' in your own country just because of some convenience they get from said company? I can't vote for Google BoDs since I'm not a shareholder, but I can vote for my representatives. Why should I give control to them? They are just a company, and for almost all of their products, there are alternatives. (I'm happy to get inferior quality for the sake of my freedom).
Google could easily block the content, and give out the IPs of the users of their page, so copyright owners would fight with those infringing their copyrights. Once Google back those, that means they are protecting those against laws (for more ad revenue). Even if it's for political reasons, I don't think corporations have any right to impose their own morals to nations. This is my country, these laws were written by those I elected, and I trust them much more than any foreign organization running for-profit. If they are not happy with it, they can just stop serving content for Turkey. However they choose to be hypocrite and while not obeying laws of the country, they want money from same nation. It's simple: if you suck money out of my country, you should obey its rules.
I really don't think they should be blocking any content at all, and any method they do try to use is almost guaranteed to be breakable - the only real question is how hard it is to break. That said, I'm sure blocking the URL of the relevant blog or blogs at the DNS level would be about the same difficulty, and effectiveness, as blocking the whole of Blogger.
Blocking URL's at DNS level is pretty hard. DNS blocking is the easiest (and the least efficient) way to block content. Different URLs of the same site would resolve to same IP so you can't block a certain URL at DNS level easily (you still need prior monitoring if you want to do that.). Besides, why should anyone care a product of a company that doesn't do that themselves?
No, it isn't. If companies start yanking content based on the laws of countries other than those where their servers are located, whose laws should they draw the line at? Sweden? Turkey? Saudi Arabia?
If you can manage to distinguish users based on their geographical location for your income generating advertisement network, for sure you can do the same for content you serve for that geographical location. That *might* be an excuse for smaller sites, but for Google it's not an issue, and they just don't do this not because they can't, just because they are not happy about it since otherwise their hits on those products will diminish. Well how many visit YouTube for just non-copyrighted work? Vast majority of users are those who want to reach copyrighted materials easily for *free*. So they are not willing to block those content, and I don't think Blogger is an exception.
Most importantly, how are they to be sure that the same won't keep happening, now the precedent is set?
If you value your opinions, then you should be more careful about your choice of provider. On a flip side, how are they to be sure that same kind of infringement won't affect themselves in future, if they support this kind of behavior?
Do you have any idea how hard is to block part of a web site from a distributed server? Should they check the whole data which people downloading and filter only the certain 'html' code? Isn't it more harmful for free speech? I don't want anyone to monitor data I'm downloading from any server. It's duty of Google to block those content, but they didn't according to the owner of complaint, since they tried to convince Google first to remove that content. I guess Google was happy with that content due to the advertisement revenue they are getting from those pages. People can use more legitimate servers (read: other blog sites) to share their ideas. Google Blogger product is not the only place to write blogs.
I don't want my tax money to be spent on some juridical inspection to find abusive content, and prepare infrastructure to block exactly that. That's the *duty* of provider, and in this case provider is Google. I don't know if Google would be happy if someone rip their for-profit online applications and sell them, we've already seen how offensive they were when their authentication system source code was leaked. Hypocritically if it's IP of someone else they just *don't care* with freedom lies. That's far from being 'not evil'.
I wish they could block all products of the said company, so they won't be able to earn a dime from us in case they don't change their harmful behavior. For sure Internet won't be easier to use without their products, but that would be just for a while, someone would willingly fill their void eventually. They know that. So I'm pretty sure if such a decision made, they would suddenly start to respect laws of nations that they don't even give any tax from their profit.
However average people can't see the big picture, and they think Google products are "free" services for humanity and they should be allowed to do whatever they want on their own way, otherwise it's censorship.
That's nothing about the free speech or something. It's purely about copyright infringement, and Google doesn't do its work to block such an abusive content.
US is much more strict in that sense.
OTOH, just because it's "blog" it doesn't mean it's about a page people share their opinions, vast majority of those blocks include the pirated content or links to them even worse with advertisement.
What if you want to delete some portion of data, but still want to use the drive? If it's only one file that you need to get rid of, it doesn't sound like a brainer to destroy all the media, does it? Read the article, it's mostly about this kind of usage.
One of the SSDs out of 8 they tested has built in encryption. And according to article although it's faster to sanitize data (ie. sanitizing the encryption key), since leftover encrypted data might leave cryptanalysis options, it might be insecure. (though theoretically it is.)
I wonder which distro he uses personally? Or what Medvenev uses, since he's more geeky than Putin. Maybe Medvenev has already changed his iPhone 4G gifted by Steve Jobs with an Android based phone.
Have you ever heard something called trade marks or brand recognition? If your FOSS project is successful, your brand name would be tasty enough for big cats to swallow you and you'd be wealthy and get back what you invested for your company not reward of volunteer work of others.
No reward? I'd prefer to own thousands of linux servers for my botnet, not thousands of windows servers.
Let's admit it, it's easier to hack a windows machine. Not because it's wildly used. But because it lacks fundamentals in its design. Their closed design and monopolistic approaches never let any kind of software repository to be build. So people got used to install software downloading from the Internet and double click on them. They don't have central update mechanism so that vendors can push their updates easily. They tried to be "user friendly" but it's evident that they created something "hacker friendly".
Linux is less used so it's not hacked in masses is a fallacious claim. Everyone knows it's hard to convince a Linux user to 'download and run' an application since it has longer path to convince users to do that. Of course nothing is fool-proof, but vast majority of people getting infected with these worms are not fools, they are just victims of stupid design decisions. Even very technical people get infected with viruses and worms in Windows, remember recent Google case in China to be convinced.
And what gives you the right to spread radio waves in my home? I don't think connecting to an unprotected wireless network is criminal issue as in your analogies, but an ethical issue.
Maybe you can live with not logging in from a "computer" that you don't fully control in your basement, but in real world, there happens to be a lot of times that you need to login through a computer (and sometimes only available ones are public). On the other hand, it's not over only with control of the computer you used as client. You need the control of the network as well.
General rule of thumb should be, never put anything secret at all to databases that could be accessed over public networks, like Internet. If you don't do that, just admit that the thing is not a secret anymore and live with it.
I always wondered how someone can't "protect" himself/herself could protect others (ie. their children). Companies know that, and exploit it, nothing new out there on the Earth.
They could inform their users about this and even better tell public what actions they have taken in order to prevent such incidents to happen in future. I don't see any reason why an engineer can access user data. I hope they don't design their systems in a commodity CMS fashion that "admin" can alter any kind of data, let alone viewing them.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever you do to take care of your body, it will be weaker by time. You can only make the pace of it slow, though eventually it will. If you think you'll be as healthy, as energetic you are today, you're only fooling yourself and you might be surprised enough to see year by year you'll lose your skills and turn back to what you had when you're a new born.
Life has a cycle, you start with nothing, and die with nothing. But it gives you a chance when you're younger to have something before you die. If you don't use your chance, you postpone worst days of your life to its end. When you're a young or baby, people would give you a hand, but when you're old, nobody would care about you if you hadn't used your chance.
According to TFA, this cheat is discovered by their own federation, and disclosed so at least these cheaters can be considered as violator of their own ethics and the rest of the French chess players on that level won't have a bad reputation or leave a doubt in future events.
It's wise, and also fortunate, that they solved this problem in house.
Well, they won't actually whine but just increase the prices. At the end of the day, it's the consumers who will get affected, not the vendors. They don't need mercy of yours at all, better prepare to pay more.
Because MS abuses its monopolistic status. You can't migrate over other operating system easily, even if you can. There're still too many incompatibilities. For almost every implementation of technology now there's a classification of Unix-based couple of OS and Windows ones (which was actually Unix based at the beginning). MS diverged its operating system too much and never released any reliable specs for considerably long time to cause vendor lock-in. Not any other implementation could ever existed apart from theirs...
Enough?
...is like fucking for virginity!
Only benchmark I care is the real usage of web. Is there any benchmark available that tests sites such as top 30 sites listed on alexa.com, and have some automated usage profiles and compare load time, render time, memory usage etc.?
I wish they weren't pissed of by somewhere else which imposed its own tactics for world domination (ie. order) now and in past.
I'm against non-sense censorship as well. But I wish in this kind of situation, *all* Google products to be blocked (including Google Search Engine), if Google does not change its arrogant behavior. This is not censorship in a known sense. Once they would see that they will lose such a market and other sites would stop using Google for their services, they would do their auto-control more efficient. I don't understand, how someone do accept idea of a company to have its own 'laws' in your own country just because of some convenience they get from said company? I can't vote for Google BoDs since I'm not a shareholder, but I can vote for my representatives. Why should I give control to them? They are just a company, and for almost all of their products, there are alternatives. (I'm happy to get inferior quality for the sake of my freedom).
Google could easily block the content, and give out the IPs of the users of their page, so copyright owners would fight with those infringing their copyrights. Once Google back those, that means they are protecting those against laws (for more ad revenue). Even if it's for political reasons, I don't think corporations have any right to impose their own morals to nations. This is my country, these laws were written by those I elected, and I trust them much more than any foreign organization running for-profit. If they are not happy with it, they can just stop serving content for Turkey. However they choose to be hypocrite and while not obeying laws of the country, they want money from same nation. It's simple: if you suck money out of my country, you should obey its rules.
I really don't think they should be blocking any content at all, and any method they do try to use is almost guaranteed to be breakable - the only real question is how hard it is to break. That said, I'm sure blocking the URL of the relevant blog or blogs at the DNS level would be about the same difficulty, and effectiveness, as blocking the whole of Blogger.
Blocking URL's at DNS level is pretty hard. DNS blocking is the easiest (and the least efficient) way to block content. Different URLs of the same site would resolve to same IP so you can't block a certain URL at DNS level easily (you still need prior monitoring if you want to do that.). Besides, why should anyone care a product of a company that doesn't do that themselves?
No, it isn't. If companies start yanking content based on the laws of countries other than those where their servers are located, whose laws should they draw the line at? Sweden? Turkey? Saudi Arabia?
If you can manage to distinguish users based on their geographical location for your income generating advertisement network, for sure you can do the same for content you serve for that geographical location. That *might* be an excuse for smaller sites, but for Google it's not an issue, and they just don't do this not because they can't, just because they are not happy about it since otherwise their hits on those products will diminish. Well how many visit YouTube for just non-copyrighted work? Vast majority of users are those who want to reach copyrighted materials easily for *free*. So they are not willing to block those content, and I don't think Blogger is an exception.
Most importantly, how are they to be sure that the same won't keep happening, now the precedent is set?
If you value your opinions, then you should be more careful about your choice of provider. On a flip side, how are they to be sure that same kind of infringement won't affect themselves in future, if they support this kind of behavior?
Do you have any idea how hard is to block part of a web site from a distributed server? Should they check the whole data which people downloading and filter only the certain 'html' code? Isn't it more harmful for free speech? I don't want anyone to monitor data I'm downloading from any server. It's duty of Google to block those content, but they didn't according to the owner of complaint, since they tried to convince Google first to remove that content. I guess Google was happy with that content due to the advertisement revenue they are getting from those pages. People can use more legitimate servers (read: other blog sites) to share their ideas. Google Blogger product is not the only place to write blogs.
I don't want my tax money to be spent on some juridical inspection to find abusive content, and prepare infrastructure to block exactly that. That's the *duty* of provider, and in this case provider is Google. I don't know if Google would be happy if someone rip their for-profit online applications and sell them, we've already seen how offensive they were when their authentication system source code was leaked. Hypocritically if it's IP of someone else they just *don't care* with freedom lies. That's far from being 'not evil'.
I wish they could block all products of the said company, so they won't be able to earn a dime from us in case they don't change their harmful behavior. For sure Internet won't be easier to use without their products, but that would be just for a while, someone would willingly fill their void eventually. They know that. So I'm pretty sure if such a decision made, they would suddenly start to respect laws of nations that they don't even give any tax from their profit.
However average people can't see the big picture, and they think Google products are "free" services for humanity and they should be allowed to do whatever they want on their own way, otherwise it's censorship.
That's nothing about the free speech or something. It's purely about copyright infringement, and Google doesn't do its work to block such an abusive content.
US is much more strict in that sense.
OTOH, just because it's "blog" it doesn't mean it's about a page people share their opinions, vast majority of those blocks include the pirated content or links to them even worse with advertisement.
Welcome to the normal way of living America!
What if you want to delete some portion of data, but still want to use the drive? If it's only one file that you need to get rid of, it doesn't sound like a brainer to destroy all the media, does it? Read the article, it's mostly about this kind of usage.
One of the SSDs out of 8 they tested has built in encryption. And according to article although it's faster to sanitize data (ie. sanitizing the encryption key), since leftover encrypted data might leave cryptanalysis options, it might be insecure. (though theoretically it is.)
And you just realized that? If so I think you still have time to drink some vodka.
I wonder which distro he uses personally? Or what Medvenev uses, since he's more geeky than Putin. Maybe Medvenev has already changed his iPhone 4G gifted by Steve Jobs with an Android based phone.
What this has to do with science?
Have you ever heard something called trade marks or brand recognition? If your FOSS project is successful, your brand name would be tasty enough for big cats to swallow you and you'd be wealthy and get back what you invested for your company not reward of volunteer work of others.
No reward? I'd prefer to own thousands of linux servers for my botnet, not thousands of windows servers.
Let's admit it, it's easier to hack a windows machine. Not because it's wildly used. But because it lacks fundamentals in its design. Their closed design and monopolistic approaches never let any kind of software repository to be build. So people got used to install software downloading from the Internet and double click on them. They don't have central update mechanism so that vendors can push their updates easily. They tried to be "user friendly" but it's evident that they created something "hacker friendly".
Linux is less used so it's not hacked in masses is a fallacious claim. Everyone knows it's hard to convince a Linux user to 'download and run' an application since it has longer path to convince users to do that. Of course nothing is fool-proof, but vast majority of people getting infected with these worms are not fools, they are just victims of stupid design decisions. Even very technical people get infected with viruses and worms in Windows, remember recent Google case in China to be convinced.
And what gives you the right to spread radio waves in my home? I don't think connecting to an unprotected wireless network is criminal issue as in your analogies, but an ethical issue.
Maybe you can live with not logging in from a "computer" that you don't fully control in your basement, but in real world, there happens to be a lot of times that you need to login through a computer (and sometimes only available ones are public). On the other hand, it's not over only with control of the computer you used as client. You need the control of the network as well.
General rule of thumb should be, never put anything secret at all to databases that could be accessed over public networks, like Internet. If you don't do that, just admit that the thing is not a secret anymore and live with it.
I always wondered how someone can't "protect" himself/herself could protect others (ie. their children). Companies know that, and exploit it, nothing new out there on the Earth.
They could inform their users about this and even better tell public what actions they have taken in order to prevent such incidents to happen in future. I don't see any reason why an engineer can access user data. I hope they don't design their systems in a commodity CMS fashion that "admin" can alter any kind of data, let alone viewing them.