The very openeness that makes Wikipedia such a dynamic and powerful resource exposes it to abuse.
To expand on your point... it seems like the detractors to wikipedia don't seem to understand it's purpose. Articles with misinformation continue to have misinformation because very few people are reading them. It all balances out in the end. Have they heard the phrase, "don't believe everything you read"?
I'd rather pay a little more and know that I'm buying from someone I can trust. So what if I can save a few bucks if I'm not sure I'm going to get exactly what I paid for? Sure I look for deals but it's a matter of balancing that against buying from someone reputable.
No browser is safer that IE if you prevent it from accessing a network!
I had something similar happen with a recent update a client of mine did. They updated their version of PC-cillin and it completely blocked them from getting on the Internet. It sure was secure though!
You will see the following lines (in various formats):
Disallow:/article.pl
Disallow:/comments.pl
Having a link in an article page or a comments page will not help you in SEO because robots will ignore it. If you look at the full robots.txt you will see there are a lot of other pages that are ignored as well. This basically means that any links in slashdot comments will be useless for SEO. However, links in the original article may be helpful since they show up on the home page and the home page is not ignored.
You are pointing out where the "Central Park" analogy breaks down. Central Park has intrinsic value to the "public" and single letter domain names do not. However, why should one organization benefit so mightily from something that belongs to the "public" even if that something has no intrinsic value yet? Now, if ICANN has some plans to use this money for the good of the Internet (or "public") then that's a different story.
My point is that if they were going to make these domain names available they should have done it from the very beginning or not at all. It's as if (as the article points out) Central Park suddenly became available for land development. Granted only the wealthy can afford to live near Central Park as it is but that market has developed over time - not suddenly been opened up. Where are the profits from the sale of these domain names going? One could argue that the Internet (like Central Park) belongs to the public. Is the "public" going to benefit from the sale of these domain names or are a few people going to get rich off of it?
Six single-letter names already claimed at the time _ "q.com," "x.com, "z.com," "i.net," "q.net," and "x.org" _ were allowed to keep their names for the time being.
I took the test and got all but one correct. I identified one legitimate e-mail as a phishing attempt. When given the choice I guess it's better to err on the side of caution. Anyways, it's not very realistic. The one I got wrong had the last four digits of an account number in it. If I'd gotten the e-mail I'd open up my wallet and see if my account number matched.
but if hackers attack security software instead of other apps, maybe it means that security software actually works in protecting these
Interesting theory but the product in question, Veritas BackupExec, is not a security product. To Symantec's credit this is a software product they purchased but it still has the Symantec name on it.
The SANS Institute's Internet Storm Center recorded a sharp spike in Internet scans for systems running the Veritas BackupExec software, which is now sold by Symantec, after a crop of high-risk holes were announced in June, according to Johannes Ullrich, CTO of SANS ISC.
That must be embarrassing for a company that sells security products themselves.
I just moved from Manchester, NH to Burlington, VT. I was born in Portsmouth, NH. Probably about the furthest north you can go and still find decent IT jobs is Concord. Or you could go west to Keene - you might find some work there. Then again, Portsmouth (on the coast) is very nice and has a lot of IT jobs. It's close to MA but doesn't seem to be nearly as influenced by MA as "Southern New Hampshire" - in fact I think most people don't consider Portsmouth to be "Southern New Hampshire" even though it looks like it on the map. The more that I think about it Portsmouth sounds like your best bet except it can be an expensive place to live.
Actually, I read Sony's page on the matter which made no mention of a refund even though the slashdot title misleadingly says "CD Buybacks." Oh, and the slashdot summary (not title) makes no mention of a refund, only exchange. Did you read the RTFA? Slashdot summaries are typically useless and misleading - it's very typical for them to be misleading or just downright wrong. I was commenting on TFA not on the TFS.
If the government is going to start considering bloggers "journalists", this could end up being a huge roadblock to free speech.
You speak of the "government" as if it is one monolithic entity that actually knows what all of it's hands are doing. The FEC decided that bloggers were journalist - not any other government agency. For FEC purposes they are journalist. This does not mean that, for example, the Supreme Court thinks of bloggers as journalist or that any other part of the government thinks of bloggers as journalist. This decision has to do with campaign finance, period.
If this was in fact more secure than perhaps it would have already been released bundled as one algorithm. Why make people use two sets of algorithms unless the goal is to confuse potential crackers? However, mose uses of MD5 involve the recipient knowing the algorithm used so that wouldn't work.
Well this may be the case there are two things to consider: a) Does everyone who reads slashdot read Digg? b) Digg has a lot of content to sort through - so what if slashdot plucks a few things that they think slashdot readers would be interested in so we don't have to sort through all the other garbage?
When I heard that they had purchased Urchin back in March I was wondering how long it would be before they came out with a service like this. I'm sure this will be a lot better than a lot of those free "stat counter" services out there.
Slashdot Mirror
The very openeness that makes Wikipedia such a dynamic and powerful resource exposes it to abuse.
To expand on your point... it seems like the detractors to wikipedia don't seem to understand it's purpose. Articles with misinformation continue to have misinformation because very few people are reading them. It all balances out in the end. Have they heard the phrase, "don't believe everything you read"?
Would you like a root kit with your meal?
I'd rather pay a little more and know that I'm buying from someone I can trust. So what if I can save a few bucks if I'm not sure I'm going to get exactly what I paid for? Sure I look for deals but it's a matter of balancing that against buying from someone reputable.
No browser is safer that IE if you prevent it from accessing a network!
I had something similar happen with a recent update a client of mine did. They updated their version of PC-cillin and it completely blocked them from getting on the Internet. It sure was secure though!
Actually, this won't help with SEO. If you look at:
/article.pl /comments.pl
http://slashdot.org/robots.txt
You will see the following lines (in various formats):
Disallow:
Disallow:
Having a link in an article page or a comments page will not help you in SEO because robots will ignore it. If you look at the full robots.txt you will see there are a lot of other pages that are ignored as well. This basically means that any links in slashdot comments will be useless for SEO. However, links in the original article may be helpful since they show up on the home page and the home page is not ignored.
How come I haven't seen that feature yet? Even my dummy accounts get upgrades.
You haven't, by any chance, had the same browser window open for a couple of months?
Thanks and try the fish!
Did you mean, "So long and thanks for all the fish?" Or was your use of "naked girls" and "fish" in the same post intentional?
You are pointing out where the "Central Park" analogy breaks down. Central Park has intrinsic value to the "public" and single letter domain names do not. However, why should one organization benefit so mightily from something that belongs to the "public" even if that something has no intrinsic value yet? Now, if ICANN has some plans to use this money for the good of the Internet (or "public") then that's a different story.
My point is that if they were going to make these domain names available they should have done it from the very beginning or not at all. It's as if (as the article points out) Central Park suddenly became available for land development. Granted only the wealthy can afford to live near Central Park as it is but that market has developed over time - not suddenly been opened up. Where are the profits from the sale of these domain names going? One could argue that the Internet (like Central Park) belongs to the public. Is the "public" going to benefit from the sale of these domain names or are a few people going to get rich off of it?
Six single-letter names already claimed at the time _ "q.com," "x.com, "z.com," "i.net," "q.net," and "x.org" _ were allowed to keep their names for the time being.
With only 26 available they should fetch a hefty price and be accessible to only the wealthy. Great.
I took the test and got all but one correct. I identified one legitimate e-mail as a phishing attempt. When given the choice I guess it's better to err on the side of caution. Anyways, it's not very realistic. The one I got wrong had the last four digits of an account number in it. If I'd gotten the e-mail I'd open up my wallet and see if my account number matched.
but if hackers attack security software instead of other apps, maybe it means that security software actually works in protecting these
Interesting theory but the product in question, Veritas BackupExec, is not a security product. To Symantec's credit this is a software product they purchased but it still has the Symantec name on it.
The SANS Institute's Internet Storm Center recorded a sharp spike in Internet scans for systems running the Veritas BackupExec software, which is now sold by Symantec, after a crop of high-risk holes were announced in June, according to Johannes Ullrich, CTO of SANS ISC.
That must be embarrassing for a company that sells security products themselves.
I just moved from Manchester, NH to Burlington, VT. I was born in Portsmouth, NH. Probably about the furthest north you can go and still find decent IT jobs is Concord. Or you could go west to Keene - you might find some work there. Then again, Portsmouth (on the coast) is very nice and has a lot of IT jobs. It's close to MA but doesn't seem to be nearly as influenced by MA as "Southern New Hampshire" - in fact I think most people don't consider Portsmouth to be "Southern New Hampshire" even though it looks like it on the map. The more that I think about it Portsmouth sounds like your best bet except it can be an expensive place to live.
Actually, I read Sony's page on the matter which made no mention of a refund even though the slashdot title misleadingly says "CD Buybacks." Oh, and the slashdot summary (not title) makes no mention of a refund, only exchange. Did you read the RTFA? Slashdot summaries are typically useless and misleading - it's very typical for them to be misleading or just downright wrong. I was commenting on TFA not on the TFS.
No option to get cash back? I'd want my money back if I were one of the unfortunate people who had bought one of these CDs.
If the government is going to start considering bloggers "journalists", this could end up being a huge roadblock to free speech.
You speak of the "government" as if it is one monolithic entity that actually knows what all of it's hands are doing. The FEC decided that bloggers were journalist - not any other government agency. For FEC purposes they are journalist. This does not mean that, for example, the Supreme Court thinks of bloggers as journalist or that any other part of the government thinks of bloggers as journalist. This decision has to do with campaign finance, period.
FTA
Peter Francis-Macrae, of St Neots, Cambs, was found guilty of threatening to kill and blackmail.
Yes, he was a spammer but that's not what he was sentenced for.
How'd he get it on the domain?
Samba, perhaps?
move to Google Talk.
Why not just use 2 different algorithms?
If this was in fact more secure than perhaps it would have already been released bundled as one algorithm. Why make people use two sets of algorithms unless the goal is to confuse potential crackers? However, mose uses of MD5 involve the recipient knowing the algorithm used so that wouldn't work.
So is SHA1 the recommended alternative?
Well this may be the case there are two things to consider: a) Does everyone who reads slashdot read Digg? b) Digg has a lot of content to sort through - so what if slashdot plucks a few things that they think slashdot readers would be interested in so we don't have to sort through all the other garbage?
When I heard that they had purchased Urchin back in March I was wondering how long it would be before they came out with a service like this. I'm sure this will be a lot better than a lot of those free "stat counter" services out there.