The technique does depend on cookies (if indirectly), since social networking sites (and indeed any site using sessions) depend on cookies to maintain their sessions. Incognito mode doesn't block cookies; it just makes sure they're deleted once you close the browser, so it won't provide any defence against the "attack".
Also, it would be straightforward to adapt the technique to work in IE by using AJAX requests instead of script tags to query the URLs to be checked.
I know it's not the done thing to actually read the article, so:
The destruction will be carried out by a a CESG accredited and approved supplier, securely and in accordance with established secure destruction policy, procedures and guidelines, Green said. These include compliance with the HMS IA Standard No. 5-Secure Sanitisation of Protectively Marked Sensitive Information. Physical equipment holding the data will be degaussed and physically shredded.
If journalists were in the habit of providing legal support to their sources once outed, and Manning had also been confirmed as Wikileaks' source (which they have consistently denied), then you might have had an argument there.
I don't know whether it was an editor* or the author of the article himself (my bet's on the latter), but whoever chose the title "Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead" was undoubtedly trolling.
(*At PCWorld, I mean, not/.)
Nice idea, assuming the traffic cops enforce the laws reasonably. If, on the other hand, they're prone to issuing tickets excessively, this would only give them greater latitude to do so.
I don't think the claim is entirely implausible; 25MB of code may well suffice to simulate the human brain if it was written in something like brainfuck.
I do however disagree with the assertion:
The genome is not the program; it's the data.
The difficulty in truly understanding the genome is that it's both program and data.
At least in the US, we are not at the stage yet where the military can openly admit that they are beginning an ongoing operation whose objective is to slaughter civillians en masse, and not expect to get an overwhelmingly negative response frmo the public....
That's because they can just label them "terrorists" instead of "civilians".
For those who didn't read the article (i.e. most Slashdotters), the phrase "This will most likely require some sort of payment..." seems to imply some form of access control and thus user tracking, so it wouldn't run afoul of the DE bill anyway.
What if eventually any job you can do can be done better and more cheaply by an AI? What should happen to you then?
Then the job should be done by an AI, and you should train for a job that can't be so economically automated. It's not like this issue hasn't come up before with the advent of robotic assembly lines and, well, any kind of automation technology ever.
Or setting a precedent that just because some people are stupid/ignorant it's OK to mistreat them (see the electroshock proponents above).
We're not just talking about general ignorance/stupidity here; we're talking about someone's ability to do their job. If they lack that ability then they should be trained further or replaced. It's that simple.
I think it's also worth emphasising that it was only the sale of in-game currency for cash which got Ricdic's account banned, not the actual theft. If he had kept the cash in-game, he wouldn't have been subject to sanctions from CCP at all.
Ricdic has now been thrown out of the game as trading in-game cash for real money is against Eve Online's terms and conditions.
The rules governing play within Eve would not have sanctioned Ricdic if he had simply stolen the cash and used it in the game, nor if he had bought kredits with real dollars.
Of course the nature of this particular theft doesn't really relate to the RuneScape account theft since it occurred within the rules of the game in question; describing it as "similar illegal activity" is misleading at best.
If you define "modern" as being built in the last two years or so, then surely most modern computers have either two or four.
And of course that's further assuming that "processors" correspond to CPU cores; include GPUs and the number varies even more widely.
Or you could ask a typical non-technical user who will tell you that the processor is the big box that the monitor plugs into, so of course they have only one.
Point is, "processor" is so vague a term that if you're really going to nitpick the number in a typical machine could be almost anything.
If ownership of intellectual property would ever be undermined other kinds of property are next in line.
Nonsense. Intellectual "property" is a legal fiction which does not conform to the same principles as physical property, most significantly that of scarcity.
Slashdot Mirror
The technique does depend on cookies (if indirectly), since social networking sites (and indeed any site using sessions) depend on cookies to maintain their sessions. Incognito mode doesn't block cookies; it just makes sure they're deleted once you close the browser, so it won't provide any defence against the "attack".
Also, it would be straightforward to adapt the technique to work in IE by using AJAX requests instead of script tags to query the URLs to be checked.
The trouble is it hasn't been Red Dwarf since series 6.
If journalists were in the habit of providing legal support to their sources once outed, and Manning had also been confirmed as Wikileaks' source (which they have consistently denied), then you might have had an argument there.
I don't know whether it was an editor* or the author of the article himself (my bet's on the latter), but whoever chose the title "Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead" was undoubtedly trolling. (*At PCWorld, I mean, not /.)
Yes it is. Insofar as using infinity as an arithmetical value is valid, 10/infinity = 9/infinity = 1/infinity = 0.
Nice idea, assuming the traffic cops enforce the laws reasonably. If, on the other hand, they're prone to issuing tickets excessively, this would only give them greater latitude to do so.
Maybe it was these guys?
You've found a foolproof way to protect your obsolescent DRM. After all, it worked so well for DVD/CSS.
And you don't know how long it is or where it leads.
I don't think the claim is entirely implausible; 25MB of code may well suffice to simulate the human brain if it was written in something like brainfuck.
I do however disagree with the assertion:
The difficulty in truly understanding the genome is that it's both program and data.
That's because they can just label them "terrorists" instead of "civilians".
-1 Troll?
Is that a malamanteau?
For those who didn't read the article (i.e. most Slashdotters), the phrase "This will most likely require some sort of payment..." seems to imply some form of access control and thus user tracking, so it wouldn't run afoul of the DE bill anyway.
No, we just wish he was incarcerated.
PS. I think the word you were actually looking for is "incarnate", but nice Freudian slip.
Then the job should be done by an AI, and you should train for a job that can't be so economically automated. It's not like this issue hasn't come up before with the advent of robotic assembly lines and, well, any kind of automation technology ever.
We're not just talking about general ignorance/stupidity here; we're talking about someone's ability to do their job. If they lack that ability then they should be trained further or replaced. It's that simple.
Sure, if you take something which doesn't belong to you (and without permission of course) you are a thief.
However, making a perfect duplicate of something without diminishing the original is not the same as taking it.
They deliberately misspelled the word so that the acronym would match the ISO 4217 code for the Icelandic Krona.
I think it's also worth emphasising that it was only the sale of in-game currency for cash which got Ricdic's account banned, not the actual theft. If he had kept the cash in-game, he wouldn't have been subject to sanctions from CCP at all.
Referencing the original BBC News article:
Of course the nature of this particular theft doesn't really relate to the RuneScape account theft since it occurred within the rules of the game in question; describing it as "similar illegal activity" is misleading at best.
If by "year-after-year" you mean two years* then yes, you are correct. However, I get the feeling that's not what you intended to imply.
* Or 5 years in terrorism-related cases
If you define "modern" as being built in the last two years or so, then surely most modern computers have either two or four.
And of course that's further assuming that "processors" correspond to CPU cores; include GPUs and the number varies even more widely.
Or you could ask a typical non-technical user who will tell you that the processor is the big box that the monitor plugs into, so of course they have only one.
Point is, "processor" is so vague a term that if you're really going to nitpick the number in a typical machine could be almost anything.
But what about the other 0.009%? They're the ones I'm worried about.
Nonsense. Intellectual "property" is a legal fiction which does not conform to the same principles as physical property, most significantly that of scarcity.
That doesn't preclude using OCR to extract the text of the document, since the watermark wouldn't be preserved.