If this article is true, it proves my theory that Intel sits on technology, milking every last dollar from the consumer before releasing something better. This is why I don't buy Intel.
Yes, I know, it's good business and makes the stockholders happy. But as a geek, I'm not into the business side of it. I am into the technology and performance aspect. What if AMD never releases Barcelona? Does Intel never release these new 45nm monsters (or only release them in the quantities already produced, at extremely inflated prices)?
It reminds me of the days of the AMD K6. Intel was "stuck" at 266 Mhz. Reaching beyond that was "impossible". Then, suddenly AMD released a K6 at 300Mhz. Within a week, Intel released the 300 and 333Mhz Pentiums (P-IIs I think). That kind of pissed me off. How much sooner could Intel have released the 300? How much further could they have gone? How many people were forced to pay top dollar while Intel sat back and quietly raked in the cash, knowing that they were selling an inferior product marketed as "the best we can do", when, quite frankly, it wasn't.
This is the action of a monopoly, plain and simple.
And if I were your opponent, I'd respond with the following:
You said:
Now, given that Americans pay lower taxes than most nations of comparable economic development, I don't find the issue tops on my priority list; especially when we're talking about increasing taxes on the unearned income of the wealthy, whose share of the tax burden has fallen. Of course you don't consider what Americans pay in taxes as very important. A one-eyed retarded leper will recognize that the reason the American economy is so strong is because of the low taxes. A completely blind, def, and retarded leper will recognize that the American government receives more in tax payments than any other country on earth because the economy is so strong. And of course, the economy is so strong because of the low taxes. Oh, and the uber strong military doesn't hurt with stability. Unfortunately, my opponent has no idea why the American economy is so strong. He thinks that cutting the military and raising taxes on those that already pay a majority of our taxes, like our European neighbors, will somehow work for us, even though it has not worked for any of our European, or American, or Asian, or African, or any other group on Earth, in the history of man kind... but for some reason, it will work for us because my opponent has magic dust that he can sprinkle at the National Treasory that will make the failed economic plans of the rest of the world work here for some unknown reason. For, you see, my opponent is much too retarded to recognize the failures of others, and will only see that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence... even if the there is no grass there at all, but only picked over sand and rocks.
As for Iraq...well, even if Iraq considers the UN's resolutions to be meaningless, and even the UN considers UN resolution to be meaningless, the US will not stand by and watch a mad man who sits on top of 15% of the world's oil, thumb his nose at the entire world. While the world is full of dictators that the UN should be taking out, this one fired on Americans, and had enough economic might to become a real threat to national security once the UN's sanctions were lifted. Of course, it is obvious that my opponent has no respect for the law, or he would have backed up all 17 of the UN's security resolutions. But, I won't hold that against him and I demand that none of my political allies use it against him as well. That was then, this is now. Now we have Al Qaeda in Iraq. They are there to prove a point. They are there so they can say they defeated us. They are there with the intention of staring us down. They want to be there when we leave so they can say they beat us. Remember 9-11? Al Qaeda did that. Remember Osama BinLaden? He's in charge of Al Qaeda. Now, Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq when all this started, and my opponents allies were quick to point that out. But now, the fact that Al Qaeda IS in Iraq, and is fighting us there, not here, has changed the mind of neigher my opponent nor his allies. He doesn't care that Al Qaeda is in Iraq NOW. He wants to retreat, and leave Iraq, and the good citizens of Iraq to Osama BinLaden. He wants to leave 15% of the world's oil to people that he and his allies have called mad men because he doesn't understand that this "war for oil" is not about taking it home, but preventing it from getting into the hands of men who have not only sworn to kill us, but have shown by their actions of killing innocent American men, women and children that their goal is to kill us. If Al Qaeda could pull off 9-11 will little financial backing, imagine what they could do with the financial backing that 15% of the world's oil supply can give them! My opponent will see to it that they have that backing.
Now I won't lie and claim that stabilizing the middle east is going to be easy. It will take years, maybe even generations to settle. Much like Germany and Japan, we will have a presence in Iraq for many years to come. It won't be easy, but nothing worth while ever is! But you can count on me to make sure that we meet that challenge. You can count on me to not give up when the going gets tough. You can count on me to not be a coward like my opponent and his allies.
What's the point of bringing it up in an election debate?
Because this is their chance to stick it to those evil evangelical Christian Republicans. Notice you didn't see a thread here encouraging people to ask Democrats:
You claim to want to raise taxes on the rich to fund government programs, but government receipts are at an all time high. How much more money do you need? And more importantly, how much money do I need to make to be considered "rich"? and
Do you think that retreating from Al Qaeda is a good idea? Do you believe that there is Al Qaeda in Iraq today? What do you honestly believe will happen in Iraq if we pull out immediately, and do you care? But since Slashdot is a fair site and moderation based on personal opinion is against the moderator guidelines, I'll go ahead and ask it here to even things out a bit.
(and before you hit "Off Topic", I am responding On Topic to a post modded "Insightful")
What makes Bush so special that he is above criticism?
Because critics give their opinion. News is not about opinion. News is not about criticism. News is about the facts. Just give me the details and I'll figure out how I feel about it. I don't need Bill O'Reilly or Keith Oberman telling me what to think. I'll figure it out all on my own, thank you. Save the criticism for the editorial section and stop trying to cram it down my throat as news.
Now, as to a slant, either left or right, I don't think it can be helped. Does Clinton want to push back Bush's tax cut or does she want to raise taxes? They both mean the same thing. Whichever one the reporters says is based on their opinion. It's not wrong, just a fact of life. Now what makes Fox News special is that they are the only ones with a right-slant. So while they pull in 50% of the news audience, all the other networks are competing for the other 50%.
May I suggest NewsBusters.org for real world examples of media bias.
And I thought there were nothing but bubble-headed fucktards over at Fox. Of course, doing anything of this nature (and getting caught at it) is still pretty fucktarded. So perhaps I can rest secure in my preconceived notions of those guys over there...
You know what is really fucktarded? Confusing Fox News with a local Fox TV station. One shows the Simpsons, one shows O'reilly. This was the Simpsons one.
Re:Fox News Reporter == Journalist?
on
Fox Hacks Fark
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Fox News Reporter == Journalist?
Well, actually, even my own biased opinion wouldn't label most Fox employees as 'not journalists' - but everytime I consider the Fox news network as a whole, I just can't think of it as a news network.
This was not a reporter from the cable Fox News Channel, but a news anchor from a local Fox TV station. You know, the same one that shows Family Guy and The Simpsons. That is not FNC, which shows Bill O'reilly and Geraldo.
It's not wrong to want to leave the planet in as good or better condition than when we found it. Agreed. However, "Well, mainly because when people use the "think of the children" argument to limit freedom, they do everyone a disservice." Telling me what I can or can't drive, or how long I can run my AC or how far I can drive to work, or what I can eat... and so on is a limit to my freedom. Now don't get me wrong, I drive a car with a 4-cylinder engine, but I tend to get a bit miffed when I see protesters drive from their protest blocking the building of nuclear power plant to the protest that blocks the production of a "clean coal" power plant. Solutions are available, we just need to use a common sense approach and tell the protectors to blow it out their ass!
But back to your original point, there is a place for emotion in science, but only when dealing with ethical treatment of humans, animals, etc, not when dealing with climate change. If you let emotion cloud your judgment where the environment is concerned, you end up with sensationalist arguments like An Inconvenient Truth claiming that Florida is about to be underwater. You also begin to think that man is responsible for everything because, otherwise, we are powerless to stop it.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for protecting the environment, but we need to pull the bullshit, hypocrisy, politics and hidden agendas out of it. For example, if you want the US to research renewable resource, don't claim that you want to save the porcupine caribou when you fight against drilling in ANWR. If you are against Walmart because of they don't offer health insurance, don't protest the opening of a new store by waving an "environmental impact study" around. It seems as if every single agenda is being tied to Global Warming and the environment because people can't get their original agendas to stand on their own. And frankly, the whole thing is not only starting to piss me off, but it's starting to make me question the whole thing. I can't trust GW alarmists to honest about their agendas, how can I expect them to honest about the science behind it?
Don't you think it's appropriate to be at least somewhat emotionally invested when it's the goddamn future of our children that is at stake? You and all the other global warming deniers can take a flying fuck.
Why is the "Think of the Children" argument valid here, but not at any other time? Just like why is FUD OK when talking about Global Warming and not the War on Terror?
As cool as you may like to think you are because you were born when records came out.
Given that Edison created the first phonograph in November of 1878, that would make him about 128 years old. Considering that the oldest person in history died at 122 years old, that makes your statement impossible.
Yes, I'm being a smart ass. However, I thought it was important to point out that "records" were not the latest thing when the CD came out.
You copied my third paragraph and retyped my second and fourth. Here is what I said:
The company should have made sure that these kiosks were segmented off the general network and even if they could crack their way onto the general network, these machines should have no permission to do anything. and
Of course, none of these are full-proof, but when you combine them all, they make it nearly impossible, or at least not worth it to get into a corporate network Would you spend real money paying off some low wage employee so you and your buddies can spend hours breaking into a kiosk, cracking the software protection on that kiosk, gaining root/admin access, so you could get onto a corporate network where you have no permissions? Um... Wouldn't it just be easier to unplug the kiosk from the network and plug in a notebook?
As you know once you have your hands on the hardware, all bets are off.
The point of a kiosk is for the public to put their hands on the hardware. No, the problem here was incompetence on both the company and kiosk manufacturer.
The company should have made sure that these kiosks were segmented off the general network and even if they could crack their way onto the general network, these machines should have no permission to do anything. Also, a standard keyboard should never be hooked up to a kiosk. It should be locked away in a drawer behind a counter in whatever department the kiosk resides. Any text entry can be done via onscreen keyboard. If that is not an option, an employee should have to plug the keyboard in so that they are aware to keep an eye on the kiosk while the keyboard is attached.
The kiosk manufacturer should have made sure that these machines were secure. I've worked for a kiosk manufacturer and there are things that can be done to make sure the system is secure. For starters, lock down whatever user account the primary application runs on. So even if they can get out of that app, they can't do anything beyond clicking start and shut down. Also, there are software applications that lock down the system for you. The one we used completely locked the desktop out. It was a pain to support, but it was secure.
Of course, none of these are full-proof, but when you combine them all, they make it nearly impossible, or at least not worth it to get into a corporate network.
For years, I have ordered all of my systems with at least two hard drives. For laptops, I order an additional external drive. Currently, I have a very simple protocol: I use OS X and clone the entire hard drive with operating system to a second hard drive with SuperDuper! It is fast, it is easy and if the laptop dies, I can simply boot directly from the backup drive, be back up and running and I don't even have to reinstall applications or set all my preferences. It's like nothing ever happened. By the way, I also use this approach for all my workstations. Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with Shirt Pocket software other than being a satisfied customer. This is a great idea with a few minor faults: 1) Security. If I can steal one of your backup drives, datawise, I just stole the notebook. 2) Efficiency. While I don't know SuperDuper, I assume it clones the entire drive. This seems like a waste of time for a few changed files. An incremental backup would be much faster and more efficient with maybe full backups weekly. 3) Reliability. I assume each backup overwrites the last, correct? If the system crashes while a backup is being made, you just killed the original and your only backup! The odds of it dying during the backup are slim, but it has happened before. You may want to consider getting an external HDD that is 2x the size of your McDrives and split it into two partitions. Only back up to the secondary partition. When the backup is complete, copy the secondary to the primary. If the system crashes while you are copying, you won't be able to boot of the primary, but at least your data will be recoverable.
Still, it is not a bad plan, especially considering the falling cost of IDE HDD's and enclosures... it's certainly more expensive NOT to backup!
Well, the War On Terror is the biggest pile of steaming FUD I've ever seen.
Funny! I thought the actual pile of smoking concrete, metal and bodies was much bigger than the FUD. When the population is asking, "how did this happen" and "why wasn't something done to prevent this", they get their answer.
Microsoft is uniquely qualified to call them out on it, because after all, game recognize game.
Microsoft is worried about Microsoft and Microsoft only. If computer security becomes a huge problem, they just patch it in the next version and resell it. When they are forced to make a product secure to begin with, the incentive to upgrade is removed for many of their would be paying customers. Of course MS is against security being forced up on it. As a biased source, they are not in any way qualified to call anyone out on security issues, especially with their track record!
In your/etc/fstab, add noatime to your options portion of you drive line. For example:
/media/sda1 ext3 defaults,noatime 1 1 atime logs when a file has been written or read. So every time a file is used, it has to write an entry on the HDD, slowing performance, but it can have uses, like in forensics, security or backups (if a file has not been read in three years, it's probably safe to archive and move off the drive). I don't care for it, so I have the noatime line in my fstab.
Damn, the first thing I thought when I read the title was "Does it come with SuperJesus?"
I thought something similar and wondered, why would someone want to 3D'ify The SWORD Project? What good is a 3D Bible over plain text? Do the letters float or something?
Imagine my surprise when I read
According to the authors it 'strives to provide the world's best introduction to not only OpenGL, but 3D graphics programming in general.' A tough goal to achieve." When did God get into OpenGL?
Microsoft also showed a very interesting new desktop virtualisation technology called SoftGrid, which allows applications to be virtualised individually, rather than a whole OS. Think Virtual PC or VMware, but instead of virtualising an OS, just a single application is virtualised." I remember when it was called WINE!
I'm kinda glad that MS gets to feel the pain of "overblown and intrusive" security. Maybe they will understand that it is better to make things secure from the beginning, rather than overacting after the fact. From TFA:
Steve's approach to security spans all horizons, not just information technology. He elaborated on this theory in an afternoon session today at Microsoft Tech.Ed entitled "Making the Tradeoff: Be Secure or Get Work Done". You are trying to get work done. Allow or Deny?
I don't know if selling a vote is illegal or not, however, in order to sell your vote, someone must buy it. I'm pretty sure that buying votes directly is illegal. As to the inability to verify your part of the contract, I guess you will either be guilty of violating a contract of selling your vote.
(That last part is a joke, btw. Contracts to perform an illegal act are non-binding)
Slashdot Mirror
If this article is true, it proves my theory that Intel sits on technology, milking every last dollar from the consumer before releasing something better. This is why I don't buy Intel.
Yes, I know, it's good business and makes the stockholders happy. But as a geek, I'm not into the business side of it. I am into the technology and performance aspect. What if AMD never releases Barcelona? Does Intel never release these new 45nm monsters (or only release them in the quantities already produced, at extremely inflated prices)?
It reminds me of the days of the AMD K6. Intel was "stuck" at 266 Mhz. Reaching beyond that was "impossible". Then, suddenly AMD released a K6 at 300Mhz. Within a week, Intel released the 300 and 333Mhz Pentiums (P-IIs I think). That kind of pissed me off. How much sooner could Intel have released the 300? How much further could they have gone? How many people were forced to pay top dollar while Intel sat back and quietly raked in the cash, knowing that they were selling an inferior product marketed as "the best we can do", when, quite frankly, it wasn't.
This is the action of a monopoly, plain and simple.
Was it found stuck under the top of a 5000 yr old desk?
I think it was found on the bottom of a 5000 yr old shoe.
You said: Now, given that Americans pay lower taxes than most nations of comparable economic development, I don't find the issue tops on my priority list; especially when we're talking about increasing taxes on the unearned income of the wealthy, whose share of the tax burden has fallen. Of course you don't consider what Americans pay in taxes as very important. A one-eyed retarded leper will recognize that the reason the American economy is so strong is because of the low taxes. A completely blind, def, and retarded leper will recognize that the American government receives more in tax payments than any other country on earth because the economy is so strong. And of course, the economy is so strong because of the low taxes. Oh, and the uber strong military doesn't hurt with stability.
Unfortunately, my opponent has no idea why the American economy is so strong. He thinks that cutting the military and raising taxes on those that already pay a majority of our taxes, like our European neighbors, will somehow work for us, even though it has not worked for any of our European, or American, or Asian, or African, or any other group on Earth, in the history of man kind... but for some reason, it will work for us because my opponent has magic dust that he can sprinkle at the National Treasory that will make the failed economic plans of the rest of the world work here for some unknown reason. For, you see, my opponent is much too retarded to recognize the failures of others, and will only see that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence... even if the there is no grass there at all, but only picked over sand and rocks.
As for Iraq...well, even if Iraq considers the UN's resolutions to be meaningless, and even the UN considers UN resolution to be meaningless, the US will not stand by and watch a mad man who sits on top of 15% of the world's oil, thumb his nose at the entire world. While the world is full of dictators that the UN should be taking out, this one fired on Americans, and had enough economic might to become a real threat to national security once the UN's sanctions were lifted. Of course, it is obvious that my opponent has no respect for the law, or he would have backed up all 17 of the UN's security resolutions. But, I won't hold that against him and I demand that none of my political allies use it against him as well. That was then, this is now.
Now we have Al Qaeda in Iraq. They are there to prove a point. They are there so they can say they defeated us. They are there with the intention of staring us down. They want to be there when we leave so they can say they beat us. Remember 9-11? Al Qaeda did that. Remember Osama BinLaden? He's in charge of Al Qaeda. Now, Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq when all this started, and my opponents allies were quick to point that out. But now, the fact that Al Qaeda IS in Iraq, and is fighting us there, not here, has changed the mind of neigher my opponent nor his allies. He doesn't care that Al Qaeda is in Iraq NOW. He wants to retreat, and leave Iraq, and the good citizens of Iraq to Osama BinLaden. He wants to leave 15% of the world's oil to people that he and his allies have called mad men because he doesn't understand that this "war for oil" is not about taking it home, but preventing it from getting into the hands of men who have not only sworn to kill us, but have shown by their actions of killing innocent American men, women and children that their goal is to kill us. If Al Qaeda could pull off 9-11 will little financial backing, imagine what they could do with the financial backing that 15% of the world's oil supply can give them! My opponent will see to it that they have that backing.
Now I won't lie and claim that stabilizing the middle east is going to be easy. It will take years, maybe even generations to settle. Much like Germany and Japan, we will have a presence in Iraq for many years to come. It won't be easy, but nothing worth while ever is! But you can count on me to make sure that we meet that challenge. You can count on me to not give up when the going gets tough. You can count on me to not be a coward like my opponent and his allies.
Because this is their chance to stick it to those evil evangelical Christian Republicans. Notice you didn't see a thread here encouraging people to ask Democrats: You claim to want to raise taxes on the rich to fund government programs, but government receipts are at an all time high. How much more money do you need? And more importantly, how much money do I need to make to be considered "rich"? and Do you think that retreating from Al Qaeda is a good idea? Do you believe that there is Al Qaeda in Iraq today? What do you honestly believe will happen in Iraq if we pull out immediately, and do you care? But since Slashdot is a fair site and moderation based on personal opinion is against the moderator guidelines, I'll go ahead and ask it here to even things out a bit.
(and before you hit "Off Topic", I am responding On Topic to a post modded "Insightful")
What makes Bush so special that he is above criticism?
Because critics give their opinion. News is not about opinion. News is not about criticism. News is about the facts. Just give me the details and I'll figure out how I feel about it. I don't need Bill O'Reilly or Keith Oberman telling me what to think. I'll figure it out all on my own, thank you. Save the criticism for the editorial section and stop trying to cram it down my throat as news.
Now, as to a slant, either left or right, I don't think it can be helped. Does Clinton want to push back Bush's tax cut or does she want to raise taxes? They both mean the same thing. Whichever one the reporters says is based on their opinion. It's not wrong, just a fact of life. Now what makes Fox News special is that they are the only ones with a right-slant. So while they pull in 50% of the news audience, all the other networks are competing for the other 50%.
May I suggest NewsBusters.org for real world examples of media bias.
And I thought there were nothing but bubble-headed fucktards over at Fox. Of course, doing anything of this nature (and getting caught at it) is still pretty fucktarded. So perhaps I can rest secure in my preconceived notions of those guys over there...
You know what is really fucktarded? Confusing Fox News with a local Fox TV station. One shows the Simpsons, one shows O'reilly. This was the Simpsons one.
Fox News Reporter == Journalist?
Well, actually, even my own biased opinion wouldn't label most Fox employees as 'not journalists' - but everytime I consider the Fox news network as a whole, I just can't think of it as a news network.
This was not a reporter from the cable Fox News Channel, but a news anchor from a local Fox TV station. You know, the same one that shows Family Guy and The Simpsons. That is not FNC, which shows Bill O'reilly and Geraldo.
It's not wrong to want to leave the planet in as good or better condition than when we found it.
Agreed. However, "Well, mainly because when people use the "think of the children" argument to limit freedom, they do everyone a disservice." Telling me what I can or can't drive, or how long I can run my AC or how far I can drive to work, or what I can eat... and so on is a limit to my freedom. Now don't get me wrong, I drive a car with a 4-cylinder engine, but I tend to get a bit miffed when I see protesters drive from their protest blocking the building of nuclear power plant to the protest that blocks the production of a "clean coal" power plant. Solutions are available, we just need to use a common sense approach and tell the protectors to blow it out their ass!
But back to your original point, there is a place for emotion in science, but only when dealing with ethical treatment of humans, animals, etc, not when dealing with climate change. If you let emotion cloud your judgment where the environment is concerned, you end up with sensationalist arguments like An Inconvenient Truth claiming that Florida is about to be underwater. You also begin to think that man is responsible for everything because, otherwise, we are powerless to stop it.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for protecting the environment, but we need to pull the bullshit, hypocrisy, politics and hidden agendas out of it. For example, if you want the US to research renewable resource, don't claim that you want to save the porcupine caribou when you fight against drilling in ANWR. If you are against Walmart because of they don't offer health insurance, don't protest the opening of a new store by waving an "environmental impact study" around. It seems as if every single agenda is being tied to Global Warming and the environment because people can't get their original agendas to stand on their own. And frankly, the whole thing is not only starting to piss me off, but it's starting to make me question the whole thing. I can't trust GW alarmists to honest about their agendas, how can I expect them to honest about the science behind it?
Don't you think it's appropriate to be at least somewhat emotionally invested when it's the goddamn future of our children that is at stake? You and all the other global warming deniers can take a flying fuck.
Why is the "Think of the Children" argument valid here, but not at any other time? Just like why is FUD OK when talking about Global Warming and not the War on Terror?
As cool as you may like to think you are because you were born when records came out.
Given that Edison created the first phonograph in November of 1878, that would make him about 128 years old. Considering that the oldest person in history died at 122 years old, that makes your statement impossible.
Yes, I'm being a smart ass. However, I thought it was important to point out that "records" were not the latest thing when the CD came out.
How about we have one single science discussion where it does not degenerate into a political bashing session.
Please do not consider my sig as part of this comment where I say, "Thank You"
He points out 'the effect on global temperature was of order one-thousandth of a degree
.001 of a degreethis changed 1938 to the warmest year on record over 1998? Wait, is that Fahrenheit or Centigrade?
And
I think someone is trying to downplay the error.
As you know once you have your hands on the hardware, all bets are off.
The point of a kiosk is for the public to put their hands on the hardware. No, the problem here was incompetence on both the company and kiosk manufacturer.
The company should have made sure that these kiosks were segmented off the general network and even if they could crack their way onto the general network, these machines should have no permission to do anything. Also, a standard keyboard should never be hooked up to a kiosk. It should be locked away in a drawer behind a counter in whatever department the kiosk resides. Any text entry can be done via onscreen keyboard. If that is not an option, an employee should have to plug the keyboard in so that they are aware to keep an eye on the kiosk while the keyboard is attached.
The kiosk manufacturer should have made sure that these machines were secure. I've worked for a kiosk manufacturer and there are things that can be done to make sure the system is secure. For starters, lock down whatever user account the primary application runs on. So even if they can get out of that app, they can't do anything beyond clicking start and shut down. Also, there are software applications that lock down the system for you. The one we used completely locked the desktop out. It was a pain to support, but it was secure.
Of course, none of these are full-proof, but when you combine them all, they make it nearly impossible, or at least not worth it to get into a corporate network.
1) Security. If I can steal one of your backup drives, datawise, I just stole the notebook.
2) Efficiency. While I don't know SuperDuper, I assume it clones the entire drive. This seems like a waste of time for a few changed files. An incremental backup would be much faster and more efficient with maybe full backups weekly.
3) Reliability. I assume each backup overwrites the last, correct? If the system crashes while a backup is being made, you just killed the original and your only backup! The odds of it dying during the backup are slim, but it has happened before. You may want to consider getting an external HDD that is 2x the size of your McDrives and split it into two partitions. Only back up to the secondary partition. When the backup is complete, copy the secondary to the primary. If the system crashes while you are copying, you won't be able to boot of the primary, but at least your data will be recoverable.
Still, it is not a bad plan, especially considering the falling cost of IDE HDD's and enclosures... it's certainly more expensive NOT to backup!
Of course, don't forget the video from Brian May and Friends!
Some skepticism is needed here.
Um... Isn't that what this article is?
Well, the War On Terror is the biggest pile of steaming FUD I've ever seen.
Funny! I thought the actual pile of smoking concrete, metal and bodies was much bigger than the FUD. When the population is asking, "how did this happen" and "why wasn't something done to prevent this", they get their answer.
Microsoft is uniquely qualified to call them out on it, because after all, game recognize game.
Microsoft is worried about Microsoft and Microsoft only. If computer security becomes a huge problem, they just patch it in the next version and resell it. When they are forced to make a product secure to begin with, the incentive to upgrade is removed for many of their would be paying customers. Of course MS is against security being forced up on it. As a biased source, they are not in any way qualified to call anyone out on security issues, especially with their track record!
/media/sda1 ext3 defaults,noatime 1 1 atime logs when a file has been written or read. So every time a file is used, it has to write an entry on the HDD, slowing performance, but it can have uses, like in forensics, security or backups (if a file has not been read in three years, it's probably safe to archive and move off the drive). I don't care for it, so I have the noatime line in my fstab.I thought something similar and wondered, why would someone want to 3D'ify The SWORD Project? What good is a 3D Bible over plain text? Do the letters float or something?
Imagine my surprise when I read According to the authors it 'strives to provide the world's best introduction to not only OpenGL, but 3D graphics programming in general.' A tough goal to achieve." When did God get into OpenGL?
WINE = WINE Is Not an Emulator
From TFA: Steve's approach to security spans all horizons, not just information technology. He elaborated on this theory in an afternoon session today at Microsoft Tech.Ed entitled "Making the Tradeoff: Be Secure or Get Work Done". You are trying to get work done. Allow or Deny?
Politicians use Gerrymandering for their own gains, how can you complain!
Let's take a quiz. Two wrongs don't make a.... what?
I don't know if selling a vote is illegal or not, however, in order to sell your vote, someone must buy it. I'm pretty sure that buying votes directly is illegal. As to the inability to verify your part of the contract, I guess you will either be guilty of violating a contract of selling your vote.
(That last part is a joke, btw. Contracts to perform an illegal act are non-binding)