(...) they call "really fucking small overlord bees." The results in mice showed a cessation of growth or even shrinkage of tumors while the surrounding tissue was protected from the toxin.
No rejection. Seems the mice, for one, welcomed their new overlord bee particles.
Uh that would be Microsoft charging for the service pack, not Apple... how this escaped you as you wrote your comment or anyone who modded you?
Statement 1: "Apple charges for its service packs".
Statement 2: "Windows 7 is a glorified service pack"
Fact 1: "Microsoft will charge money for Windows 7"
Fact 2: "Apple charges money for Snow Leopard"
What the OP said, and you missed is: OS 10.6 is comparable in scope to Windows 7, and all previous iterations of 10.x were at least as large. Given Facts 1 and 2, Statement 1 is only true insofar as you consider Statement 2 to be true as well.
If doesn't matter how many other people are pirating, the point is his legitimate use is blocked by the company he's paying money to allegedly deliver him Internet access.
And I guess the guy who goes to an illegal strip club because the barman mixes a mean Martini is also having his legitimate use blocked when the club is closed down because its main activity is illegal.
Books they don't approve of can simply vanish, books they do approve of, get an artificially high page rank, popular books get pay per view.
Considering the present status of the books we're discussing (out of print, rights holder unknown, etc etc), "vanish" only means "back to status quo" and "pay per view" is an improvement in accessibility.
It takes an infinite amount of power to jam all the frequencies. Hammers are clever enough to transmit on any of them, they just stick to the ham bands out of respect for the law
Infinite amount of power? Transmit on any of them? Wow, I'd never considered the possibility of radios emitting on the visible spectrum!
I'd love to simply the tax code.. right after we have major spending cuts by our government. I doubt that will happen, given the push to socialize healthcare.
"Every private or corporate company pays 50% income tax" is about as simple a tax code as possible, and is reasonably sure to provide enough taxes to socialize healthcare (not that I think 50% income tax is a good thing, but whatever). So I fail to see how "simplifying the tax code" and "socializing healthcare" are at odds with each other. Unless of course you're using it as a strawman, of course.
To me, this seems to have an obvious solution today. Hide the thing in plain sight. No deniability, no nothing. The whole point being brought up here is that having encrypted data is suspicious in and of itself. Everyone runs for TrueCrypt and its dual-password system, except anyone with a clue, as has been mentioned, will realize that given n passwords, they'll never know for sure whether that volume had n or n+1 passwords, and it's bloody obvious you're trying to deny having something , rather than just trying to hide data you're known/supposed to have, otherwise you wouldn't be using TrueCrypt (plain old crypto would keep the data hidden well enough).
My suggestion is, therefore, to have a plain vanilla encryption tool, and actively use it for sensible things. Encrypt all your sensitive customer data (it's good practice anyway). Separate files and separate keys for all those customers too, of course. Encrypt all your personal data, financial data, whatever. Compartmentalize it as well. Toss in some encrypted porn, and hide it somewhere. You can safely provide the keys to all of those, after expressing some concern about customer privacy, and asking the cop not to let your wife know about your porn stash. At this point, you have successfully shed the "he has encryption, he has to be guilty" thing, you're just plain paranoid.
Now, grab a file you would normally not use much. Say, the file with your medical records (provided you have no big health problem, that is), and split it by date. All the stuff from, say, mid-last year goes into one file, and the more recent stuff goes into another. Name the "old one" something appropriate (like "Health -- Backup.crypto" or "Health -- Old.crypto" or some such), and stick all the really secret stuff in there with the actual old health data. If anyone asks, look sheepish and say "oh, I don't use that one much, so I completely forgot the password to the old one and had to start a new one. I still keep it around in case I remember the password". Provided you can keep access records consistent with the story, you've just accomplished deniability as well, because saying "I don't know the password" became credible.
As a long time user of both Open Office and MS Office, you're part of the highly-biased population that will never be able to compare the two interfaces objectively because you can't even remember learning the menu-driven interface, and the ribbon makes you wildly unproductive while learning it. You knew how to get to things, now you don't, so the interface is bad. Never mind that you actually had to learn those things back then as well.
Personally, I've always been a pretty casual user of Office-style applications. Sure, I have like 10 years' worth of experience with them, but only "practice" enough to have a grasp of what's available, with only an inkling of where. From that perspective, I find the ribbon much more intuitive to navigate. I also find that I need fewer clicks for many common tasks. So my question is: what's so bad about the Ribbon, taken on its own merits?
What the GP said is that Javascript doesn't expose enough of the client's resources to the server to be a problem in and of itself. As in, the server doesn't get to know stuff about the client that the client wouldn't want.
Alas, I somewhat disagree. The point is very much that Javascript makes it easy to find yourself typing personal information somewhere you shouldn't.
The brain is a physical thing, and the brain is what makes us do stuff, like think or act. I'm relatively certain that if we stick around long enough, we'll figure out what parts of the brain cause anyone to do anything, and thus every action, from eating cereal to stabbing puppies, will be subject to a "I couldn't help myself" kind of defense. That's fine with me, but we still need to figure out what to do with the people who "choose" to skip breakfast in order to stab more puppies.
Well, the obvious answer to your question is that the decision to kill puppies is made (or not) in part as a result of that same brain's perception of consequences, so you fiddle with the consequences to manipulate the actions as you see fit. Creepy as hell, though.
I agree that the terminal is much more efficient -- but it's nowhere near as beginner-friendly, mostly as a matter of discoverability. If you gave someone the instructions to change permissions via the GUI, it'd be immediately obvious how do change other permissions. If you gave them the shell command, they'd have to man chmod and find the relevant options.
Secondly, the GPL only covers the release of the source code for the program itself, not the tools used to create it. i.e. if I write an open source.net app, I don't need to distribute the.net source code-- that wouldn't even make sense.
Yeah, but.NET itself isn't "source code" for your program. Likewise, the signing program used by Tivo isn't source code either. But, since the target of the application is the Tivo box itself, so if that box requires signed executables, the signing key itself can arguably be construed as part of the source code (insofar as it is part of the input consumed by the toolchain to produce the output binaries).
In this day and age, a freaking HTML renderer should be considered a core library. At least Qt and Cocoa have Webkit built-in, also, dunno if GTK provides one, but if it doesn't, it should.
I don't think that's what the GP meant. More like "if people make assumptions based on your ethnicity, and that screws you over, you're likelier to end up with a chip on your shoulder, and feeling that society owes you more than what you're being given (which is quite right -- you should be given a chance based on who you are, not on who you're stereotyped as). Once you find yourself in those circumstances, criminality is a short hop away.
Of course this doesn't make it okay that those black inmates are criminals. But the profiling itself would only be fundamentally true if white people, under the exact same circumstances, were found to commit fewer crimes.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and think of all the linens his family will have to replace now.
(...) they call "really fucking small overlord bees." The results in mice showed a cessation of growth or even shrinkage of tumors while the surrounding tissue was protected from the toxin.
No rejection. Seems the mice, for one, welcomed their new overlord bee particles.
That's why I have several unlabelled, diamond tanks with different colourless gasses in my lair. Keeps 'em guessing. Mwahaha! Er... whatever.
Uh that would be Microsoft charging for the service pack, not Apple... how this escaped you as you wrote your comment or anyone who modded you?
Statement 1: "Apple charges for its service packs".
Statement 2: "Windows 7 is a glorified service pack"
Fact 1: "Microsoft will charge money for Windows 7"
Fact 2: "Apple charges money for Snow Leopard"
What the OP said, and you missed is: OS 10.6 is comparable in scope to Windows 7, and all previous iterations of 10.x were at least as large. Given Facts 1 and 2, Statement 1 is only true insofar as you consider Statement 2 to be true as well.
Personally, I'd rather not be the kind of jerk that leaves a huge mess for someone else to clean up when it's time to fold up my affairs, but YMMV.
Richard Egan, it appears, was that sort of jerk. Offing yourself with a shotgun blast to the head in the linen closet? Sheesh.
If doesn't matter how many other people are pirating, the point is his legitimate use is blocked by the company he's paying money to allegedly deliver him Internet access.
And I guess the guy who goes to an illegal strip club because the barman mixes a mean Martini is also having his legitimate use blocked when the club is closed down because its main activity is illegal.
Books they don't approve of can simply vanish, books they do approve of, get an artificially high page rank, popular books get pay per view.
Considering the present status of the books we're discussing (out of print, rights holder unknown, etc etc), "vanish" only means "back to status quo" and "pay per view" is an improvement in accessibility.
It takes an infinite amount of power to jam all the frequencies. Hammers are clever enough to transmit on any of them, they just stick to the ham bands out of respect for the law
Infinite amount of power? Transmit on any of them? Wow, I'd never considered the possibility of radios emitting on the visible spectrum!
Yet so far, I've only received spam in English.
Which leads us to the money question: how do you tell gloriously misspelt English apart from some other language, then?
I'd love to simply the tax code.. right after we have major spending cuts by our government. I doubt that will happen, given the push to socialize healthcare.
"Every private or corporate company pays 50% income tax" is about as simple a tax code as possible, and is reasonably sure to provide enough taxes to socialize healthcare (not that I think 50% income tax is a good thing, but whatever). So I fail to see how "simplifying the tax code" and "socializing healthcare" are at odds with each other. Unless of course you're using it as a strawman, of course.
I'm pretty sure the machines that take over will be clever enough to jam ham frequency ranges though.
To me, this seems to have an obvious solution today. Hide the thing in plain sight. No deniability, no nothing. The whole point being brought up here is that having encrypted data is suspicious in and of itself. Everyone runs for TrueCrypt and its dual-password system, except anyone with a clue, as has been mentioned, will realize that given n passwords, they'll never know for sure whether that volume had n or n+1 passwords, and it's bloody obvious you're trying to deny having something , rather than just trying to hide data you're known/supposed to have, otherwise you wouldn't be using TrueCrypt (plain old crypto would keep the data hidden well enough).
My suggestion is, therefore, to have a plain vanilla encryption tool, and actively use it for sensible things. Encrypt all your sensitive customer data (it's good practice anyway). Separate files and separate keys for all those customers too, of course. Encrypt all your personal data, financial data, whatever. Compartmentalize it as well. Toss in some encrypted porn, and hide it somewhere. You can safely provide the keys to all of those, after expressing some concern about customer privacy, and asking the cop not to let your wife know about your porn stash. At this point, you have successfully shed the "he has encryption, he has to be guilty" thing, you're just plain paranoid.
Now, grab a file you would normally not use much. Say, the file with your medical records (provided you have no big health problem, that is), and split it by date. All the stuff from, say, mid-last year goes into one file, and the more recent stuff goes into another. Name the "old one" something appropriate (like "Health -- Backup.crypto" or "Health -- Old.crypto" or some such), and stick all the really secret stuff in there with the actual old health data. If anyone asks, look sheepish and say "oh, I don't use that one much, so I completely forgot the password to the old one and had to start a new one. I still keep it around in case I remember the password". Provided you can keep access records consistent with the story, you've just accomplished deniability as well, because saying "I don't know the password" became credible.
Also, you can't call something "vaporware" when it's powered by electricity, not steam.
As a long time user of both Open Office and MS Office, you're part of the highly-biased population that will never be able to compare the two interfaces objectively because you can't even remember learning the menu-driven interface, and the ribbon makes you wildly unproductive while learning it. You knew how to get to things, now you don't, so the interface is bad. Never mind that you actually had to learn those things back then as well.
Personally, I've always been a pretty casual user of Office-style applications. Sure, I have like 10 years' worth of experience with them, but only "practice" enough to have a grasp of what's available, with only an inkling of where. From that perspective, I find the ribbon much more intuitive to navigate. I also find that I need fewer clicks for many common tasks. So my question is: what's so bad about the Ribbon, taken on its own merits?
What the GP said is that Javascript doesn't expose enough of the client's resources to the server to be a problem in and of itself. As in, the server doesn't get to know stuff about the client that the client wouldn't want.
Alas, I somewhat disagree. The point is very much that Javascript makes it easy to find yourself typing personal information somewhere you shouldn't.
I'm afraid you'll need to complete "+3 Nightmare yes" first
The brain is a physical thing, and the brain is what makes us do stuff, like think or act. I'm relatively certain that if we stick around long enough, we'll figure out what parts of the brain cause anyone to do anything, and thus every action, from eating cereal to stabbing puppies, will be subject to a "I couldn't help myself" kind of defense. That's fine with me, but we still need to figure out what to do with the people who "choose" to skip breakfast in order to stab more puppies.
Well, the obvious answer to your question is that the decision to kill puppies is made (or not) in part as a result of that same brain's perception of consequences, so you fiddle with the consequences to manipulate the actions as you see fit. Creepy as hell, though.
Of course Phil had a few things to say about those quarks being tops and bottoms. And when strange came into the picture, man it got nasty.
Yeah, that joke always works like a charm.
I agree that the terminal is much more efficient -- but it's nowhere near as beginner-friendly, mostly as a matter of discoverability. If you gave someone the instructions to change permissions via the GUI, it'd be immediately obvious how do change other permissions. If you gave them the shell command, they'd have to man chmod and find the relevant options.
Secondly, the GPL only covers the release of the source code for the program itself, not the tools used to create it. i.e. if I write an open source .net app, I don't need to distribute the .net source code-- that wouldn't even make sense.
Yeah, but .NET itself isn't "source code" for your program. Likewise, the signing program used by Tivo isn't source code either. But, since the target of the application is the Tivo box itself, so if that box requires signed executables, the signing key itself can arguably be construed as part of the source code (insofar as it is part of the input consumed by the toolchain to produce the output binaries).
In this day and age, a freaking HTML renderer should be considered a core library. At least Qt and Cocoa have Webkit built-in, also, dunno if GTK provides one, but if it doesn't, it should.
Or that this meeting was a routine meeting that was already scheduled before this shit hit the fan, and he showed up for it.
In the later case you can install a key logger in the OS, so why bother with the keyboard
Because, if you detect that the OS was compromised, you're reasonably likely to scour it. But nobody expects a hacked keyboard.
You must be new here.
I don't think that's what the GP meant. More like "if people make assumptions based on your ethnicity, and that screws you over, you're likelier to end up with a chip on your shoulder, and feeling that society owes you more than what you're being given (which is quite right -- you should be given a chance based on who you are, not on who you're stereotyped as). Once you find yourself in those circumstances, criminality is a short hop away.
Of course this doesn't make it okay that those black inmates are criminals. But the profiling itself would only be fundamentally true if white people, under the exact same circumstances, were found to commit fewer crimes.