1. The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties. 2. Knowledge of that relationship by a third party. 3. Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship. 4. Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach. 5. Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.
HELEN CAPERELLI (cuts in) And, I'm told there are questions as to our "star witness'" veracity. LOWELL (trying to control his anger) His "veracity" was good enough for the State of Mississippi.
HELEN CAPERELLI (historic) Our standards have to be higher than anyone else's, because we are the standard...for everyone else... Whatever that means...
LOWELL (wry) Well, as a "standard"...I'll hang with "is the guy telling the truth?"
HELEN CAPERELLI Well, with tortious interference, I'm afraid...the greater the truth, the greater the damage.
LOWELL Come again?
HELEN CAPERELLI They own the information he's disclosing. The truer it is, the greater the damage to them. If he lied, he didn't disclose their information. And the damages are smaller.
LOWELL Is this "Alice in Wonderland"?
Note in this case the damage was to the tobacco company, not to the guy who broke the confidentiality agreement.
If you compare the price of OS X with the price of Vista and then compare the volume of each one and what you get for the money you'll quite easily find out that those $129 or whatever isn't enough for the OS.
Both you and me know that macs sell at a premium and part of the reason to pay for that premium is to be able to use their software.
Surely $129 is more than enough for the cost of making a CD and the flimsy manuals they provide these days.
It's also never going to work. Execution will start at the top, with the H of Hello; I forget what that opcode translates to, but it can't be what you expected it to be.
This might work better:
main: mov dx, offset msg
mov ah, 9
int 21h
int 20h msg: db 'Hello World!',13,10,34
Sure, it's larger. But it works.
You can do a RET from a COM file because Dos pushes a zero onto the stack at exec time. CS:0 contains an INT 20. This is so translated CPM programs could use RET to get back to the OS.
That saves you ONE BYTE. Down to 8 bytes of code
cs:0100 BA0801 MOV DX,0108 cs:0103 B409 MOV AH,09 cs:0105 CD21 INT 21 cs:0107 C3 RET
That site is unintentionally hilarious. Some dude is whining about being shadowbanned for talking about Bannination, which seems like a site for fark trolls. His user name was RatFucker. RatFucker. Jesus Christ.
You know I used to think like you. But a friend of mine here, an epic troll of personal ad sites said something profound "Those sites are a videogame. I can type stuff and watch men get really angry. I'd never do it in real life". She's right too. A sociopath, but right. In which case, why not shadowban people - it's just a game to them after all.
They can pick up on a shadowban by checking posts while not logged in (if they get suspicious).
Can't you make the shadowban only work for logged on users? It's an interesting idea, you're essentially virtualizing the forum so that trolls are banned but don't know they're banned.
Seriously, that's an Internet bully? Sorry, but you need to grow slightly thicker skin if you want to interact with people. I mean ANY people, not just on the net.
I've always like the idea of a jail subforum. Trolls would be allowed to post, but only there. Other posters could post in both the jail (to torment the trolls) and the normal forums (to post normal stuff). It's a bit like high school really - people with unpopular opinions or no social skills - the trolls or nerds - would be only allowed in the chess club, but popular people would be allowed everywhere including the chess club.
I think if online forums worked more like high school, the popular people would have much less hassle from nerds.
It's redundant because just quoting movie lines at one another is pointless and stupid. You know how normal people tend to regard geeks as losers? It's because a hell of a lot of us do lame shit like this. It's an embarrassment.
Clue for the humour impaired: quoting a line from a movie that has relevance is sometimes funny. Sometimes. Responding to such an event with the next line from the film isn't. Ever. It just shows how clueless you are and demonstrates a complete lack of social skills. If you think the film is so great, go watch it instead of trying to show how "in" you are. Great! You recognised the film and you know the next line! You want a fucking medal for that? A fucking parrot can do that. Stop being so fucking retarded.
Why did you take time to type all that shit? You just say "Worst. Post. Ever".
Well it's still dangerous to say that the US is as bad as China. Because that implies that all the carefully worked out checks and balances in the US are a waste of time and the US would be just the same with a one party dictatorship like China has.
"To this date, with medication I still am hazy on if computer viruses can infect human beings"
They can not. Science fiction writers have written stories about such possibilities in the future - but such a future is still many decades off. Don't worry about that.
What about the CIA's DB/MINDFUCK virus? Or are we supposed to still not talk about that? I bet you deny the existence of Black Helicopters and aliens too.
All those things are true of XP too. And probably will be true of Windows 7. I don't think that's what he had in mind. It sounds like he's either bullshitting or there is some feature Vista was supposed to have for flash hard disks which didn't make the cut.
Ok, so if China and the US are both equally bad you presumably don't object to the Republican party banning the Democrats and becoming the only legal party, shipping anyone who disagrees off to a camp built by Haliburton, banning all media everything but Fox News and all companies except those with Party contacts and making sure that no court ever rules against the government.
It's good to see that Americans are skeptical about the government. But claiming it is as bad as China misses some important points
1) There are no elections in China. A single party has been in power since the revolution 2) That party has now embraced the benefits of capitalism 3) Business in China is very dominated by personal contacts or guanxi. Chinese people have told me that most companies hire a few party/army types as non working directors for protection 4) Individuals in China have in practice few if any rights. They can be locked up, tortured or killed for criticizing the government without any process. The party maintains a tight control of the judiciary in any case. Prisoners can be forced to work. A Japanese friend told me a Chinese company bid for an OECD contract to run a hospital in Africa using Chinese prison labour. 5) Executed prisoners organs have been used for transplant. In an environment where health care is very expensive to the average person, there is no independent judiciary and business and government are inseparable this is equivalent to your boss killing you and selling the organs. Americans joke about this, but in China it has actually happened and no one will joke about it because they are scared.
Now I don't have much experience of the US. But it seems highly unlikely to me given that it is a democracy with an independent judiciary that it is as bad as China. That's not to say it is perfect of course, ambitious politicians and business people will try to corrupt any system. But it seems likely that they are more contained by the US system than the Chinese one.
Wow, this is making you really angry isn't it? LOL! Dude we're talking about browsers here. Calm down!
Since it has a hefty market share most sites use the Microsoft version of CSS features instead of the 'standard' ones. So most people see IE as a better browser because they can use it on their bank's website.
Which is exactly what the GP said. Except you're trying to say it and spin it in such a way as to make it sound like IE7 did something good here. Doesn't change the facts. IE7 is not compliant with CSS. Just because lots of websites use hacks to work with IE7 doesn't change that. You know what's really hilarious? All those websites will have to fix all those hacks when IE finally starts conforming to standards. Every single version of IE has needed different hacks to be made to work with whatever current standards were being used. There's no such thing as a website that's "IE compliant".
The timeline is this
1) HTML version whatever is out 2) Microsoft being Microsoft decides to make a bunch of extensions to it and implement them in IE to tie people to it 3) CSS comes out. It is as different as possible from the Microsoft extensions 4) Microsoft decides not to implement this, citing compatibility concerns with what they already implemented. 5) Most websites use the stuff Micrsoft implemented, not CSS which is still not 100% implemented by anyone. Those sites are tied to IE. Mission accomplished for Microsoft.
Freetards on slashdot then bleat about IE being non compliant and websites using hacks for the next 10 years.
Tons of reasons: -IE actually DOESN'T render things quite right, IE 8 (beta) is the closest thing they have now that's anywhere close to "standard compliant", at least in terms of CSS support. In a LOT of cases, pages only render OK in IE because of numerous CSS hacks used to make it display like every other browser, or a IE-only stylesheet is fed to it
Oh cry me a river. IE6 doesn't support recent CSS because it was released before the standard. If you use recent CSS the site won't work in IE6. It does have the most of the same features implemented before CSS was standardised - Microsoft basically out run the standards process. Because everyone hates Microsoft the CSS standard was as different as possible to the features Microsoft implemented so people like you can whine about how it's non standard on hyper technical websites.
Since it has a hefty market share most sites use the Microsoft version of CSS features instead of the 'standard' ones. So most people see IE as a better browser because they can use it on their bank's website.
99% of the world doesn't give a shit about whether their browser supports the standard, just whether it works. The only people who understand your argument about CSS are going to agree with you anyway - you are preaching to the converted.
-IE is a great way to load your system full of spyware (ActiveX junk, BHO's, toolbars and what not)
IE6 wasn't particularly secure it's true.
IE7 on Vista runs as low privileged process. You can disable BHOs if you want. Only signed ActiveX controls are installed and only if the user agrees. If you're not a complete cretin it's quite possible to use this without an infected system. They have been much more aggressive at patching vulnerabilities.
I'm using Opera right now. It has AdBlock, script blocking and the like. Guess what I don't use 'em, I just ignore the ads. I guess you cut all the ads outof your newspaper with a pair of nail scissors too, right?
Slashdot Mirror
IRL trolling. If you're not Chris Morris or Andy Kaufman, it's not funny and rather sad.
You missed out the term "little Eichmans"
I'd really like to see a confrontation between a few Mac owning hipsters Stallman. Hope it ends up on youtube.
They don't have to prove damage to the users, only to Apple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference#Elements
1. The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties.
2. Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
3. Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
4. Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.
5. Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.
Tortious interference always reminds me of this quote from The Insider
http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/the-insider_shooting.html
HELEN CAPERELLI
(cuts in)
And, I'm told there are questions as to
our "star witness'" veracity.
LOWELL
(trying to control his anger)
His "veracity" was good enough for the
State of Mississippi.
HELEN CAPERELLI
(historic)
Our standards have to be higher than
anyone else's, because we are the
standard...for everyone else...
Whatever that means...
LOWELL
(wry)
Well, as a "standard"...I'll hang with
"is the guy telling the truth?"
HELEN CAPERELLI
Well, with tortious interference, I'm
afraid...the greater the truth, the
greater the damage.
LOWELL
Come again?
HELEN CAPERELLI
They own the information he's disclosing.
The truer it is, the greater the damage
to them. If he lied, he didn't disclose
their information. And the damages are
smaller.
LOWELL
Is this "Alice in Wonderland"?
Note in this case the damage was to the tobacco company, not to the guy who broke the confidentiality agreement.
If you compare the price of OS X with the price of Vista and then compare the volume of each one and what you get for the money you'll quite easily find out that those $129 or whatever isn't enough for the OS.
Both you and me know that macs sell at a premium and part of the reason to pay for that premium is to be able to use their software.
Surely $129 is more than enough for the cost of making a CD and the flimsy manuals they provide these days.
It's also never going to work. Execution will start at the top, with the H of Hello; I forget what that opcode translates to, but it can't be what you expected it to be.
This might work better:
main: mov dx, offset msg
mov ah, 9
int 21h
int 20h
msg: db 'Hello World!',13,10,34
Sure, it's larger. But it works.
You can do a RET from a COM file because Dos pushes a zero onto the stack at exec time. CS:0 contains an INT 20. This is so translated CPM programs could use RET to get back to the OS.
That saves you ONE BYTE. Down to 8 bytes of code
cs:0100 BA0801 MOV DX,0108
cs:0103 B409 MOV AH,09
cs:0105 CD21 INT 21
cs:0107 C3 RET
and 14 bytes of data.
That site is unintentionally hilarious. Some dude is whining about being shadowbanned for talking about Bannination, which seems like a site for fark trolls. His user name was RatFucker. RatFucker. Jesus Christ.
As someone put it
http://www.bannination.com/comments/5005283
bboy: untrustworthy: They seem to be having fun switching me from permaban to shadowban
Did you use the word "bannination.com" in your post by any chance?
Seriously, UT. You might as well have shit on the communion wafers and then ask why they kick you out of the church.
Shadowbanning is evil, chickenshit behavior.
You know I used to think like you. But a friend of mine here, an epic troll of personal ad sites said something profound "Those sites are a videogame. I can type stuff and watch men get really angry. I'd never do it in real life". She's right too. A sociopath, but right. In which case, why not shadowban people - it's just a game to them after all.
They can pick up on a shadowban by checking posts while not logged in (if they get suspicious).
Can't you make the shadowban only work for logged on users? It's an interesting idea, you're essentially virtualizing the forum so that trolls are banned but don't know they're banned.
Seriously, that's an Internet bully? Sorry, but you need to grow slightly thicker skin if you want to interact with people. I mean ANY people, not just on the net.
Or he could just kill himself.
I've always like the idea of a jail subforum. Trolls would be allowed to post, but only there. Other posters could post in both the jail (to torment the trolls) and the normal forums (to post normal stuff). It's a bit like high school really - people with unpopular opinions or no social skills - the trolls or nerds - would be only allowed in the chess club, but popular people would be allowed everywhere including the chess club.
I think if online forums worked more like high school, the popular people would have much less hassle from nerds.
It's redundant because just quoting movie lines at one another is pointless and stupid. You know how normal people tend to regard geeks as losers? It's because a hell of a lot of us do lame shit like this. It's an embarrassment.
Clue for the humour impaired: quoting a line from a movie that has relevance is sometimes funny. Sometimes. Responding to such an event with the next line from the film isn't. Ever. It just shows how clueless you are and demonstrates a complete lack of social skills. If you think the film is so great, go watch it instead of trying to show how "in" you are. Great! You recognised the film and you know the next line! You want a fucking medal for that? A fucking parrot can do that. Stop being so fucking retarded.
Why did you take time to type all that shit? You just say "Worst. Post. Ever".
Wrong meme dude, "Imperious Leader" should be in there somewhere.
Well it's still dangerous to say that the US is as bad as China. Because that implies that all the carefully worked out checks and balances in the US are a waste of time and the US would be just the same with a one party dictatorship like China has.
"To this date, with medication I still am hazy on if computer viruses can infect human beings"
They can not. Science fiction writers have written stories about such possibilities in the future - but such a future is still many decades off. Don't worry about that.
What about the CIA's DB/MINDFUCK virus? Or are we supposed to still not talk about that? I bet you deny the existence of Black Helicopters and aliens too.
I've seen the X files man, you can't fool me.
I have a Vista machine at home and it doesn't seem to be thrashing the drive much compared to XP.
What you're saying sounds like a bulked up version of the usual Vista sucks rant you see here ad nauseam.
You mean it uses the hard disk a lot ;-)
All those things are true of XP too. And probably will be true of Windows 7. I don't think that's what he had in mind. It sounds like he's either bullshitting or there is some feature Vista was supposed to have for flash hard disks which didn't make the cut.
It does too many many writes? Or it doesn't support large cluster sizes?
Or maybe it doesn't mark sectors as junk when they are no longer in use which is good for wear levelling.
Ok, so if China and the US are both equally bad you presumably don't object to the Republican party banning the Democrats and becoming the only legal party, shipping anyone who disagrees off to a camp built by Haliburton, banning all media everything but Fox News and all companies except those with Party contacts and making sure that no court ever rules against the government.
It's good to see that Americans are skeptical about the government. But claiming it is as bad as China misses some important points
1) There are no elections in China. A single party has been in power since the revolution
2) That party has now embraced the benefits of capitalism
3) Business in China is very dominated by personal contacts or guanxi. Chinese people have told me that most companies hire a few party/army types as non working directors for protection
4) Individuals in China have in practice few if any rights. They can be locked up, tortured or killed for criticizing the government without any process. The party maintains a tight control of the judiciary in any case. Prisoners can be forced to work. A Japanese friend told me a Chinese company bid for an OECD contract to run a hospital in Africa using Chinese prison labour.
5) Executed prisoners organs have been used for transplant. In an environment where health care is very expensive to the average person, there is no independent judiciary and business and government are inseparable this is equivalent to your boss killing you and selling the organs. Americans joke about this, but in China it has actually happened and no one will joke about it because they are scared.
Now I don't have much experience of the US. But it seems highly unlikely to me given that it is a democracy with an independent judiciary that it is as bad as China. That's not to say it is perfect of course, ambitious politicians and business people will try to corrupt any system. But it seems likely that they are more contained by the US system than the Chinese one.
Wow, you just don't know when to stop, do you.
You're nothing but a fucking tool.
Wow, this is making you really angry isn't it? LOL! Dude we're talking about browsers here. Calm down!
Since it has a hefty market share most sites use the Microsoft version of CSS features instead of the 'standard' ones. So most people see IE as a better browser because they can use it on their bank's website.
Which is exactly what the GP said. Except you're trying to say it and spin it in such a way as to make it sound like IE7 did something good here. Doesn't change the facts. IE7 is not compliant with CSS. Just because lots of websites use hacks to work with IE7 doesn't change that. You know what's really hilarious? All those websites will have to fix all those hacks when IE finally starts conforming to standards. Every single version of IE has needed different hacks to be made to work with whatever current standards were being used. There's no such thing as a website that's "IE compliant".
The timeline is this
1) HTML version whatever is out
2) Microsoft being Microsoft decides to make a bunch of extensions to it and implement them in IE to tie people to it
3) CSS comes out. It is as different as possible from the Microsoft extensions
4) Microsoft decides not to implement this, citing compatibility concerns with what they already implemented.
5) Most websites use the stuff Micrsoft implemented, not CSS which is still not 100% implemented by anyone. Those sites are tied to IE. Mission accomplished for Microsoft.
Freetards on slashdot then bleat about IE being non compliant and websites using hacks for the next 10 years.
Face it, you lost the game. Stop whining.
Tons of reasons:
-IE actually DOESN'T render things quite right, IE 8 (beta) is the closest thing they have now that's anywhere close to "standard compliant", at least in terms of CSS support. In a LOT of cases, pages only render OK in IE because of numerous CSS hacks used to make it display like every other browser, or a IE-only stylesheet is fed to it
Oh cry me a river. IE6 doesn't support recent CSS because it was released before the standard. If you use recent CSS the site won't work in IE6. It does have the most of the same features implemented before CSS was standardised - Microsoft basically out run the standards process. Because everyone hates Microsoft the CSS standard was as different as possible to the features Microsoft implemented so people like you can whine about how it's non standard on hyper technical websites.
Since it has a hefty market share most sites use the Microsoft version of CSS features instead of the 'standard' ones. So most people see IE as a better browser because they can use it on their bank's website.
99% of the world doesn't give a shit about whether their browser supports the standard, just whether it works. The only people who understand your argument about CSS are going to agree with you anyway - you are preaching to the converted.
-IE is a great way to load your system full of spyware (ActiveX junk, BHO's, toolbars and what not)
IE6 wasn't particularly secure it's true.
IE7 on Vista runs as low privileged process. You can disable BHOs if you want. Only signed ActiveX controls are installed and only if the user agrees. If you're not a complete cretin it's quite possible to use this without an infected system. They have been much more aggressive at patching vulnerabilities.
I'm using Opera right now. It has AdBlock, script blocking and the like. Guess what I don't use 'em, I just ignore the ads. I guess you cut all the ads outof your newspaper with a pair of nail scissors too, right?
Hey employee! Talk to bob about the implementation issues. And I'm gonna have to ask you to work at the weekend again.
One thing my gut tells me is that everyone posting to slashdot in the day is going to get FIRED! sooner or later.