Why doesn't it go over the names of the companies that were breached? I've had my identity stolen but I don't know where they got my information, as I'm kind of A-R about my SSN, and such. (Thank God the ID Thieves were incredibly stupid, and only opened a home telephone account - which means they could be found because of the address for the service . ..)
But I've also had other account information stolen, and I knew where it came from. I use a different email address for EVERY website I give any information to, specifically to determine if my information was given away, or stolen. (Catch-All Email on a private domain.)
I had signed up to eHarmony, but never gave them my CC#, or anything besides an email, and now this email address gets TONS of spam for V!@GRA and pr0n sites. So, I know their system was hacked. However, I never heard a word from them about the data breach or my account info being stolen.
Companies need to be made criminally liable for data breaches that could have been prevented, as well as be forced to reveal any and all breaches as soon as they know about them. But that's just not in the companies best interests, and their lobbyists let the Republicans know this. Real security might cost them a little more money, and hiding data breaches doesn't cost them much at all. So, there are no incentives to do any different.
Back in the mid-90's every now and then I would need to create a document that looked real (for entertainment purposes only, of course . ..)
The easiest thing to do was create it on my computer, and instead of trying to get a printout to be perfect (especially with the horrible resolution printers I could afford back then), or even using a copy machine to help hide the inaccuracies, I would just print out a 'good-enough' copy and fax it to one of my friends.
I always thought it odd that just because it was a grainy copy and had the phone number of the fax machine at the top that people assumed it must be legitimate.
Getting a good clean copy from a copy machine was difficult because you had to hide the cut and paste lines, but on a fax machine, it didn't really matter.
I guess the only illusion of "security" added from a fax machine over email is that there is a fax machine number on the header, and people seem to trust dumb things like that. People still trust caller id, even though it's almost trivial to fake.
We are talking about an instant messaging program here right? Something that is used for communication with others? Just like cell phones, or email clients. I judge them on how well they work for communication and how many other features I want/need.
For some people, the more options the better. I really prefer to have one device to carry around, not 3-4. Phone, email, mp3 player, mild web surfing, all in one, but just hacking together something that does all of this "quickly" isn't most important, as ease of use, size, cost, and extra options make all the difference.
I haven't followed this whole story, but this seems like a rather stupid argument to get into in the first place. Mandating some annoying resizing text box for all users? No thanks, I would stop using a program that mandated something that ridiculous. A feature? Sure, maybe some people will like it. But I also wouldn't use an IM client that didn't let me resize the chat input box either.
I had this same argument with Mac vs. Windows. Especially with that stupid one button, UNBELIEVABLY retarded ROUND mouse POS they came out with (sometimes you actually had to look at the damn mouse to figure out which way was up, so you could orient it correctly. One of the dumbest ideas ever for a computer mouse.)
At least in Windows, there are several intuitive ways to do the same action, so you don't need to learn the one or two ways the developer thought you should do it. You could right-click, use keyboard shortcuts, go to a menu, drag and drop, etc. For me, almost nothing in MacOS was intuitive, while I could always just figure out some way of doing what I needed to in Windows.
Basically, it comes down to: Any part of the GUI that is Non-Standard should be an option that could be turned on/off depending on the user's preference.
"Auto-Resizing text input box? This is the coolest thing ever, everybody must use this and know what a God I am for thinking of it and developing it, therefore it must be mandatory." -- Get over yourself.
This isn't true, it's uninformed speculation. Try looking up other countries that have liberal gun ownership laws, and look at their crime and death rates.
Such as wikipedia, for Gun Politics in Switzerland: Police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. Some 300 deaths per year are due to legally held army ordinance weapons, the large majority of these being suicides. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordinance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.
The number of guns in Switzerland? Between 1.2 and 3 Million in private homes. Number of homicides? 1.52 per 100,000 people, with 37% of those by firearms. So, most homicides are committed WITHOUT guns. Imagine that.
I know this is a novel idea, and assuming you have an internet connection, but how about you look something up before spouting random information about it on/.?
I know dozens of people very well that own guns. And none of them have ever killed anybody with them (outside of military service.) Should I start telling everyone that people with guns don't murder others because of this small sample of gun-owners?
Why can't we get an Open Source software solution to this problem? With Open Source hardware where there is less likely a chance of cheating, rigging, etc.
Combine it with a not-for-profit company to manufacture, distribute, maintain the machines and make this process as transparent as possible. Like the idea from Bruce Schneier where the voting machine accepts your votes, and prints out a paper copy, which is then scanned into a separate machine not connected to the first for counting and keeping a paper trail. Not a perfect idea, but far closer than anything current.
I don't like the idea of either side rigging the vote. I don't know, call it a crazy idea, but I think whoever wins the vote should win the election (whether popular, electoral, or whatever other crazy scheme some district has.)
This still leaves the problem of monitoring the clipboard, and/or taking screenshots. If I take enough screenshots, I can see each letter you copy/paste and then I have your password.
A better solution is S/KEY, where you get a one-time password for each time you authenticate. You can use any public terminal, open an ssh tunnel to your email, and not worry about keyloggers or anything else. It's not a problem if the password they record is no longer valid.
Sometimes a vote is not really about where it will get you this election, but how it will shape the race in elections to come.
No, A vote this November is primarily about what it will get you this election.
I can pretty much guarantee you that either Clinton, Obama, or McCain will be president next year. And you get to vote which one you want. Maybe you don't like any of the three, but that doesn't really matter now does it? Voting for a 3rd party candidate isn't going to change the fact that one of those 3 will become president.
It might not be a great choice, but that's how it goes.
Voting for the person you like the most but has no chance of winning is nothing more than a pipe dream. What this also means, is that you DON'T CARE which one of the three become president, and it's all the same to you. If Al Gore became president in 2000, we wouldn't be in this mess in Iraq, watching thousands of people die and spending hundreds of billions of dollars we don't have. Maybe you didn't really want Al Gore to be president, but it would have been better than what we have now.
If you want to change the system, you have to change it from the inside, and play by the rules while you're there.
The problem with this approach, is that you are sitting back and waiting for things to change. I don't like most things about how our government is run or the people who run it either, but I try to take a more pragmatic view of changing things.
This is also my disagreement with those supporting Ron Paul. Maybe he is the best candidate, and maybe everything would be better if he were elected, but he has literally no chance of becoming president, but a lot of his supporters talk of voting for him, instead of "throwing away your vote" on one of the 3 contenders.
So, voting for Ron Paul is not throwing away your vote, even though he can't win, and therefore, you still didn't vote for the winner of the election, and possibly helped one of the others get elected instead? I feel it necessary to vote for the lesser of 3 evils, at least so things can be BETTER than they are now. I would rather have my say in voting for someone who can win, than in voting for an ideal out of protest for the others.
It's sad, but these days more people need to vote AGAINST someone, than for someone. You don't want McCain to become president? Vote for the person running against him that can actually win. You don't like any of the three? Find the one you can deal with for the next four years and vote for that one.
Say my dream car was a really fast Ferrari, but I only had $5000 to spend and I don't have any current transportation. Should I put that money away and just wait until I had enough to buy it, (which may never happen), and not have any transportation? Or should I be more practical and find the best option available to me right now, so that I can drive to work, and get a better job that makes more money and maybe earn enough to buy the Ferrari?
It'd be great if I could have my ideal, but practicality limits reality.
I will agree with the posters above. In my state, there are a few schools that are just technical, and besides suffering from a lack of female students, there's not much else to do around those colleges except schoolwork and drinking.
Part of your decision should be based on what you want to get out of your college experience BESIDES an education:
The best 4 (or 7) years of your life?
The best experiences you can find?
The broadest experiences you can find?
The most or best real-life work experiences (co-ops, internships, etc.)
Improved social skills.
Getting to know a wide variety of people.
etc.
I went to a LARGE state university that has several different colleges for both L.A. and Engineering/Technical areas. And while you get a great education (top 1, 2, 3 . . . in different areas), you also get an amazing college experience with sports, groups, clubs, organizations, social life and just about anything else you could want.
What was most important to me was a great experience you literally can't find anywhere else outside of college, finding lifelong friends from all over the world and from vastly diverse backgrounds, and having experiences one can only really enjoy while in college (getting in trouble for stunts, pranks, dumb ideas, etc, doing crazy things only students who think they're invincible would dare try, late night road-trips to different parts of the country just because you don't have anything due the next 2-3 days, etc.)
One of the things MANY employers look for is the ability to learn. Sadly, this is often "proved" by how you did in random college courses on poetry or anthropology. Since most jobs will have to train you on how they do things anyway, what you learned isn't necessarily as important as how much or how well you did.
One last thing: many of the students I went to school with for C.S. went on to get graduate degrees anyway. So, I would advise you to pick the school where you will have the experiences you want, and the education you need and the best time of your life. If you want a highly technical education as well, you can get your master's degree from another place.
Lack of social skills?
No way. I actually had a date last year, thank you very much. We even almost kissed.
We were supposed to go out on a second date, but she got the flu, and then her mother was sick, after that her grandma died and her father had a heart attack and she couldn't make it.
I figured I was better off anyway. With that many people sick in her family, she must have had horrible genes.
answer to life the universe and everything = 42 characters as well
"Arthur hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction there and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife."
What does the Whiskey rebellion have to do with American rights being trampled? This was about a tax on alcohol distillers, that was not uniformly levied, that more negatively affected farmers that made small batches of whiskey, as opposed to mass producers. This was a law, about taxes, that people violently protested against.
Slavery, up through the Civil War.
This would be an example of one of the worst times when human rights were trampled on, not American rights. While Slavery is the one of the worst things to occur in American history, it was still legal, however abhorrent it might have been. It did not violate their rights as defined at the time. No matter how despicable, disgusting, and horrible it was.
Internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry in WWII.
While this, too, is another one of America's mistakes, it affected approximately 110,000 people in America, about 60% of whom were citizens. And they were forced to move to another part of the country. Do you not think that more than 100,000 people are currently having their rights trampled on by overzealous, power-hungry leaders?
Military draft at various times until ended by Nixon.
The draft does not trample on American rights. While most people disagree with it, it is still law, and there are ways of getting out of it, avoiding it, etc. This is probably your worst example of a time when American rights were more trampled on.
Sedition acts of 1798/1918
Yes, the Sedition acts trampled on American rights of free speech, where you weren't allowed to say or print malicious or disloyal against the US government for a period of 4 years and 3 years, respectively. Do you honestly think that not being allowed to say bad things about the government is worse than what is happening today?
House Committee on Un-American Activities
I think you're a little off on this one. I'm going to assume you're talking about Senator Joseph McCarthy's anti-communist investigations, which is completely different. McCarthy had no direct involvement with the HCUA (HUAC).
Hearings on whether or not someone is a communist, while despicable, do not come close to the same level of American rights that are being trampled on today.
The loss of rights we are currently experiencing is growing by the day. The loss of privacy, the loss of freedom, the loss of free speech critical of the government. How about soldiers who are told they aren't done when their original 12-month tour is up, and that they have to stay in Iraq, or Afghanistan against their will? And the amount of illegal activity by the current white house grows as well, while they refuse to be held accountable for it. Since when can someone who is suspected of breaking the law say, "No thanks, you aren't allowed to investigate whether or not the law was broken. It's inconvenient for me, and I'm going to claim national security as the reason for not letting anyone discover the truth."
Bill Clinton was investigated for several years, and it turns out all he did was hook-up with an intern, and then deny it. There are serious allegations against the current administration, and nobody is allowed to investigate. Who knows just how many of our current rights are being trampled on, how much we're being lied to, and just what our government is doing?
As stated before, "Never have American rights been more trampled on than during the current administration." After explaining the above, I would change this statement because I think that the treatment of the Native Americans trampled on American rights far more than at any other time, and Slavery trampled more on the rights of humans that anything else America has experienced.
Well, I think it would be great to move away from a 2-party system. Personally I have been trying to figure out if an actual democracy might be better than what we have. (The US is technically a Republic. We elect people to make decisions and vote on things for us. In a democracy, we would actually vote for new laws and amendments.)
The problem I see with the Libertarian party, is that it usually has crackpots for their spokesmen and most prominent figures, similar to what Ralph Nader was to the Green Party. This was the guy that in an interview on television stated that he was glad that he contributed to the democrats losing the last two elections.
One would think that most non-Republicans, including libertarians, would prefer a Democrat in the white house than a Republican. Never have American rights been more trampled on than during the current administration. So, Ralph Nader and the "Other Party" candidates have turned out to be the Republican's Best Friends and did the most to help elect Bush as president.
Therefore, all the current problems with this administration, and the fact that much of the world is pissed off at America, and we are losing our civil rights, privacy, liberties, etc. can be blamed on Ralph Nader, and other third party candidates, including Libertarians. A third party might be a good idea . . . eventually, but now they only hurt the chances of non-republicans getting elected. Fighting for a better system doesn't work if you continually make it worse.
For a group that supposedly wants to protect our liberties, it has done quite a lot to destroy them. Maybe Libertarians are actually just double-agents for the Republican party -- getting democrats to vote for a third candidate that can't win, thereby lowering the number of votes the Republicans need to be victorious. If you can't get people to vote for you, at least try to get them to not vote for your opponent.
This was on the news, and was attributed to 'human error'. Meaning some nonagenarian didn't bother to report those because there was literally a handful (or less).
And supporting Ron Paul is great and idealistic and all, but a complete waste. He has 0% chance of winning anything, especially after those racist newsletters came out with his name on them, regardless if he wrote them.
You don't even need push-polling to destroy him, the media already took care of that, and you can't "un-do" negative publicity like that before the election.
Still trying to vote for him might be loyal, but even the Captain abandons ship once everyone else has left.
There are a couple of issues here, and I don't see Ford winning on any of them.
1) This is not the first calendar to picture a Ford automobile. Many calendars feature exotic/expensive/fast cars. Not all of these calendars would have obtained permission from Ford before printing. Ford didn't complain about these in the past, so they kind of lose their ability to complain about them now.
2) These are pictures of cars from a car club. These cars are usually modified and/or enhanced to make them unique from other Black Mustangs (grills, rims, colors, tints, accessories, etc.). Taking pictures of these would not confuse anybody into thinking that Ford published the calendar. Also, they are therefore taking pictures of unique items. Ford can't own any type of trademark or copyright on the modifications that were made.
3) Photographs of this type are considered artwork. The creator of the artwork (in this case photographs) can only copyright the ORIGINAL artwork, meaning the original pictures used for the calendar. Another artist can come along and take pictures of the calendar, and do as they please with them, including sell them for profit or even make a new calendar that only has pictures of other calendars in them. So this extends back to Ford. They can make claims to the original cars, and you can't duplicate their cars, but you surely can take all the pictures of them that you want.
Do you think Andy Warhol obtained permission from Campbell's soup (or anyone else) for his Pop art?
This issue also came up between two photographers, where the second one just photographed the pictures of the first one, and then sold them for profit. (sounds kind of stupid and lazy, doesn't it?) But the second artist was allowed to do so, because the secondary pictures weren't duplicates of the first, but artistic interpretations of the first pictures.
I've been looking for the exact details on this case, but I haven't found them yet. We discussed these in my photography class in college, and the second artist was sued but won as the secondary works were ruled as original art, because they weren't duplicates, but interpretations. I'll post again when I find the exact details.
> No one can browse all 9 million registered users.
Except of course, for the site owners, and the government. Thanks to GW and the DHS, the government has access to all of Myspace, facebook, friendster, etc. Because you know terrorists are big on facebook. They like to create groups like "Facebook is for infidels" and "I just started a jihad 5 minutes ago".
Consider anything you put on there easily enough open to anybody. It's not difficult to create university email addresses, which is why places, fake celebrities, and even people's pets and "Delicious Beer" can create profiles on facebook (although facebook has been removing pets and inanimate object profiles).
The name of the Book actually came from Goldman's two daughters. He told them he was going to write a book, and asked them what he should write about. One said, "A Princess", and the other, "A Bride."
So, yes, the name is quite girly, but Wesley, he's a true man's man. Learns to fence at the level of "Master" in under 5 years, made himself immune to one of the most deadly poisons, can save the fair maiden from lightning sand, battle ROUS's, withstand vast amounts of torture (in the book), Speak multiple languages, climb a sheer rock face, fight hand-to-hand with a giant, and then storms a castle an hour or so after being dead from having the life sucked out of him.
Also, Goldman wrote Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and has made millions upon millions of dollars for something that takes a lot less time and physical effort than most of us do for mere peanuts.
So I'm sorry, any so-called "nerd" who doesn't know about this movie needs to have his credentials verified. We might have to take away his pocket protector and taped-up glasses. (Also, I see a lot of LOTR posts on here, along with Star Wars and other movies generally enjoyed by all nerds. Anyone who would actually take the time to complain about this post might want to check that they're on the right site. maybe they were looking for http://ivegotsandinmyvag.com/)
Finally, to get in a couple of quotes:
(from the movie, these may not be 100% exact, but they're close enough for government work.)
"You mock my pain!" "Life is pain madam, anyone who tells you differently is selling something."
"Be careful, people in masks cannot be trusted."
"Why are you wearing a mask? Were you burned by acid or something?" "They're quite comfortable, I think everybody will be wearing them in the future."
"You seem a decent fellow, I hate to kill you." "You seem a decent fellow, I hate to die."
"There's a shortage of perfect breasts in the world. It'd be a pity to damage yours."
"I'm just going to have to get myself a new giant."
"It's probably just a local fisherman, out for a pleasure cruise at night, through eel-infested waters."
I was able to use the wbm last year to find some old device drivers for a no-name motherboard I had from '97. The company went out of business, and their remaining stockpiles were bought by some other Chinese company, but the wbm actually had old copies of the drivers, and even a bios update for the board. Now, I always check there when I am having a hard time finding stuff that I knew used to be around.
Well, there are already many rumors and speculations that the government can use cell phones as tracking devices. But you take Cell Phones, Google Maps, and Google's new beta feature which lets you track taxis and limousines as they move down the street, and you have a homing device which displays your current location on a scrolling map for people to track where you are and what you are doing.
Given that a few of Google's recent advancements have had much potential for abuse, does anyone think they might actually use this service? Wouldn't you be worried that people will be able to track you, when you would rather not have them know where you are? What about the loss of the ability to tell your boss you are at home sick from your cell phone as you're waiting in line for the next new roller coaster at Cedar Point?
A friend of mine did this. He found a better job, and gave two weeks. Of course, he was their only developer as well, and easily tripled the amount of business they received over the internet. He also programmed in as many languages as he could come up with (for job security or what, I don't know.)
They couldn't find anyone to replace him who knew the more than 10 languages he used at a reasonable price, so he did on-call work for them. $30,000/year to be available, plus hourly rates when he would come in. Talk about a nice gig!
On a side note, where do you live? There's an IT job opening up, and this employer should pay a new employee rather well, considering what you are going to be charging him per hour . . .
It's all about the stupid people isn't it? People get confused between his site and Apple's. People can't tell the difference between Napster and iTunes. What's the difference anyway? If they can't tell the difference between the two, they won't know what they are buying anyway, and won't be able to use their iPod or anything else because they can't understand that either.
Back in the day, computers were only for people who could understand them or who could take the time to learn how to use them. Today, computer and software makers want every Tom, Dick, and Idiot to buy their crap, and therefore everything they make is geared toward the lowest common denominator of human existence.
It won't be long before every website that starts with the letter i will be taken over by Apple, because people will get confused if it doesn't.
There are only a few people with my name, but I own the domain name for it. If one of those other people become famous, does that mean they can take over my site because people will get confused? Does it make me a cyber squatter to register a name that someday some company may choose to use as a product name, and therefore claim rights to? If I want your domain name, can I just market some product under that name, and then claim that I should own it?
The lesson to learn here: Deep pockets and expensive lawyers are all you really need in life.
Slashdot Mirror
Why doesn't it go over the names of the companies that were breached? I've had my identity stolen but I don't know where they got my information, as I'm kind of A-R about my SSN, and such. (Thank God the ID Thieves were incredibly stupid, and only opened a home telephone account - which means they could be found because of the address for the service . . .)
But I've also had other account information stolen, and I knew where it came from. I use a different email address for EVERY website I give any information to, specifically to determine if my information was given away, or stolen. (Catch-All Email on a private domain.)
I had signed up to eHarmony, but never gave them my CC#, or anything besides an email, and now this email address gets TONS of spam for V!@GRA and pr0n sites. So, I know their system was hacked. However, I never heard a word from them about the data breach or my account info being stolen.
Companies need to be made criminally liable for data breaches that could have been prevented, as well as be forced to reveal any and all breaches as soon as they know about them. But that's just not in the companies best interests, and their lobbyists let the Republicans know this. Real security might cost them a little more money, and hiding data breaches doesn't cost them much at all. So, there are no incentives to do any different.
I know this is slashdot and all, and most people don't RTFA, but did you even RTFS (Summary) ?
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, before the judge ruled on it, the plaintiff (RIAA) filed a voluntary motion to dismiss the case.
This means the case is over.
Back in the mid-90's every now and then I would need to create a document that looked real (for entertainment purposes only, of course . . .)
The easiest thing to do was create it on my computer, and instead of trying to get a printout to be perfect (especially with the horrible resolution printers I could afford back then), or even using a copy machine to help hide the inaccuracies, I would just print out a 'good-enough' copy and fax it to one of my friends.
I always thought it odd that just because it was a grainy copy and had the phone number of the fax machine at the top that people assumed it must be legitimate.
Getting a good clean copy from a copy machine was difficult because you had to hide the cut and paste lines, but on a fax machine, it didn't really matter.
I guess the only illusion of "security" added from a fax machine over email is that there is a fax machine number on the header, and people seem to trust dumb things like that. People still trust caller id, even though it's almost trivial to fake.
No, let's use examples from Star Trek:
The borg 'One' has assimilated 47 billion Terraquads of data . . .
Getting the job done quickly?
We are talking about an instant messaging program here right? Something that is used for communication with others? Just like cell phones, or email clients. I judge them on how well they work for communication and how many other features I want/need.
For some people, the more options the better. I really prefer to have one device to carry around, not 3-4. Phone, email, mp3 player, mild web surfing, all in one, but just hacking together something that does all of this "quickly" isn't most important, as ease of use, size, cost, and extra options make all the difference.
I haven't followed this whole story, but this seems like a rather stupid argument to get into in the first place. Mandating some annoying resizing text box for all users? No thanks, I would stop using a program that mandated something that ridiculous. A feature? Sure, maybe some people will like it. But I also wouldn't use an IM client that didn't let me resize the chat input box either.
I had this same argument with Mac vs. Windows. Especially with that stupid one button, UNBELIEVABLY retarded ROUND mouse POS they came out with (sometimes you actually had to look at the damn mouse to figure out which way was up, so you could orient it correctly. One of the dumbest ideas ever for a computer mouse.)
At least in Windows, there are several intuitive ways to do the same action, so you don't need to learn the one or two ways the developer thought you should do it. You could right-click, use keyboard shortcuts, go to a menu, drag and drop, etc. For me, almost nothing in MacOS was intuitive, while I could always just figure out some way of doing what I needed to in Windows.
Basically, it comes down to: Any part of the GUI that is Non-Standard should be an option that could be turned on/off depending on the user's preference.
"Auto-Resizing text input box? This is the coolest thing ever, everybody must use this and know what a God I am for thinking of it and developing it, therefore it must be mandatory." -- Get over yourself.
This isn't true, it's uninformed speculation. Try looking up other countries that have liberal gun ownership laws, and look at their crime and death rates.
/.?
Such as wikipedia, for Gun Politics in Switzerland:
Police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. Some 300 deaths per year are due to legally held army ordinance weapons, the large majority of these being suicides. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordinance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.
The number of guns in Switzerland? Between 1.2 and 3 Million in private homes. Number of homicides? 1.52 per 100,000 people, with 37% of those by firearms. So, most homicides are committed WITHOUT guns. Imagine that.
I know this is a novel idea, and assuming you have an internet connection, but how about you look something up before spouting random information about it on
I know dozens of people very well that own guns. And none of them have ever killed anybody with them (outside of military service.) Should I start telling everyone that people with guns don't murder others because of this small sample of gun-owners?
Why can't we get an Open Source software solution to this problem? With Open Source hardware where there is less likely a chance of cheating, rigging, etc.
Combine it with a not-for-profit company to manufacture, distribute, maintain the machines and make this process as transparent as possible. Like the idea from Bruce Schneier where the voting machine accepts your votes, and prints out a paper copy, which is then scanned into a separate machine not connected to the first for counting and keeping a paper trail. Not a perfect idea, but far closer than anything current.
I don't like the idea of either side rigging the vote. I don't know, call it a crazy idea, but I think whoever wins the vote should win the election (whether popular, electoral, or whatever other crazy scheme some district has.)
This still leaves the problem of monitoring the clipboard, and/or taking screenshots. If I take enough screenshots, I can see each letter you copy/paste and then I have your password.
A better solution is S/KEY, where you get a one-time password for each time you authenticate. You can use any public terminal, open an ssh tunnel to your email, and not worry about keyloggers or anything else. It's not a problem if the password they record is no longer valid.
S/Key is available for most forms of unix, linux, etc. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S/Key for more info.
No, A vote this November is primarily about what it will get you this election.
I can pretty much guarantee you that either Clinton, Obama, or McCain will be president next year. And you get to vote which one you want. Maybe you don't like any of the three, but that doesn't really matter now does it? Voting for a 3rd party candidate isn't going to change the fact that one of those 3 will become president.
It might not be a great choice, but that's how it goes.
Voting for the person you like the most but has no chance of winning is nothing more than a pipe dream. What this also means, is that you DON'T CARE which one of the three become president, and it's all the same to you. If Al Gore became president in 2000, we wouldn't be in this mess in Iraq, watching thousands of people die and spending hundreds of billions of dollars we don't have. Maybe you didn't really want Al Gore to be president, but it would have been better than what we have now.
If you want to change the system, you have to change it from the inside, and play by the rules while you're there.
The problem with this approach, is that you are sitting back and waiting for things to change. I don't like most things about how our government is run or the people who run it either, but I try to take a more pragmatic view of changing things.
This is also my disagreement with those supporting Ron Paul. Maybe he is the best candidate, and maybe everything would be better if he were elected, but he has literally no chance of becoming president, but a lot of his supporters talk of voting for him, instead of "throwing away your vote" on one of the 3 contenders.
So, voting for Ron Paul is not throwing away your vote, even though he can't win, and therefore, you still didn't vote for the winner of the election, and possibly helped one of the others get elected instead? I feel it necessary to vote for the lesser of 3 evils, at least so things can be BETTER than they are now. I would rather have my say in voting for someone who can win, than in voting for an ideal out of protest for the others.
It's sad, but these days more people need to vote AGAINST someone, than for someone. You don't want McCain to become president? Vote for the person running against him that can actually win. You don't like any of the three? Find the one you can deal with for the next four years and vote for that one.
Say my dream car was a really fast Ferrari, but I only had $5000 to spend and I don't have any current transportation. Should I put that money away and just wait until I had enough to buy it, (which may never happen), and not have any transportation? Or should I be more practical and find the best option available to me right now, so that I can drive to work, and get a better job that makes more money and maybe earn enough to buy the Ferrari?
It'd be great if I could have my ideal, but practicality limits reality.
I will agree with the posters above. In my state, there are a few schools that are just technical, and besides suffering from a lack of female students, there's not much else to do around those colleges except schoolwork and drinking.
Part of your decision should be based on what you want to get out of your college experience BESIDES an education:
The best 4 (or 7) years of your life?
The best experiences you can find?
The broadest experiences you can find?
The most or best real-life work experiences (co-ops, internships, etc.)
Improved social skills.
Getting to know a wide variety of people.
etc.
I went to a LARGE state university that has several different colleges for both L.A. and Engineering/Technical areas. And while you get a great education (top 1, 2, 3 . . . in different areas), you also get an amazing college experience with sports, groups, clubs, organizations, social life and just about anything else you could want.
What was most important to me was a great experience you literally can't find anywhere else outside of college, finding lifelong friends from all over the world and from vastly diverse backgrounds, and having experiences one can only really enjoy while in college (getting in trouble for stunts, pranks, dumb ideas, etc, doing crazy things only students who think they're invincible would dare try, late night road-trips to different parts of the country just because you don't have anything due the next 2-3 days, etc.)
One of the things MANY employers look for is the ability to learn. Sadly, this is often "proved" by how you did in random college courses on poetry or anthropology. Since most jobs will have to train you on how they do things anyway, what you learned isn't necessarily as important as how much or how well you did.
One last thing: many of the students I went to school with for C.S. went on to get graduate degrees anyway. So, I would advise you to pick the school where you will have the experiences you want, and the education you need and the best time of your life. If you want a highly technical education as well, you can get your master's degree from another place.
Lack of social skills? No way. I actually had a date last year, thank you very much. We even almost kissed.
We were supposed to go out on a second date, but she got the flu, and then her mother was sick, after that her grandma died and her father had a heart attack and she couldn't make it.
I figured I was better off anyway. With that many people sick in her family, she must have had horrible genes.
The answer to: the secret of life, the universe, and everything.
42 is the number of non-space characters in the question.
thesecretoflife,theuniverse,andeverything. = 42 characters.
or, if you don't like the phrasing, how about
answer to life the universe and everything = 42 characters as well
"Arthur hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction there and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife."
If no one else knows how how to do their job, then they are difficult to replace.
If they are difficult to replace, they are difficult to promote.
If no one else can do your job, you get to stay in that job and never move up.
This is a response to the previous two responses.
Whisky rebellion.
What does the Whiskey rebellion have to do with American rights being trampled? This was about a tax on alcohol distillers, that was not uniformly levied, that more negatively affected farmers that made small batches of whiskey, as opposed to mass producers. This was a law, about taxes, that people violently protested against.
Slavery, up through the Civil War.
This would be an example of one of the worst times when human rights were trampled on, not American rights. While Slavery is the one of the worst things to occur in American history, it was still legal, however abhorrent it might have been. It did not violate their rights as defined at the time. No matter how despicable, disgusting, and horrible it was.
Internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry in WWII.
While this, too, is another one of America's mistakes, it affected approximately 110,000 people in America, about 60% of whom were citizens. And they were forced to move to another part of the country. Do you not think that more than 100,000 people are currently having their rights trampled on by overzealous, power-hungry leaders?
Military draft at various times until ended by Nixon.
The draft does not trample on American rights. While most people disagree with it, it is still law, and there are ways of getting out of it, avoiding it, etc. This is probably your worst example of a time when American rights were more trampled on.
Sedition acts of 1798/1918
Yes, the Sedition acts trampled on American rights of free speech, where you weren't allowed to say or print malicious or disloyal against the US government for a period of 4 years and 3 years, respectively. Do you honestly think that not being allowed to say bad things about the government is worse than what is happening today?
House Committee on Un-American Activities
I think you're a little off on this one. I'm going to assume you're talking about Senator Joseph McCarthy's anti-communist investigations, which is completely different. McCarthy had no direct involvement with the HCUA (HUAC).
Hearings on whether or not someone is a communist, while despicable, do not come close to the same level of American rights that are being trampled on today.
The loss of rights we are currently experiencing is growing by the day. The loss of privacy, the loss of freedom, the loss of free speech critical of the government. How about soldiers who are told they aren't done when their original 12-month tour is up, and that they have to stay in Iraq, or Afghanistan against their will? And the amount of illegal activity by the current white house grows as well, while they refuse to be held accountable for it. Since when can someone who is suspected of breaking the law say, "No thanks, you aren't allowed to investigate whether or not the law was broken. It's inconvenient for me, and I'm going to claim national security as the reason for not letting anyone discover the truth."
Bill Clinton was investigated for several years, and it turns out all he did was hook-up with an intern, and then deny it. There are serious allegations against the current administration, and nobody is allowed to investigate. Who knows just how many of our current rights are being trampled on, how much we're being lied to, and just what our government is doing?
As stated before, "Never have American rights been more trampled on than during the current administration." After explaining the above, I would change this statement because I think that the treatment of the Native Americans trampled on American rights far more than at any other time, and Slavery trampled more on the rights of humans that anything else America has experienced.
Well, I think it would be great to move away from a 2-party system. Personally I have been trying to figure out if an actual democracy might be better than what we have. (The US is technically a Republic. We elect people to make decisions and vote on things for us. In a democracy, we would actually vote for new laws and amendments.)
The problem I see with the Libertarian party, is that it usually has crackpots for their spokesmen and most prominent figures, similar to what Ralph Nader was to the Green Party. This was the guy that in an interview on television stated that he was glad that he contributed to the democrats losing the last two elections.
One would think that most non-Republicans, including libertarians, would prefer a Democrat in the white house than a Republican. Never have American rights been more trampled on than during the current administration. So, Ralph Nader and the "Other Party" candidates have turned out to be the Republican's Best Friends and did the most to help elect Bush as president.
Therefore, all the current problems with this administration, and the fact that much of the world is pissed off at America, and we are losing our civil rights, privacy, liberties, etc. can be blamed on Ralph Nader, and other third party candidates, including Libertarians. A third party might be a good idea . . . eventually, but now they only hurt the chances of non-republicans getting elected. Fighting for a better system doesn't work if you continually make it worse.
For a group that supposedly wants to protect our liberties, it has done quite a lot to destroy them. Maybe Libertarians are actually just double-agents for the Republican party -- getting democrats to vote for a third candidate that can't win, thereby lowering the number of votes the Republicans need to be victorious. If you can't get people to vote for you, at least try to get them to not vote for your opponent.
Quite ingenious really.
This was on the news, and was attributed to 'human error'. Meaning some nonagenarian didn't bother to report those because there was literally a handful (or less).
And supporting Ron Paul is great and idealistic and all, but a complete waste. He has 0% chance of winning anything, especially after those racist newsletters came out with his name on them, regardless if he wrote them.
You don't even need push-polling to destroy him, the media already took care of that, and you can't "un-do" negative publicity like that before the election.
Still trying to vote for him might be loyal, but even the Captain abandons ship once everyone else has left.
There are a couple of issues here, and I don't see Ford winning on any of them. 1) This is not the first calendar to picture a Ford automobile. Many calendars feature exotic/expensive/fast cars. Not all of these calendars would have obtained permission from Ford before printing. Ford didn't complain about these in the past, so they kind of lose their ability to complain about them now.
2) These are pictures of cars from a car club. These cars are usually modified and/or enhanced to make them unique from other Black Mustangs (grills, rims, colors, tints, accessories, etc.). Taking pictures of these would not confuse anybody into thinking that Ford published the calendar. Also, they are therefore taking pictures of unique items. Ford can't own any type of trademark or copyright on the modifications that were made.
3) Photographs of this type are considered artwork. The creator of the artwork (in this case photographs) can only copyright the ORIGINAL artwork, meaning the original pictures used for the calendar. Another artist can come along and take pictures of the calendar, and do as they please with them, including sell them for profit or even make a new calendar that only has pictures of other calendars in them. So this extends back to Ford. They can make claims to the original cars, and you can't duplicate their cars, but you surely can take all the pictures of them that you want.
Do you think Andy Warhol obtained permission from Campbell's soup (or anyone else) for his Pop art?
This issue also came up between two photographers, where the second one just photographed the pictures of the first one, and then sold them for profit. (sounds kind of stupid and lazy, doesn't it?) But the second artist was allowed to do so, because the secondary pictures weren't duplicates of the first, but artistic interpretations of the first pictures.
I've been looking for the exact details on this case, but I haven't found them yet. We discussed these in my photography class in college, and the second artist was sued but won as the secondary works were ruled as original art, because they weren't duplicates, but interpretations. I'll post again when I find the exact details.
> No one can browse all 9 million registered users.
Except of course, for the site owners, and the government. Thanks to GW and the DHS, the government has access to all of Myspace, facebook, friendster, etc. Because you know terrorists are big on facebook. They like to create groups like "Facebook is for infidels" and "I just started a jihad 5 minutes ago".
Consider anything you put on there easily enough open to anybody. It's not difficult to create university email addresses, which is why places, fake celebrities, and even people's pets and "Delicious Beer" can create profiles on facebook (although facebook has been removing pets and inanimate object profiles).
The name of the Book actually came from Goldman's two daughters. He told them he was going to write a book, and asked them what he should write about. One said, "A Princess", and the other, "A Bride."
So, yes, the name is quite girly, but Wesley, he's a true man's man. Learns to fence at the level of "Master" in under 5 years, made himself immune to one of the most deadly poisons, can save the fair maiden from lightning sand, battle ROUS's, withstand vast amounts of torture (in the book), Speak multiple languages, climb a sheer rock face, fight hand-to-hand with a giant, and then storms a castle an hour or so after being dead from having the life sucked out of him.
Also, Goldman wrote Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and has made millions upon millions of dollars for something that takes a lot less time and physical effort than most of us do for mere peanuts.
So I'm sorry, any so-called "nerd" who doesn't know about this movie needs to have his credentials verified. We might have to take away his pocket protector and taped-up glasses. (Also, I see a lot of LOTR posts on here, along with Star Wars and other movies generally enjoyed by all nerds. Anyone who would actually take the time to complain about this post might want to check that they're on the right site. maybe they were looking for http://ivegotsandinmyvag.com/)
Finally, to get in a couple of quotes:
(from the movie, these may not be 100% exact, but they're close enough for government work.)
"You mock my pain!"
"Life is pain madam, anyone who tells you differently is selling something."
"Be careful, people in masks cannot be trusted."
"Why are you wearing a mask? Were you burned by acid or something?"
"They're quite comfortable, I think everybody will be wearing them in the future."
"You seem a decent fellow, I hate to kill you."
"You seem a decent fellow, I hate to die."
"There's a shortage of perfect breasts in the world. It'd be a pity to damage yours."
"I'm just going to have to get myself a new giant."
"It's probably just a local fisherman, out for a pleasure cruise at night, through eel-infested waters."
I was able to use the wbm last year to find some old device drivers for a no-name motherboard I had from '97. The company went out of business, and their remaining stockpiles were bought by some other Chinese company, but the wbm actually had old copies of the drivers, and even a bios update for the board. Now, I always check there when I am having a hard time finding stuff that I knew used to be around.
/bq
I first read this article title as:
"Microsoft developing low-end Windows for new machines."
and I thought to myself, "What, another article about Longhorn?"
Well, there are already many rumors and speculations that the government can use cell phones as tracking devices. But you take Cell Phones, Google Maps, and Google's new beta feature which lets you track taxis and limousines as they move down the street, and you have a homing device which displays your current location on a scrolling map for people to track where you are and what you are doing.
Given that a few of Google's recent advancements have had much potential for abuse, does anyone think they might actually use this service? Wouldn't you be worried that people will be able to track you, when you would rather not have them know where you are? What about the loss of the ability to tell your boss you are at home sick from your cell phone as you're waiting in line for the next new roller coaster at Cedar Point?
A friend of mine did this. He found a better job, and gave two weeks. Of course, he was their only developer as well, and easily tripled the amount of business they received over the internet. He also programmed in as many languages as he could come up with (for job security or what, I don't know.)
They couldn't find anyone to replace him who knew the more than 10 languages he used at a reasonable price, so he did on-call work for them. $30,000/year to be available, plus hourly rates when he would come in. Talk about a nice gig!
On a side note, where do you live? There's an IT job opening up, and this employer should pay a new employee rather well, considering what you are going to be charging him per hour . . .
It's all about the stupid people isn't it? People get confused between his site and Apple's. People can't tell the difference between Napster and iTunes. What's the difference anyway? If they can't tell the difference between the two, they won't know what they are buying anyway, and won't be able to use their iPod or anything else because they can't understand that either.
Back in the day, computers were only for people who could understand them or who could take the time to learn how to use them. Today, computer and software makers want every Tom, Dick, and Idiot to buy their crap, and therefore everything they make is geared toward the lowest common denominator of human existence.
It won't be long before every website that starts with the letter i will be taken over by Apple, because people will get confused if it doesn't.
There are only a few people with my name, but I own the domain name for it. If one of those other people become famous, does that mean they can take over my site because people will get confused? Does it make me a cyber squatter to register a name that someday some company may choose to use as a product name, and therefore claim rights to? If I want your domain name, can I just market some product under that name, and then claim that I should own it?
The lesson to learn here: Deep pockets and expensive lawyers are all you really need in life.