From a quick look at the code, the bug seems to be that you can resize the popup to be bigger than the screen size. So the warning disappears off the bottom of the screen.
There's *plenty* that can be done with a Windows box to protect it.
That's precisely the problem. If it were secure, there would be very little extra that could be done.
It's obviously much more expensive in terms of load on the server. And Google presumably take the attitude that anyone who is willing to hand all their email over for Google to look at must not care about security anyway.
The site also says: we (Your.Org) set up a full IPv6 infrastructure only to realize it was mostly unusable due to certain problems.
IPv6 is not going to get used until big sites such as Google start to support it. But if even a small site such as this had problems, surely no large site is going to want to risk its reputation by introducing it.
It's a bit hard on the person in this story, but at least the zero-tolerance policy towards camcorders in cinemas is having the desired effect. I just had a look on my favourite torrent site, and there were only nine camcorder copies of the Transformers movie available for download. A few years ago, before the law got so tough, there would have been at least ten or eleven by now [/sarcasm]
If it had a competitive advantage, then it would be happening already. But it doesn't seem to be happening, so presumably everyone thinks the costs outweigh the benefits.
Obviously, if we all changed over, there would be a benefit for the community as a whole (e.g. more IP addresses available), but the people who would need to spend money to replace routers etc evidently don't see any benefit for themselves. So, in the absence of any enforcement measures, I can't see how issusing this sort of document could make a difference one way or the other.
This is a great plan for switching over to IPv6. It's full of things that everyone MUST do. It's just missing one thing: if everyone ignores the plan and does nothing instead, how is it going to be enforced?
Yes, the border with Eire has never had passport checks. Oddly enough, this situation persisted all through the "troubles", when terrorists were regularly travelling from Ireland to the UK and blowing things up. Yet the current situation, where UK citizens are rebelling against their own government and blowing things up, is being used as an excuse for tighter border controls.
TFA states that he is German. So he can work in any EU country, without any need for a visa. Except for the UK, he wouldn't even need to show a passport at the border.
The US immigration/Visa regulations are well-known around the world to be something out of the dark ages.
It's not just the US: most countries have bizarre immigration laws.
The beauty of immigration laws, from the point of view of the government, is that they can be as screwed-up as you like, and no-one is ever going to do anything about it. By definition, none of people affected have got a vote, and once they have been turned away they are in no position to fight back through the legal system. So immigration laws are always arbitrary, capricious and unfair: the way all laws would be if the power of the government were not balanced by the courts.
I wouldn't like to be subdued by any of them, thank you very much.
But, if you're going to give the police a weapon, there's an argument that a gun is better than any of these. Everyone knows that a gun is lethal, so a policeman is going to think carefully before using it on anyone who is not immediately threatening his life.
But if the policeman has got a simple non-lethal weapon like this, he's got a strong motivation for "subduing" anyone who happens to disagree with him or who doesn't instantly obey his orders. What better instrument of oppression than a police force that is always instantly obeyed for fear of something like this?
So "those musicians who took all those risks, and saw it pay off" worked long and hard in the industry, knowing all along that their copyright payments would end after 50 years. Why should we give them any more money now? They made their choice in full knowledge of what would happen, and should live with it.
A friend of mine once worked in a job that required him to have signed the Official Secrets Act (this was in the UK, many years ago). He told the the following story: I don't know whether it was true.
Once you have signed the act, you are not allowed to reveal certain official secrets. He read the act and discovered that the fact that he had signed the act would be one of the official secrets that he was not allowed to reveal.
So, whenever he was asked whether he had signed the act, he would say "under section x.y of the act, I am not allowed to tell you that". Everyone took this to mean "yes", and duly proceeded to reveal their various secrets to him. Of course, he had never signed the act.
But it was a huge project, involving hundreds of people and the expenditure of vast amounts of money.
Once a project like that has started, no-one will ever cancel it, even if it is clear that it is not going to achieve anything, because no-one wants to be blamed for wasting all that money.
In other words:
When I do some things (own property, buy goods) I have to pay the government some money, and it's called a tax.
When I do other things (drive, operate a radio) I have to pay the goverment some money, and it's called a license.
On the other hand, doesn't the Chinese government have a well-established tradition of forcing people to do things that they don't want to do?
If I were Bill Gates, I would say something like "we'll put your choice of spyware and net filtering in the Chinese version of Windows if you'll give us a government-imposed monopoly".
The only barrier to manufacturers shipping a "naked" PC would be a legal one imposed by the government. And the interested party that is asking the Chinese government to impose such a restriction is Microsoft. So you can be sure that, if there is any such law imposed, the law will say "must include a legal copy of Microsoft Windows", and not just "must include an operating system".
Regardless of how you feel about MS hegemony, there is a certain practical logic to the argument that a naked PC is sort of a wink to piracy. Yes the owner might transferring over a legal copy of an OS purchased elsewhere. But realistically that's a tiny number
It's only a tiny number because Microsoft have fixed things so that you can't transfer your operating system to a new machine. Before that happened, it was considered perfectly normal behaviour to upgrade hardware and software independently.
So how about if china were to impose a levy on all new PC's sold naked. The money would be shared out among a consortium of major OS makers. GNU/Linux should have a place at that table.
The whole point of GNU/Linux is that you don't have to pay for it. Especially, you don't have to pay a bribe^H^H^H levy to the government, or to Microsoft, in order to be allowed to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
From a quick look at the code, the bug seems to be that you can resize the popup to be bigger than the screen size. So the warning disappears off the bottom of the screen.
There's *plenty* that can be done with a Windows box to protect it.
That's precisely the problem. If it were secure, there would be very little extra that could be done.
It's obviously much more expensive in terms of load on the server. And Google presumably take the attitude that anyone who is willing to hand all their email over for Google to look at must not care about security anyway.
And Xenix, for 386 machines, sold by (of all people) Microsoft. The important thing is that they weren't free.
The site also says: we (Your.Org) set up a full IPv6 infrastructure only to realize it was mostly unusable due to certain problems.
IPv6 is not going to get used until big sites such as Google start to support it. But if even a small site such as this had problems, surely no large site is going to want to risk its reputation by introducing it.
It's a bit hard on the person in this story, but at least the zero-tolerance policy towards camcorders in cinemas is having the desired effect. I just had a look on my favourite torrent site, and there were only nine camcorder copies of the Transformers movie available for download. A few years ago, before the law got so tough, there would have been at least ten or eleven by now [/sarcasm]
If it had a competitive advantage, then it would be happening already. But it doesn't seem to be happening, so presumably everyone thinks the costs outweigh the benefits.
Obviously, if we all changed over, there would be a benefit for the community as a whole (e.g. more IP addresses available), but the people who would need to spend money to replace routers etc evidently don't see any benefit for themselves. So, in the absence of any enforcement measures, I can't see how issusing this sort of document could make a difference one way or the other.
This is a great plan for switching over to IPv6. It's full of things that everyone MUST do. It's just missing one thing: if everyone ignores the plan and does nothing instead, how is it going to be enforced?
Now the thieves are going to cut off my head, instead of just taking my finger.
No, he's right; it's more than 2 dollars to the pound now. Perhaps you confused pounds with euros?
Yes, the border with Eire has never had passport checks. Oddly enough, this situation persisted all through the "troubles", when terrorists were regularly travelling from Ireland to the UK and blowing things up. Yet the current situation, where UK citizens are rebelling against their own government and blowing things up, is being used as an excuse for tighter border controls.
TFA states that he is German. So he can work in any EU country, without any need for a visa. Except for the UK, he wouldn't even need to show a passport at the border.
The US immigration/Visa regulations are well-known around the world to be something out of the dark ages.
It's not just the US: most countries have bizarre immigration laws.
The beauty of immigration laws, from the point of view of the government, is that they can be as screwed-up as you like, and no-one is ever going to do anything about it. By definition, none of people affected have got a vote, and once they have been turned away they are in no position to fight back through the legal system. So immigration laws are always arbitrary, capricious and unfair: the way all laws would be if the power of the government were not balanced by the courts.
I wouldn't like to be subdued by any of them, thank you very much.
But, if you're going to give the police a weapon, there's an argument that a gun is better than any of these. Everyone knows that a gun is lethal, so a policeman is going to think carefully before using it on anyone who is not immediately threatening his life.
But if the policeman has got a simple non-lethal weapon like this, he's got a strong motivation for "subduing" anyone who happens to disagree with him or who doesn't instantly obey his orders. What better instrument of oppression than a police force that is always instantly obeyed for fear of something like this?
So "those musicians who took all those risks, and saw it pay off" worked long and hard in the industry, knowing all along that their copyright payments would end after 50 years. Why should we give them any more money now? They made their choice in full knowledge of what would happen, and should live with it.
A friend of mine once worked in a job that required him to have signed the Official Secrets Act (this was in the UK, many years ago). He told the the following story: I don't know whether it was true.
Once you have signed the act, you are not allowed to reveal certain official secrets. He read the act and discovered that the fact that he had signed the act would be one of the official secrets that he was not allowed to reveal.
So, whenever he was asked whether he had signed the act, he would say "under section x.y of the act, I am not allowed to tell you that". Everyone took this to mean "yes", and duly proceeded to reveal their various secrets to him. Of course, he had never signed the act.
But evidently not good enough, or there wouldn't have been any need for RCD.
The sheep population is controlled by the fact that people eat them. Unfortunately nothing in Australia or NZ eats rabbits.
But it was a huge project, involving hundreds of people and the expenditure of vast amounts of money.
Once a project like that has started, no-one will ever cancel it, even if it is clear that it is not going to achieve anything, because no-one wants to be blamed for wasting all that money.
In other words, millions of pounds were wasted and many lives lost, just to give some politician bragging rights.
In other words:
When I do some things (own property, buy goods) I have to pay the government some money, and it's called a tax.
When I do other things (drive, operate a radio) I have to pay the goverment some money, and it's called a license.
Yes, I see the distinction clearly now.
On the other hand, doesn't the Chinese government have a well-established tradition of forcing people to do things that they don't want to do?
If I were Bill Gates, I would say something like "we'll put your choice of spyware and net filtering in the Chinese version of Windows if you'll give us a government-imposed monopoly".
The only barrier to manufacturers shipping a "naked" PC would be a legal one imposed by the government. And the interested party that is asking the Chinese government to impose such a restriction is Microsoft. So you can be sure that, if there is any such law imposed, the law will say "must include a legal copy of Microsoft Windows", and not just "must include an operating system".
Regardless of how you feel about MS hegemony, there is a certain practical logic to the argument that a naked PC is sort of a wink to piracy. Yes the owner might transferring over a legal copy of an OS purchased elsewhere. But realistically that's a tiny number
It's only a tiny number because Microsoft have fixed things so that you can't transfer your operating system to a new machine. Before that happened, it was considered perfectly normal behaviour to upgrade hardware and software independently.
So how about if china were to impose a levy on all new PC's sold naked. The money would be shared out among a consortium of major OS makers. GNU/Linux should have a place at that table.
The whole point of GNU/Linux is that you don't have to pay for it. Especially, you don't have to pay a bribe^H^H^H levy to the government, or to Microsoft, in order to be allowed to use it.
Google being the ultimate freeloader on the hard work of the ISPs
Wow: Google get to use the network for free!!?? I never knew that </sarcasm>