'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PATENT!!
Do I have to remind people we are talking about a guy who refused to show his receipt and identification? This isn't the American Revolutionary War. Nor is this part of some civil right movement. Give me a fucking break.
P Since that seems to be the default behavior for most Microsoft programs (Annoy, Annoy, Annoy, Reboot), I fail to see why this this would drive users away.... Hasn't in the past at any rate.
True enough but that seems to me to be evil as a side effect, as opposed to declared, deliberate, premeditated evil.
I mean imagine you have tons of data in word documents (or some other MS-app created data store), and MS or someone you think is MS changes the privacy policy allowing them to publish your address list. If you say no, then *poof* all your word documents may as well be gone (well you could get OO I suppose). Or *poof* windows explorer won't browse your hard drive anymore (well you could install linux I suppose). Its just so evil and the only potential for good it has is that if you give up your private data, it won't do as much evil to you.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising denying use of the selected information by the application until consent to the change is granted in response to the user interface.
5. The method of claim 3, further comprising denying use of the selected information by the application if consent to the change is denied in response to the user interface.
Damn that's evil! Really, what quicker way to drive away users - program your application to piss them off and then stop working.
Demonstrably false--the fall of Jim Crow, numerous Supreme Court rulings, the Posse Comitatus Act, the abolition of slavery, and many other historical events have not only given back seized freedoms, but have created new ones.
Those instances of a large central government increasing rights are certainly evidence that the mere size and power of the government alone is not directly connect to the loss if individual rights, although they are from a time when the central government did hold nearly the power it does now, and individual rights are in the decline.
Habeas (along with a lengthening list of other rights) has been suspended/diminished until such a time that the state of war - the war on terror - is over. The problem is that the war on terror will not be over for a very, very long time. As long as there is some group or even individual somewhere that wants to commit a terrorist act, those rights are sequestered. Just look at the 'success' at fighting just one terrorist group - Al Qaeda. They have expanded into an additional country where they had no real foothold before the 'war on terror' and have since regrouped in the country where they had refuge when 9/11 happened. They are just one terrorist group, out of hundreds, any of which is excuse enough to continue the neverending 'war on terror', and the backburnering of rights enumerated by the US constitution. Asserting that those right will one day return and the bush 'experiment' will be reversed seems quite speculative when looking at the plain nature of the situation.
So its possible that there is a threshold above which a powerful government will have to put forth extreme effort to avoid consuming individual rights. While I don't agree the idea that it is the size and power of the government alone that causes the loss of rights (although power always corrupts), that people are now losing rights for what is clearly in indefinite period of time is the current situation. For that particular problem, there doesn't appear to be any relief in sight.
What the heck are you talking about, a JRE that can run older versions of Java?
The applications themselves won't launch unless they see a specific JRE present. It very possible that the newer JRE would run them, if they could be fooled into thinking it was the version they needed. Some won't care if a newer JRE is there, and some will.
It seems you are more suffering from exceptionally stupid suppliers and bad products instead of Java.
That's more than likely. I just always see this kind of thing with java products. Verizon business, for example, has a circuit ticket reporting java tool, but if you have an older JRE it won't work, and if the a newer JRE is installed to satisfy them, fluke software's java breaks. The domino of dependencies seem to multiply with each new java product. Its like gambling.
Well then you are shooting yourself in the foot when it comes to established business solutions.
No, its because of established business solutions. I may not have pointed out that I already have business-critical commercial business applications that only run under certain JREs. That means if someone's java product needs a newer JRE, it means purchasing more workstations for everyone who would use that product also needs to use the existing applications. And, that more often than not means no due to business requirements.
That's just stupid, Java has many features that are also interesting if you buy a product.
No its necessary. I may not have pointed out clearly enough that my workstation already has a couple of commercial java products purchased and installed, and they quite working of the wrong JRE is present - period. It has nothing at all to do with java's many interesting features, and everything to do with its version incompatibility. These have to run under windows, incidentally, and will absolutely not run under anything else. And, yes, it would be great if Sun can out with a JRE you could install what would run older versions of Java.
I do not understand that sentence. What do you have to run to meet client SLA requirements? The specific Java version? What's against that?
Some of them have to do with security monitoring agreements with clients. If I install another JRE that breaks a java product, the SLA is in breech.
JAVA is a technology whose value is near infinite to the internet
Actually, when someone tries to sell me a product by pointing out that its done in java, I have to politely see them to the door. I already have several commercial java products which require a specific JRE versions, and installing a newer JRE often breaks one of them (they'll check to see of other JRE versions are present, and decide not to run for compatibility reasons). I have to be able to run them to meet client SLA requirements. So, because java is not compatible with itself, the only response I can give to the "and its done in java" selling point is "sorry to hear that". While there are workarounds to the java self-incompatibility problems, they're not worth it. The only other really satisfactory solution is to run a VM for each version of java needed. Also not worth the effort.
This individual had no tools other than a paper printout of the assembler code, and an assembler. It was also a mainframe operating system - very different from a pc operating system both in size and complexity (while not as true these days). Also all the os in question ran in fielddata, making the task somewhat more difficult.
The change itself wasn't really terribly radical - just changing the exception handler from a reload to a flush.
Yes, ueber programmers do exist. I knew one once, who wanted to fix a mainframe OS problem. Unable to get the source code, he dumped the assembly code, walked through it, and fixed the problem.
This actually makes intuitive sense, when think about the eddy currents that I've heard exist within a conductor's cross section - why a circular conductor works better that a rectangular conductor.
Most Critical Unpatched The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows Vista, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Not critical
Slashdot Mirror
Doubtfull we could even try because:
1. We don't have enough military leftover from Iraq to pull it off. Countries that try to wall themselves off don't last long.
2. Even if we did, its unlikely we'd suceed
Also unlikely to work even if we were able to pull it off.
WTF are you talking about? He was just better at stealing than his competitors to get where he is today, and he was born rich.
'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PATENT!!
This looks like vaporous hype designed to try and make linux look unstable. Didn't Con Kolivas say last july he's leaving linux kernal development?
How did this make the
Boston Tea party, anyone?
I mean imagine you have tons of data in word documents (or some other MS-app created data store), and MS or someone you think is MS changes the privacy policy allowing them to publish your address list. If you say no, then *poof* all your word documents may as well be gone (well you could get OO I suppose). Or *poof* windows explorer won't browse your hard drive anymore (well you could install linux I suppose). Its just so evil and the only potential for good it has is that if you give up your private data, it won't do as much evil to you.
Damn that's evil.
Damn that's evil! Really, what quicker way to drive away users - program your application to piss them off and then stop working.
I thought that was homework your parents gave you - along with plurality
By decreeing that no Belgium will ever be allowed to be 'cleared'. Belgiums win.
Those instances of a large central government increasing rights are certainly evidence that the mere size and power of the government alone is not directly connect to the loss if individual rights, although they are from a time when the central government did hold nearly the power it does now, and individual rights are in the decline.
Habeas (along with a lengthening list of other rights) has been suspended/diminished until such a time that the state of war - the war on terror - is over. The problem is that the war on terror will not be over for a very, very long time. As long as there is some group or even individual somewhere that wants to commit a terrorist act, those rights are sequestered. Just look at the 'success' at fighting just one terrorist group - Al Qaeda. They have expanded into an additional country where they had no real foothold before the 'war on terror' and have since regrouped in the country where they had refuge when 9/11 happened. They are just one terrorist group, out of hundreds, any of which is excuse enough to continue the neverending 'war on terror', and the backburnering of rights enumerated by the US constitution. Asserting that those right will one day return and the bush 'experiment' will be reversed seems quite speculative when looking at the plain nature of the situation.
So its possible that there is a threshold above which a powerful government will have to put forth extreme effort to avoid consuming individual rights. While I don't agree the idea that it is the size and power of the government alone that causes the loss of rights (although power always corrupts), that people are now losing rights for what is clearly in indefinite period of time is the current situation. For that particular problem, there doesn't appear to be any relief in sight.
That's more than likely. I just always see this kind of thing with java products. Verizon business, for example, has a circuit ticket reporting java tool, but if you have an older JRE it won't work, and if the a newer JRE is installed to satisfy them, fluke software's java breaks. The domino of dependencies seem to multiply with each new java product. Its like gambling.
Well then you are shooting yourself in the foot when it comes to established business solutions.
No, its because of established business solutions. I may not have pointed out that I already have business-critical commercial business applications that only run under certain JREs. That means if someone's java product needs a newer JRE, it means purchasing more workstations for everyone who would use that product also needs to use the existing applications. And, that more often than not means no due to business requirements.
That's just stupid, Java has many features that are also interesting if you buy a product.
No its necessary. I may not have pointed out clearly enough that my workstation already has a couple of commercial java products purchased and installed, and they quite working of the wrong JRE is present - period. It has nothing at all to do with java's many interesting features, and everything to do with its version incompatibility. These have to run under windows, incidentally, and will absolutely not run under anything else. And, yes, it would be great if Sun can out with a JRE you could install what would run older versions of Java.
I do not understand that sentence. What do you have to run to meet client SLA requirements? The specific Java version? What's against that?
Some of them have to do with security monitoring agreements with clients. If I install another JRE that breaks a java product, the SLA is in breech.
Actually, when someone tries to sell me a product by pointing out that its done in java, I have to politely see them to the door. I already have several commercial java products which require a specific JRE versions, and installing a newer JRE often breaks one of them (they'll check to see of other JRE versions are present, and decide not to run for compatibility reasons). I have to be able to run them to meet client SLA requirements. So, because java is not compatible with itself, the only response I can give to the "and its done in java" selling point is "sorry to hear that". While there are workarounds to the java self-incompatibility problems, they're not worth it. The only other really satisfactory solution is to run a VM for each version of java needed. Also not worth the effort.
Does Sun have some kind of solution to java?
This individual had no tools other than a paper printout of the assembler code, and an assembler. It was also a mainframe operating system - very different from a pc operating system both in size and complexity (while not as true these days). Also all the os in question ran in fielddata, making the task somewhat more difficult.
The change itself wasn't really terribly radical - just changing the exception handler from a reload to a flush.
Yes, ueber programmers do exist. I knew one once, who wanted to fix a mainframe OS problem. Unable to get the source code, he dumped the assembly code, walked through it, and fixed the problem.
Pretty cool, actually.
"When this merger is complete, this will be one of the biggest galaxies in the universe,"
Kind of like if Walmart, Target, Sears, and the DoD merged?
One wonders what the galactic lawyers will get out of this.
Actually, someone tried, and the iPhone can't walk on water.
The more power the white house gets, the more corrupt it will become - regardless of which party is there.
Try to figure out how to herd cats, I would think...
This actually makes intuitive sense, when think about the eddy currents that I've heard exist within a conductor's cross section - why a circular conductor works better that a rectangular conductor.
Cook my eggs?
Rather than take his word for it why not just check at Secunia.
Vista
Ubuntu 6.06
They don't have to be worried - "they're not even a real country anyway".
Each little capacitor and other widget
Went downhill from there...
Now they're tageting the most intellectually vulnerable of society.