I'm not a Slashdot editor, but I'd say they picked this submission because it was a proper summary and didn't copy/paste sections of the original story in the submission like your one did.
Basically you put too much, and at the same time not enough, information in the summary. You grabbed sections from a coherent article and made a somewhat different article out of it. You think your information was relevant, but what a Slashdot summary is supposed to do is to push the core information in a couple of sentances and then send the reader to the link.
Your summary didn't give the historical background to the case, didn't give the charges laid against Couture or an indication of what the content was. That's what is needed in a summary. Sorry to be harsh, but your one was a mish-mash.
MOD POINTS, that I agree with you. Where are my mod points.
Simple example, adding a title image to a report in iReport. Works fine until you publish to a JasperServer, then 404. First up it puts the absolute path to the image into the report even when the image is in the same folder as the report. Then to see the image in the server, you gotta reference repo:image.jpg instead of image.jpg. That's a simple thing to fix to use one reference model in iReport and the server side.
Unless I've missed a local repo definition in iReport, then feel free to educate me.
Dude, go back to Grade 2 and actually pay attention in the reading comprehension classes. I know it is difficult to understand how the doing words join up with the naming words, but you'll get it after the first two or three years.
The verb "to control" is being used to bind the noun botnet to the possesive noun its creators. This invokes a fairly fundamental rule of English and clearly states that the creators in question are those of the botnet.
The second subsection of the sentance contains a preposition "over" linking the controlling of the botnet by the creators of the botnet to the proper noun the Tor anonymity network. This invokes another fundamental rule of English and clearly states that the creators of the botnet are controlling the botnet by means of the Tor anonymity network
So we have The Botnet. Who is controlling the botnet? Its creators are controlling it. How is The Botnet being controlled? Over The Tor anonymity network. Are the creators of The Botnet the same as the creators of The Tor anonymity network? No information regarding any such link is given.
No, it doesn't. US law doesn't hold me responsible for telling you where a treasure is buried.-- even if I buried it myself.
If YOU seek it, get it, move it, sell it, etc, that's YOUR problem.
E
But a page of credit card details isn't legal treasure is it? If someone came down the street, gave you a tube and told you to bury it, and you looked inside to find the original Mona Lisa and you buried it and told someone where to find it, then you are responsible for trafficking in stolen goods.
That depends on whether they can prove you had knowledge of illegal contents inside the locker prior to passing on the address.
If the accused chap knew what the link pointed to and was passing it on in order to disseminate the stolen credit card information, then he should get into the same trouble that he would get into if he had printed copies of the stolen card information and was handing it around in the streets.
Except hitting F5 would produce a 404 page not found as the original website took it down on request. So Google should respect 404s and remove the data.
No technical reason that you can't split it up, as long as the decoders know where you are in the page. But if you're only using 10 percent of a page, you may as well tell your handlers so they can save money by printing shorter pages.
There are logistical issues though. If you're halfway through the 1000 chars and you're caught with the page still in the pad, it'll only be a matter of time before your captors extract that information from you. By destroying your page as soon as you've used even part of it keeps that information from being useful.
The second issue comes up with communicating what part of the page is in use. In the message sent by dead pigeon, there is an identifier somewhere in there of the page or at very least the book. That has to be done to tell the decoders what to use. While it is a risk to do so, it is mitigated by the destruction of your page. Now if you're using only segments of the page, then if the page still exists in your pad, the captors might not even have to break your kneecaps and extract your molars because they have identifiers in your captured messages of where to look.
Aerosolised oil might ignite merely with the heat, same way a diesel engine ignites without a spark, so it may not help.
There might also be more water present in a frozen bird. I know when I thaw a chicken, there is a lot of water sitting on the plate afterwards, so thawing the bird lets that water drain and not be dumped in the oil as it is boiled off.
The problem isn't the right volume of oil to submerge the bird, they had that right in the video as you don't see oil slopping over the side of the pot as the bird goes in. What happens is the hot oil melts and boils the ice around the bird and the steam explosion throws the oil over the edge of the pot.
Now, a very tall pot, say 2m, might contain that oil.
Orders of court trump terms in contracts. If a judge orders a violation of an NDA for evidence purposes, the person ordered to testify is immune of the NDA consequences. The only recourse is for the non-testifying party to the NDA to petition for sealed records.
How Facebook will react, illegally if they to terminate in this case, is unknown and whether the person handing over the password at the judge's behest is willing to fight them on it.
The relevant element in the Facebook TOS is 19.11, which states You will comply with all applicable laws when using or accessing Facebook.. A court order holds force of law, and unless successfully appealed and voided, acts as a individual law for the persons named in the order. By disclosing the password under court order, you are comply with law as specified by 19.11.
That's because the UK is the size of a single US state and you have haulers like Eddie Stobart running end to end constantly. They offer next day because they can guarantee it in the UK.
Unlikely, but what if the operative found an encoded message in a German HQ and was sending it on knowing it could be decrypted by the spooks? Might explain why it is one of a very rare class of message.
We're talking the true brainless, makes-zombies-look-smart, beer-dribbling, double-tire-gun-rack-pickup-driving, republican-voting, mouth-breathing oxygen thieves here. Kilohertz is high frequency to them, a kilometer is a long way isn't it, so it has to be, doesn't it.
Downlink technology for the bandwidth needed for HD over 39km transmission distances isn't that small or power-frugal . Remember he has to carry it all, and then land it as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Come hang around EvE sometime then. We've got belts of 'roids being stripmined by robots.
I'm not a Slashdot editor, but I'd say they picked this submission because it was a proper summary and didn't copy/paste sections of the original story in the submission like your one did.
Basically you put too much, and at the same time not enough, information in the summary. You grabbed sections from a coherent article and made a somewhat different article out of it. You think your information was relevant, but what a Slashdot summary is supposed to do is to push the core information in a couple of sentances and then send the reader to the link.
Your summary didn't give the historical background to the case, didn't give the charges laid against Couture or an indication of what the content was. That's what is needed in a summary. Sorry to be harsh, but your one was a mish-mash.
MOD POINTS, that I agree with you. Where are my mod points.
Deep V formations to channel the cavalry into the point of each V and hit them with enfilade fire from inside the invert of the V.
Seconded. Thirded. Motion Passed.
Simple example, adding a title image to a report in iReport. Works fine until you publish to a JasperServer, then 404. First up it puts the absolute path to the image into the report even when the image is in the same folder as the report. Then to see the image in the server, you gotta reference repo:image.jpg instead of image.jpg. That's a simple thing to fix to use one reference model in iReport and the server side.
Unless I've missed a local repo definition in iReport, then feel free to educate me.
That I agree with, journalists need to go back to grade 1 and learn joined up writing.
Dude, go back to Grade 2 and actually pay attention in the reading comprehension classes. I know it is difficult to understand how the doing words join up with the naming words, but you'll get it after the first two or three years.
The verb "to control" is being used to bind the noun botnet to the possesive noun its creators. This invokes a fairly fundamental rule of English and clearly states that the creators in question are those of the botnet.
The second subsection of the sentance contains a preposition "over" linking the controlling of the botnet by the creators of the botnet to the proper noun the Tor anonymity network. This invokes another fundamental rule of English and clearly states that the creators of the botnet are controlling the botnet by means of the Tor anonymity network
So we have The Botnet. Who is controlling the botnet? Its creators are controlling it. How is The Botnet being controlled? Over The Tor anonymity network. Are the creators of The Botnet the same as the creators of The Tor anonymity network? No information regarding any such link is given.
No, it doesn't. US law doesn't hold me responsible for telling you where a treasure is buried.-- even if I buried it myself. If YOU seek it, get it, move it, sell it, etc, that's YOUR problem. E
But a page of credit card details isn't legal treasure is it? If someone came down the street, gave you a tube and told you to bury it, and you looked inside to find the original Mona Lisa and you buried it and told someone where to find it, then you are responsible for trafficking in stolen goods.
That depends on whether they can prove you had knowledge of illegal contents inside the locker prior to passing on the address.
If the accused chap knew what the link pointed to and was passing it on in order to disseminate the stolen credit card information, then he should get into the same trouble that he would get into if he had printed copies of the stolen card information and was handing it around in the streets.
Submitter screwed up the summary, article says pre-ADB and pre-USB and non-PS/2. So not related.
Submitter screwed up the summary, article says pre-ADB and pre-USB and non-PS/2.
The more mod points you use, the more you get. So roman is stuck in an everbuilding loop.
The horse from Wheel of Time?
Problem: Some jerk publishes a book that libels me.
Solution: Publisher retracts the book and destroys all copies
Problem: The library photocopies the book and puts it on the shelf saying it is too difficult to shred it.
Solution: Sue the library!
Except hitting F5 would produce a 404 page not found as the original website took it down on request. So Google should respect 404s and remove the data.
No technical reason that you can't split it up, as long as the decoders know where you are in the page. But if you're only using 10 percent of a page, you may as well tell your handlers so they can save money by printing shorter pages.
There are logistical issues though. If you're halfway through the 1000 chars and you're caught with the page still in the pad, it'll only be a matter of time before your captors extract that information from you. By destroying your page as soon as you've used even part of it keeps that information from being useful.
The second issue comes up with communicating what part of the page is in use. In the message sent by dead pigeon, there is an identifier somewhere in there of the page or at very least the book. That has to be done to tell the decoders what to use. While it is a risk to do so, it is mitigated by the destruction of your page. Now if you're using only segments of the page, then if the page still exists in your pad, the captors might not even have to break your kneecaps and extract your molars because they have identifiers in your captured messages of where to look.
Aerosolised oil might ignite merely with the heat, same way a diesel engine ignites without a spark, so it may not help.
There might also be more water present in a frozen bird. I know when I thaw a chicken, there is a lot of water sitting on the plate afterwards, so thawing the bird lets that water drain and not be dumped in the oil as it is boiled off.
The problem isn't the right volume of oil to submerge the bird, they had that right in the video as you don't see oil slopping over the side of the pot as the bird goes in. What happens is the hot oil melts and boils the ice around the bird and the steam explosion throws the oil over the edge of the pot.
Now, a very tall pot, say 2m, might contain that oil.
Orders of court trump terms in contracts. If a judge orders a violation of an NDA for evidence purposes, the person ordered to testify is immune of the NDA consequences. The only recourse is for the non-testifying party to the NDA to petition for sealed records.
How Facebook will react, illegally if they to terminate in this case, is unknown and whether the person handing over the password at the judge's behest is willing to fight them on it.
The relevant element in the Facebook TOS is 19.11, which states You will comply with all applicable laws when using or accessing Facebook.. A court order holds force of law, and unless successfully appealed and voided, acts as a individual law for the persons named in the order. By disclosing the password under court order, you are comply with law as specified by 19.11.
Oh thank you very much for reminding me about that abortion of a movie. Where's the brain bleach.
brEAk please. brAke is what you do to slow down a vehicle.
That's because the UK is the size of a single US state and you have haulers like Eddie Stobart running end to end constantly. They offer next day because they can guarantee it in the UK.
Unlikely, but what if the operative found an encoded message in a German HQ and was sending it on knowing it could be decrypted by the spooks? Might explain why it is one of a very rare class of message.
We're talking the true brainless, makes-zombies-look-smart, beer-dribbling, double-tire-gun-rack-pickup-driving, republican-voting, mouth-breathing oxygen thieves here. Kilohertz is high frequency to them, a kilometer is a long way isn't it, so it has to be, doesn't it.
Whoofh
Downlink technology for the bandwidth needed for HD over 39km transmission distances isn't that small or power-frugal . Remember he has to carry it all, and then land it as well.