In the case of a second monitor, you might have some windows applications that 'know' they go on the right screen. I've never seen a mechanism for Windows to properly recover from windows that want to be too far off the screen for the current resolution. (I'd appreciate any tips if anyone has them.)
Alt-Space, M, then hit an arrow key. For some reason hitting the arrow key attached the mouse pointer to the titlebar of the window, so you can use the mouse to move the window where you want it.
Also, while most apps don't require it, hold down Alt while hitting space. Firefox specifically has this issue. Windows apps are supposed to allow users to hit Alt to shift focus to the menu bar, but not all of them work.
There's instructions on how to tie a necktie. I don't know how to tie a necktie. If I got a job at one of those banks I'd have to go dig up some instructions on-line... Or I could just use the nice document that HR provides during orientation. That'd actually be handy.
I don't know how one would get a job at a place like that without having worn a suit and tie to the interview. If they're telling people how to tie a necktie after the fact, isn't it too late?
I don't ask for stuff to be delivered to my doorstep here in the US, but I can't seem to convince UPS or the post office that such a thing isn't a great idea. Although, I'm usually less worried about it getting stolen then I am about it getting wet, since it inevitably rains whenever a package is due to be delivered.
The option of sending a blank Ccc: header to indicate that at least
one Cc:'d recipient was actually a Ccc: inherently leaks information
and MUST NOT be exercised if there is only one Cc:'d recipient in the
rewritten message because in this case the information leak is total
and would eliminate the aura of mystery produced by including such a
header, as it is then perfectly clear that the Cc: was indeed
actually a Ccc:, defeating the purpose of the allowing the header to
be optionally included. As with address obfuscation, whether this is
appropriate for a given message depends on how much information the
sender is willing to have the recipents[SIC] know about which Cc:'d
recipients never were actually sent the message.
I don't think this restriction on not including the empty Ccc: header when only one address is moved to the Cc: header entirely makes sense. For example, I might send a message to some friends, Ccc:'ing someone. I may not care if my friends know that I Ccc:'d that person, but I do want to make sure that if they forward the message on, their recipients think the Ccc:'d person was actually Cc:'d. Since there are times this is possible, I think this behavior should be recommended but optional.
Can't we at least expect our April Fools RFCs to be well thought out? Come on!
You can stream internet radio... while running other apps
How? Seriously, I'd like to know... Pandora quitting while I check email or reply to an SMS that just came in is probably my biggest pet peeve about my iPhone.
"Severely limited fashion" is a bit of an exaggeration considering I haven't had my XBox360 hooked up to the internet in months, and it works perfectly fine. These people should have known that modding their boxes was going to lead to their being blocked from Live. The same thing happened to people that modded the original XBox.
Actually, I found out about a Smashing Pumpkins concert in my area right due to those targeted ads. I'm not sure I would have found out otherwise, so I was pretty happy about it. The quality of the targeting seems to have gone down of late, though. It seems like all I see any more are ads for Catholic singles, which is weird, because I never told facebook whether or not I'm Catholic.
Come on man, don't take away the only thing we've got going for us. Everyone knows we have to disparage Chicagoland lest they take over completely. (spoken as someone born and raised in the Quad Cities area... no longer living in the area though)
I just hope no one from the University of Illinois signed off on this... Prof. Kaler in the astronomy department was one of my favorite professors while I was at school there.
I don't know what to tell you. It worked fine when I was doing my taxes--displayed the same text (albeit formatted a bit differently) that Firefox did.
Actually (and I just checked), but Safari 3.2.1 (on Leopard, at least) displays the name of the extended validation cert owner next to the lock icon in the top right corner.
Actually, they're pretty good about honoring DMCA takedown notices. I've filed a couple for photos my friends have uploaded without my permission (snagging them from my website and posting them on Facebook) and they've been taken down within 24 hours.
Nope! Go get a BlackBerry Storm. Touch screen device that is improved via mechanism to detect difference between touching a widget and pushing a widget. I used to have one of those other touch screen phones, and navigation was a complete pain in the ass. My new phone with the clicky screen is much better, and it still uses multi-touch for on-screen text selection purposes. Interface improved, patent improved, life goes on.
You know, it's interesting. I have an iPod Touch and find its interface to be vastly superior to the Storm, which I have borrowed a few times from friends and thus had an opportunity to try out. However, I asked someone who was obviously not familiar with touch screens to type in their address on my iPod Touch the other day, and they had a very difficult time working out how to use the thing. They kept trying to push down on the "keys" and were frustrated when it wouldn't click. The idea that they just had to tap was apparently very difficult to comprehend.
On the other hand, to me (having used touch screen technology in general, and the iPod Touch / iPhone interface specifically), the "clicking" that the Storm implements seems forced and hokey. I thought it missed the point of the, "But there are no buttons!" complaint, since one still can't type without looking at the screen (i.e., one can't feel their way around the keyboard). I had not previously considered that it might be a more intuitive interface for someone who had never encountered touch screen technology before.
...damnfool landowners who plant big trees too near power lines...
It's not always the landowners' fault. The city in which my folks live planted trees in their right-of-way a few years ago, directly under the lines that connect to Mom and Dad's house. Dad pointed out that they'd be a problem in a few years but was told that it would be at least ten years before it was an issue and anyway the city would fix it. (This by the landscaper putting in the trees.) Of course, five years later the tree is becoming a problem, and Mom and Dad are expected to take care of it. In this case the landscaper just wanted to sell an extra tree, and there wasn't really anything the landowner could do about it at the time.
Of course they know about the data you've provided to them directly. That's the whole point of logging in; I didn't think I needed to spell that out. Let me revise my earlier statement: "While technically all three do store some login-related data about you, the service to which you're trying to log in doesn't know anything related to your login other than the public OpenID portion"
While I agree that OpenID probably isn't easy enough for non-geeks, at least not without hand-holding, I certainly wouldn't recommend a service like Passport, considering that by using that all your concerns about the ID provider deciding to simply shut down come back into the picture.
I believe you're right, that all three pieces need to up and running at the time of the login. However, while technically all three do store some data about you, the service to which you're trying to log in doesn't know anything other than the public OpenID portion (i.e., your password or cert is still secret), and the authenticator service (to whom you've delegated) only knows that you've logged into a particular URL. The authenticator doesn't need to know anything more than that.
I was addressing your concerns about the OpenID provider closing shop. If that happens and you've set up delegation, you simply delegate to a different provider, and you're back in business. No need to worry about being locked out of your account, because you have control.
My understanding is that one should set up OpenID delegation, which allows you to have a static OpenID but still use third-party providers for the authentication portion. Anyone with a web presence can do this, and it's actually preferred to hosting your own OpenID server since it shows that someone else also vouches that you are who you say you are. Here is some further reading.
I have Leopard 10.5.5 on a MacBook Pro purchased from Apple's US online store. It seems most likely to me that someone typed the password in as the hint, personally. Providing the password in plaintext if the user doesn't provide a hint seems like such a boneheaded move that we would have heard about it through channels other than some random Slashdot comment.
Consider Mac OS X Leopard. If you do not choose a hint for your password, it will happily display your password in cleartext at the login screen when the hint button is clicked.
I'm not able to duplicate this either, and I just confirmed that I have "Show Password Hints" enabled. I normally display the username and password login window rather than a list of users, but changing that setting doesn't seem to matter either. I do not have a passport hint set, and I can't get Leopard to display my password in cleartext, despite trying to log in with incorrect passwords on 4+ consecutive attempts. While I'm sure Leopard has its share of security issues, this does not appear to be one of them.
I wouldn't normally post a response to what is probably a troll, but considering the parent is currently moderated at +3 Interesting and the only other response debunking this claim is from an AC, I felt the need to set the record straight.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but what makes this different from Blackberry or WM devices that store data locally? Do those devices encrypt the data on the device, rather than just preventing access to the data with a passcode? If not, I would think that it would be theoretically possible to upload a custom firmware to one of those devices as well, allowing the same type of attack.
Yep. The key indicator is the return on invested assets, which is a percentage, not the raw dollar amounts. Most people don't understand that a business needs to make a reasonable return, or the assets would be better invested in other endeavors.
The temperature of the coffee was high because a lot of people order it, leave and drink it only 10 minutes later. As those people don't want to drink cold coffee, the coffee temperature had to be high.
You have that backwards, IMO. I order coffee, leave it (sans lid, no less) for 10 minutes, and only then start drinking it because it was so hot to being with! If it were a reasonable temperature, I would start drinking it immediately.
The reason that the temperature was so hot at the time of the infamous lawsuit was because MCD figured out that hotter coffee means fewer refills.
I was presenting an excerpt from the whole thing, and there is other data. What it has to do with it is that it didn't align with her story. Specifically.
That's fine, I was talking about this specific point. If she lied about the number of partners she has had recently, that affects her credibility. Your original comment presented it like that was the only thing that mattered, which IMO is unfair.
Also, if you have the semen of several other people on your person, I'm not sure that any evidence of physical trauma can be admitted, and the onus is on her to provide evidence in a criminal case.
I'm sure it makes it more difficult, but I don't think it would necessarily rule the evidence out as a matter of law. Really, the only thing that the presence of semen indicates is that the pair had sex. It doesn't say anything about consent, whether there is one person's or 20 present.
... I think prostitution should be legal...
Agreed.
Are we talking explicit consent here? Because if we are, then you are full of shit. Explicit consent is very rarely given, in my experience. I have never raped anyone.
No, as you point out, consent can be implied. It is, of course, much safer to obtain explicit consent.
Rape and date rape laws are fucked up. For example:
a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex, both out of a sense of obligation. VERDICT: Man date raped woman.
a drunk man and a sober woman have sex, both out of a sense of obligation. VERDICT: Man date raped woman.
a sober man and a drunk woman have sex, both out of a sense of obligation. VERDICT: Man date raped woman.
First of all, "drunk" is relative. However, one can be sufficiently drunk so as to be unable to legally give consent. If one legally cannot give consent, then the act is technically rape. Whether the victim interprets things that way or not depend entire on their feelings about the situation.
In your first case, depending on the relative intoxication levels, different outcomes are possible. I agree that your conclusion is the most likely, but it is by no means foregone.
In your second case, if the man is sufficiently intoxicated so as to be unable to legally consent to the act, then it is the woman who raped him. These cases are rare, and it is even more rare for them to be reported, but they do happen.
In your third case, if the woman is sufficiently intoxicated so as to be unable to legally give consent, then the man raped her. Whether she considers it as such is entirely up to her.
I in fact know a girl who made out with a guy at Eckerd College, and he later went to the provost or whoever and told them he was fucked up on PRESCRIBED MENTAL HEALTH DRUGS and she manipulated him into MAKING OUT WITH HER. She was given a curfew or GTFO, so she stopped going there. Everyone I tell that story thinks it's fucked up. I suspect that most people would be ok with it given a gender reversal. I suspect the only reason it happened at all was the college needed to improve its statistics.
Making out is not a crime, but private institutions are entitled to establish their own rules. I'm not familiar with Eckerd, but one of my friends went to Oral Roberts in Tulsa, OK, for a semester, and told me that while men were allowed to stay out all night, women had to be in their dorms by 11pm (midnight on weekends). That said, I'm not sure what your story has to do with our discussion about rape, since "tricked into making out" and "forced to have sex against one's will" are two entirely different things.
If she had "manipulated" him into having sex with her (especially, but not necessarily, if she knew of his mental condition at the time of the event) and he was legally intoxicated (and thus unable to give con
... that girl that tried to sue Kobe, but it turned out she had the semen of five other guys on her when she went in to the police.
So? What does her sexual activity with other men have to do with whether or not she was raped by Kobe? After all, actual prostitutes can be raped, too. A rape victim might even start having consensual sex with his or her attacker, before withdrawing consent. As soon as consent is withdrawn (or if it has never been given), the sexual act becomes rape.
In general, rape accusations turn out to be false in about the same percentage of cases as most other crime accusations. That is to say, fewer than 5% of the time. (I don't have sources to back this up at the moment but I did participate in rape prevention activities while I was in college and this was one of the things we discussed.) It's very difficult to pull off a false rape report, not least because people tend to blame the victim.
Slashdot Mirror
Alt-Space, M, then hit an arrow key. For some reason hitting the arrow key attached the mouse pointer to the titlebar of the window, so you can use the mouse to move the window where you want it. Also, while most apps don't require it, hold down Alt while hitting space. Firefox specifically has this issue. Windows apps are supposed to allow users to hit Alt to shift focus to the menu bar, but not all of them work.
I don't know how one would get a job at a place like that without having worn a suit and tie to the interview. If they're telling people how to tie a necktie after the fact, isn't it too late?
I don't ask for stuff to be delivered to my doorstep here in the US, but I can't seem to convince UPS or the post office that such a thing isn't a great idea. Although, I'm usually less worried about it getting stolen then I am about it getting wet, since it inevitably rains whenever a package is due to be delivered.
I don't think this restriction on not including the empty Ccc: header when only one address is moved to the Cc: header entirely makes sense. For example, I might send a message to some friends, Ccc:'ing someone. I may not care if my friends know that I Ccc:'d that person, but I do want to make sure that if they forward the message on, their recipients think the Ccc:'d person was actually Cc:'d. Since there are times this is possible, I think this behavior should be recommended but optional.
Can't we at least expect our April Fools RFCs to be well thought out? Come on!
How? Seriously, I'd like to know... Pandora quitting while I check email or reply to an SMS that just came in is probably my biggest pet peeve about my iPhone.
"Severely limited fashion" is a bit of an exaggeration considering I haven't had my XBox360 hooked up to the internet in months, and it works perfectly fine. These people should have known that modding their boxes was going to lead to their being blocked from Live. The same thing happened to people that modded the original XBox.
Actually, I found out about a Smashing Pumpkins concert in my area right due to those targeted ads. I'm not sure I would have found out otherwise, so I was pretty happy about it. The quality of the targeting seems to have gone down of late, though. It seems like all I see any more are ads for Catholic singles, which is weird, because I never told facebook whether or not I'm Catholic.
Come on man, don't take away the only thing we've got going for us. Everyone knows we have to disparage Chicagoland lest they take over completely. (spoken as someone born and raised in the Quad Cities area... no longer living in the area though)
I just hope no one from the University of Illinois signed off on this... Prof. Kaler in the astronomy department was one of my favorite professors while I was at school there.
I don't know what to tell you. It worked fine when I was doing my taxes--displayed the same text (albeit formatted a bit differently) that Firefox did.
Actually (and I just checked), but Safari 3.2.1 (on Leopard, at least) displays the name of the extended validation cert owner next to the lock icon in the top right corner.
Sounds like a risky strategy to me. What if people actually stopped turning left on red?
Actually, they're pretty good about honoring DMCA takedown notices. I've filed a couple for photos my friends have uploaded without my permission (snagging them from my website and posting them on Facebook) and they've been taken down within 24 hours.
You know, it's interesting. I have an iPod Touch and find its interface to be vastly superior to the Storm, which I have borrowed a few times from friends and thus had an opportunity to try out. However, I asked someone who was obviously not familiar with touch screens to type in their address on my iPod Touch the other day, and they had a very difficult time working out how to use the thing. They kept trying to push down on the "keys" and were frustrated when it wouldn't click. The idea that they just had to tap was apparently very difficult to comprehend.
On the other hand, to me (having used touch screen technology in general, and the iPod Touch / iPhone interface specifically), the "clicking" that the Storm implements seems forced and hokey. I thought it missed the point of the, "But there are no buttons!" complaint, since one still can't type without looking at the screen (i.e., one can't feel their way around the keyboard). I had not previously considered that it might be a more intuitive interface for someone who had never encountered touch screen technology before.
It's not always the landowners' fault. The city in which my folks live planted trees in their right-of-way a few years ago, directly under the lines that connect to Mom and Dad's house. Dad pointed out that they'd be a problem in a few years but was told that it would be at least ten years before it was an issue and anyway the city would fix it. (This by the landscaper putting in the trees.) Of course, five years later the tree is becoming a problem, and Mom and Dad are expected to take care of it. In this case the landscaper just wanted to sell an extra tree, and there wasn't really anything the landowner could do about it at the time.
DuPont and John Deere come to mind off the top of my head. Wikipedia has a more complete list...
Of course they know about the data you've provided to them directly. That's the whole point of logging in; I didn't think I needed to spell that out. Let me revise my earlier statement: "While technically all three do store some login-related data about you, the service to which you're trying to log in doesn't know anything related to your login other than the public OpenID portion"
While I agree that OpenID probably isn't easy enough for non-geeks, at least not without hand-holding, I certainly wouldn't recommend a service like Passport, considering that by using that all your concerns about the ID provider deciding to simply shut down come back into the picture.
I believe you're right, that all three pieces need to up and running at the time of the login. However, while technically all three do store some data about you, the service to which you're trying to log in doesn't know anything other than the public OpenID portion (i.e., your password or cert is still secret), and the authenticator service (to whom you've delegated) only knows that you've logged into a particular URL. The authenticator doesn't need to know anything more than that.
I was addressing your concerns about the OpenID provider closing shop. If that happens and you've set up delegation, you simply delegate to a different provider, and you're back in business. No need to worry about being locked out of your account, because you have control.
My understanding is that one should set up OpenID delegation, which allows you to have a static OpenID but still use third-party providers for the authentication portion. Anyone with a web presence can do this, and it's actually preferred to hosting your own OpenID server since it shows that someone else also vouches that you are who you say you are. Here is some further reading.
I have Leopard 10.5.5 on a MacBook Pro purchased from Apple's US online store. It seems most likely to me that someone typed the password in as the hint, personally. Providing the password in plaintext if the user doesn't provide a hint seems like such a boneheaded move that we would have heard about it through channels other than some random Slashdot comment.
I'm not able to duplicate this either, and I just confirmed that I have "Show Password Hints" enabled. I normally display the username and password login window rather than a list of users, but changing that setting doesn't seem to matter either. I do not have a passport hint set, and I can't get Leopard to display my password in cleartext, despite trying to log in with incorrect passwords on 4+ consecutive attempts. While I'm sure Leopard has its share of security issues, this does not appear to be one of them.
I wouldn't normally post a response to what is probably a troll, but considering the parent is currently moderated at +3 Interesting and the only other response debunking this claim is from an AC, I felt the need to set the record straight.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but what makes this different from Blackberry or WM devices that store data locally? Do those devices encrypt the data on the device, rather than just preventing access to the data with a passcode? If not, I would think that it would be theoretically possible to upload a custom firmware to one of those devices as well, allowing the same type of attack.
Yep. The key indicator is the return on invested assets, which is a percentage, not the raw dollar amounts. Most people don't understand that a business needs to make a reasonable return, or the assets would be better invested in other endeavors.
You have that backwards, IMO. I order coffee, leave it (sans lid, no less) for 10 minutes, and only then start drinking it because it was so hot to being with! If it were a reasonable temperature, I would start drinking it immediately.
The reason that the temperature was so hot at the time of the infamous lawsuit was because MCD figured out that hotter coffee means fewer refills.
Disclaimer: I am a MCD shareholder.
That's fine, I was talking about this specific point. If she lied about the number of partners she has had recently, that affects her credibility. Your original comment presented it like that was the only thing that mattered, which IMO is unfair.
I'm sure it makes it more difficult, but I don't think it would necessarily rule the evidence out as a matter of law. Really, the only thing that the presence of semen indicates is that the pair had sex. It doesn't say anything about consent, whether there is one person's or 20 present.
Agreed.
No, as you point out, consent can be implied. It is, of course, much safer to obtain explicit consent.
First of all, "drunk" is relative. However, one can be sufficiently drunk so as to be unable to legally give consent. If one legally cannot give consent, then the act is technically rape. Whether the victim interprets things that way or not depend entire on their feelings about the situation.
In your first case, depending on the relative intoxication levels, different outcomes are possible. I agree that your conclusion is the most likely, but it is by no means foregone.
In your second case, if the man is sufficiently intoxicated so as to be unable to legally consent to the act, then it is the woman who raped him. These cases are rare, and it is even more rare for them to be reported, but they do happen.
In your third case, if the woman is sufficiently intoxicated so as to be unable to legally give consent, then the man raped her. Whether she considers it as such is entirely up to her.
Making out is not a crime, but private institutions are entitled to establish their own rules. I'm not familiar with Eckerd, but one of my friends went to Oral Roberts in Tulsa, OK, for a semester, and told me that while men were allowed to stay out all night, women had to be in their dorms by 11pm (midnight on weekends). That said, I'm not sure what your story has to do with our discussion about rape, since "tricked into making out" and "forced to have sex against one's will" are two entirely different things.
If she had "manipulated" him into having sex with her (especially, but not necessarily, if she knew of his mental condition at the time of the event) and he was legally intoxicated (and thus unable to give con
So? What does her sexual activity with other men have to do with whether or not she was raped by Kobe? After all, actual prostitutes can be raped, too. A rape victim might even start having consensual sex with his or her attacker, before withdrawing consent. As soon as consent is withdrawn (or if it has never been given), the sexual act becomes rape.
In general, rape accusations turn out to be false in about the same percentage of cases as most other crime accusations. That is to say, fewer than 5% of the time. (I don't have sources to back this up at the moment but I did participate in rape prevention activities while I was in college and this was one of the things we discussed.) It's very difficult to pull off a false rape report, not least because people tend to blame the victim.