Well, websites are copyrighted documents, and websites with extra ISP-injected code are unauthorized derivative works of those documents. Aaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
No, but neither are those people qualified to disinfect a single computer connected directly to the Internet. In either case, the solution is the same: unplug the cable modem and call a nerd for help.
That, and they seem to have an increasingly small workforce which is able to communicate effectively in English over the phone....Oh yeah, like you said.
Something like "HEY, YOU, Customer #4572953, have a virus and this is your ISP, Comcast, telling you so. Please call our tech support at 1-888-IPGOUGE for removal help, and you should probably verify that phone number against your own documents before calling it."
As another example, I can recall a couple IM programs with an "auto-away" feature, which activates after a certain period of idleness, but automatically deactivates as soon as you move the mouse, regardless of which window has focus. I would choke that program down to receiving mouseclick and keyboard events only. No mouseover, no GetFocus(or whatever the damn API calls it), just the facts.
I think it's almost time that we start looking at and designing GUIs the way we look at firewalls. Which apps have a legitimate need to receive which UI events? Does an app really have a right to know where the mouse is, or even whether its window happens to be minimized at the moment?
There are definitely some apps which would behave much better on my desktop if I could put a 'default drop all inbound' policy on them and just enable specific input events.
Please provide some standards to back up your demand. Under what circumstances would a car accident be "officially recognized" as having been caused by too-slow reading speed, even if it was?
The answer, obviously, is none. Illegible signs only contribute to car accidents as a confounding factor which exacerbates other factors. In order for the sign to distract you, there has to have been an unexpected hazard to distract you from, and that hazard is what gets written down on the accident report.
The very act of summarization constitutes an act of commentary. You're saying "I think the pertinent parts of this story are these, and the most important questions raised are those."
A good summary invites commentary and frames the questions in a way which makes for better discussion, but don't for a second imagine the OP ought to be value-neutral (if such a thing could even exist.)
And if you have any of your info set up as visible to "friends of friends", all they need to do is make a fake profile with a sexy girl photo, and spam friend requests.
That's not the kind of URL hiding the OP is talking about. If you did this to URLs pointing to external sites, ones not controlled by you or your company, *then* you'd be contributing to redirect hell.
Google and Facebook could just as easily filter malware out of the hyperlinks before they present them to you in the first place. I know Facebook in particular doesn't even let you post such links to your wall in the first place, let alone allow anyone to click them.
Doesn't prevent them from experiencing perverse incentives, and it doesn't mean we can trust them to allocate parking space and enforcement in a way that's motivated only by concerns of public usefulness and not by the city's unrelated budget headaches.
No, burning cash means giving its value to everyone with cash. When the state prints cash, they take that same value away and invest it in the cash they now hold.
Doing both of those things together constitutes giving money to the state. The first half alone does not.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, websites are copyrighted documents, and websites with extra ISP-injected code are unauthorized derivative works of those documents. Aaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
No, but neither are those people qualified to disinfect a single computer connected directly to the Internet. In either case, the solution is the same: unplug the cable modem and call a nerd for help.
That, and they seem to have an increasingly small workforce which is able to communicate effectively in English over the phone. ...Oh yeah, like you said.
If anything, it constitutes agreement or endorsement of the editorial decisions made by the author of TFA.
Something like "HEY, YOU, Customer #4572953, have a virus and this is your ISP, Comcast, telling you so. Please call our tech support at 1-888-IPGOUGE for removal help, and you should probably verify that phone number against your own documents before calling it."
As another example, I can recall a couple IM programs with an "auto-away" feature, which activates after a certain period of idleness, but automatically deactivates as soon as you move the mouse, regardless of which window has focus. I would choke that program down to receiving mouseclick and keyboard events only. No mouseover, no GetFocus(or whatever the damn API calls it), just the facts.
I think it's almost time that we start looking at and designing GUIs the way we look at firewalls. Which apps have a legitimate need to receive which UI events? Does an app really have a right to know where the mouse is, or even whether its window happens to be minimized at the moment?
There are definitely some apps which would behave much better on my desktop if I could put a 'default drop all inbound' policy on them and just enable specific input events.
Please provide some standards to back up your demand. Under what circumstances would a car accident be "officially recognized" as having been caused by too-slow reading speed, even if it was?
The answer, obviously, is none. Illegible signs only contribute to car accidents as a confounding factor which exacerbates other factors. In order for the sign to distract you, there has to have been an unexpected hazard to distract you from, and that hazard is what gets written down on the accident report.
The very act of summarization constitutes an act of commentary. You're saying "I think the pertinent parts of this story are these, and the most important questions raised are those."
A good summary invites commentary and frames the questions in a way which makes for better discussion, but don't for a second imagine the OP ought to be value-neutral (if such a thing could even exist.)
Fuck, dude, we hurd you the first time. and "GNU Plus Linux" is terrible marketing.
Hah! For that to happen, they would have to notify the people they defame.
And if you have any of your info set up as visible to "friends of friends", all they need to do is make a fake profile with a sexy girl photo, and spam friend requests.
Do a bunch of notable stuff and get into some bigger newspapers with a higher PageRank?
I hope this too, but this hope is hopelessly naive.
This correlation isn't as telling as you think. Why would you use a product that you dislike enough to 'slam'?
I was gonna be first but my 6to4 layer adds too much latency.
So tell me, AC. How exactly do you "Slammer-time" a contractual relationship?
I'm picturing an anthropomorphized stack of corporate charters behind bars, lamenting and playing harmonica.
"Instead of IP lease information, package contained bobcat.
Would not buy again."
That's not the kind of URL hiding the OP is talking about. If you did this to URLs pointing to external sites, ones not controlled by you or your company, *then* you'd be contributing to redirect hell.
Google and Facebook could just as easily filter malware out of the hyperlinks before they present them to you in the first place. I know Facebook in particular doesn't even let you post such links to your wall in the first place, let alone allow anyone to click them.
What an uncharacteristically even-handed Slashdot response!
You must be a noob.
*(in the presence of fraudulent ticketing/crooked cops, results may vary)
Say, does anyone want to buy some of these beautiful, gilded "Diana: Princess of Hearts" commemorative dinner plates?
Doesn't prevent them from experiencing perverse incentives, and it doesn't mean we can trust them to allocate parking space and enforcement in a way that's motivated only by concerns of public usefulness and not by the city's unrelated budget headaches.
No, burning cash means giving its value to everyone with cash. When the state prints cash, they take that same value away and invest it in the cash they now hold.
Doing both of those things together constitutes giving money to the state. The first half alone does not.