Um, the series was pretty much *all* character development. So, how you think that the movie, having *no* character development at all, was a mediocre ep is beyond me.
IMO, the movie was something that was based on the series that has similar characters, set in a similar 'verse. But, when a critical eye is used, the only things that are the same is the lore (loosely in parts), the character names, and the actors.
One thing that I hate about people looking in from the outside is that they make tonnes of assumptions that just aren't true.
I as well hate the FF/S fans that are just shrill. They give the rest of us a bad name. *But*, every fandom has them. The point is to look beyond the rtards to see the general landscape. Even then (here) it is difficult to see as most of the people pre movie don't participate on forums anymore (from what I can see of course). And of those people 95+% were reasonable who mostly have _not_ been replaced.
Also, I've been a member of fireflyfans.net for some time now. Since I was regularly participating on those forums for a few months after the movie was released, I can tell you that many many many people became fans *because of* that movie (though I'm not sure why as I didn't think it was that good). This is still the case today.
/Every/ fan base "rigs" these polls (or at least the crazy fans do). And since every fan base does this, it normalizes the results. Not to mention that FF/S fan base is... somewhat smaller than the Star Wars fan base. So, how did "Dave" beat "Goliath" on this one? IMO b/c the last 3 Star Wars films to come out sucked beyond belief.
Also, FF wasn't even given a chance to succeed. Yet, I imagine that F*X made a few bucks while it was on air. Though not enough for them to support a show that they didn't like before filming even began. When it comes to DVD sales... well... it's still pretty good and it was released 2003!
When I comes to Serenity, that's in the black and has been for some time. For that matter, do you think that Serenity was the first movie to come out on HD b/c it wasn't selling?
I remember a few years back when the CRTC came to the conclusion that the internet could _not_ be regulated. Thus it didn't try. Now, apparently it has decided it can. IMO, the change in government isn't a coincidence.
But, I have an idea for all the arrogant americans that have posted in this thread. Instead of being assholes (ignoring your own backyard btw), how about just sitting back and being amused when they try. I mean, there's nothing wrong with being critical, but seriously *disappointed*
Security is a very fast paced field with new exploits coming out all the time. Are we going to require a refresher class every couple months to keep this cert?
I really think that things like this, although well intentioned and not a bad idea, will lull corps into a false sense of security (no pun intended;)) making it counter productive in the long run. People are lazy after all and I know for a fact that only a handful of people I graduated with are keeping there knowledge up to date.
So, I predict in the future that we'll have a lot of people with this cert that'll have no clue because it has been so long since they got this cert.
I mean sure, if the firmware is GPL'd then according to the GPL we have to have access to it. But, if a key is required (as in a crypto type key) then that would NOT exactly be covered under the GPL. Thus NO violation.
I'm actually asking. B/c as I see it, this will only effect sites physically located in Colorado. For that matter, even if US federal law made this possible, how would this effect any site outside of the US?
Seems to me that there's more than just a little bit of hubris going on in the assumption of how far this ruling will reach.
I think you're reading too much into things. It's FAR more likely that the OBSD team has become somewhat overconfidenct in there code. As such, since remote exploit wasn't shown and was unlikely, they dismissed that.
But, cover up? Yah right. Please, note that the OBSD team NEVER denied that a problem existed. They fixed it. It was only the wording that was in contest until remote execution was shown and they verified it.
No shit! Wasn't there a story a while back about almost all of the government agencies not passing some cyber security test? Perhaps this is some fallout and they're trying to limit there own responsibility.
""" as well as cites a 2005 Department of Homeland Security report that government workers had installed file-sharing programs that accessed classified information without their knowledge. """
I don't think this is the fault of file-sharing programs. It's more the profound stupidity of the government worker. I mean seriously, making info public when secret docs are lying around!?!? Perhaps the government should work more on enforcing existing policies instead of putting the blame (falsely) elsewhere.
""" Do you seriously want to play the same games you played since the SNES over and over -- never getting something really different and new? """
You could actually insert SNES with ANY console (or really company) and it'd still be true. The GAMES INDUSTRY itself is nothing but rehashes. Why? Because companies don't like this thing called risk. So, they beat to death anything that works.
But, then again, Nintendo IS actually doing something. Spore may be one game, but the Wii itself has is an innovation which will bleed into ALL its games.
""" All Wii users seem to want is more Wii sports and mini games, and he's actually standing up and saying that's not good enough for Spore. """
And where the hell are you getting that? Because that's exactly wrong (btw, I'M a Wii user).
I agree that his duties have been fulfilled by communicating this security issue to his superior. But, so that his ass is covered, I'd extend this to make sure that a paper trail of sorts exists for his recommendation (if one doesn't exist already). Perhaps a last email bcc'ing himself offsite saying something like:
" I know you've already stated that you don't wish to improve the security situation regarding our clients accounting records. So, please consider this my final attempt to improve this security.
As I've already stated,/anyone/ can access these records. Even just a file cabinet that locks would greatly improve the situation. It is a relatively cheap solution and even if the keys are not required to be handed in at the end of a shift, if something happens, it reduces the amount of people that may be responsible from everyone, to a relatively few people.
etc etc etc
Again, this will be my last word on this topic.
best regards, blah blah blah. "
As you can see, I'm not exactly good at writing such things, but you get the idea.
This is certainly a good idea. It puts responsibility for ideas with those that creates them. Which is probably the reason why this will never be implemented i.e. plausible deniability goes right out the window (at least if the records are made public).
But, I think that there is another much more practical problem with this. Do we honestly think that people that think the internet is a series of tubes will be able to handle something like CVS?
I've _*never*_ heard it called that, always et cetera. I mean, even pretty much every definition of 'et cetera' fits.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=et+cetera """ and others; and so forth; and so on (*used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted*): """ etc;)
I'd like to know how someone could call it extended tool chest. There is _not_ any tools in there, only configuration files.
No shit. The first thing that I thought when I read the OP was, how the hell did (s)he get that summary?!?!?
Mr. Schwartz decided that he wanted far more computing power then what he legally had access to. He then found some, used it and got caught. Sheer stupidity and he's bloody lucky to this ruling.
Hopefully he's learned his lesson.
Oh, and for those that think what Mr. Schwartz did was "white hat", it in no way shape or form is that. Hell, it's not even Grey. Yah, installing backdoors. That's soooo white hat.
""" First of all on it's own terms the story makes no sense, the anonymous coward starts off by saying it's interesting when people disagree. He then links to two articles which, as he points out, are written by the same person and then asks who is right. He has just pointed out the opinions are both from the same person and he wants to know who is right, this is just moronic. """
It's only stupid if you didn't read this part "metaphorically speaking?". Please actually read before you post.
""" Secondly although I know nothing about PThreads or Win threads I can see that both those articles are largely the same with just the terms PThreads and Win threads switched so in one article he is claiming an advantage for one based on what he has stated as the advantages of the other in his other article.
Why is this on the front page, why was the submission accepted in the first place when it's complete nonsense and the most recent post by the author of both articles was in 2006. """
It's about starting a discussion. It doesn't matter that they are basically the same article, nor does it matter that they were written by the same person. These articles are a starting point for us to discuss something, which as it happens, goes on a fair bit around here.
Honestly, is this your first day? Or did you just have a neural misfire?
But, to contribute to the discussion a bit, since when I program I want to have the code as cross-platform as possible, I go with pthreads. They run pretty much everywhere (including windows: http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32/) whereas win32 threads only run on, *gasp*, windows. But, that's just my opinion.
If they don't say anything then everyone will know that what they're saying is total BS. And any money that they've made from these so called "Linux patents" could be considered fraud. Ooo, that'll go over well.
If they do reply and they're caught trying to put one over on the community (either by prior art i.e. CVS commits have dates on them:) or something else) then they are just as screwed.
But, if they answer with valid claims, then the community has some answering to do.
Not that I think that they'll be able to do it. M$ is a very large and slow moving beast that I don't really think is capable of meeting the given deadline. I personally think that they'll just continue to make these claims attempting to scare companies to buy this "Linux patent" to add another revenue stream ignoring all logic.
Hm, decoy pulses. Sounds like security through obscurity to me.
I'll just wait till this actually gets peer reviewed (I'm assuming this as pretty much every "break through" has be broadcasted/before/ peer review and I'm not willing to even look at it until then - not exactly the science mentality to publish/before/ review IMO).
Basically, let me know when the article shows up in something like PhysRef. NOT when it's on some newspaper's website.
""" This could happen if extra dimensions exist, as string theory suggests, and if they are large enough. """
Why is it that every single time that something suggests something that string theory "predicts" but has many many other explanations, it's touted as a victory for evidence of string theory? (btw this is similar thinking to that of "Intelligent Design" folks) In this case, there are many other theories that have more dimensions.
Basically, IF this is happens, it is only a HINT that some theory that has extra dimensions is valid. And String Theory is far from the only one. Until String Theory is able to make an experimentally verifiable prediction, that/only/ String Theory predicts, it'll continue to be just a bunch of math and hand waving.
Slashdot Mirror
I totally agree. I mean, I consider myself a Browncoat and all. But, 12 Monkeys crushes Serenity.
When you get older, you'll understand.
Um, the series was pretty much *all* character development. So, how you think that the movie, having *no* character development at all, was a mediocre ep is beyond me.
IMO, the movie was something that was based on the series that has similar characters, set in a similar 'verse. But, when a critical eye is used, the only things that are the same is the lore (loosely in parts), the character names, and the actors.
IMO, Joss *really* dropped the ball on this one.
One thing that I hate about people looking in from the outside is that they make tonnes of assumptions that just aren't true.
I as well hate the FF/S fans that are just shrill. They give the rest of us a bad name. *But*, every fandom has them. The point is to look beyond the rtards to see the general landscape. Even then (here) it is difficult to see as most of the people pre movie don't participate on forums anymore (from what I can see of course). And of those people 95+% were reasonable who mostly have _not_ been replaced.
Also, I've been a member of fireflyfans.net for some time now. Since I was regularly participating on those forums for a few months after the movie was released, I can tell you that many many many people became fans *because of* that movie (though I'm not sure why as I didn't think it was that good). This is still the case today.
/Every/ fan base "rigs" these polls (or at least the crazy fans do). And since every fan base does this, it normalizes the results. Not to mention that FF/S fan base is... somewhat smaller than the Star Wars fan base. So, how did "Dave" beat "Goliath" on this one? IMO b/c the last 3 Star Wars films to come out sucked beyond belief.
Also, FF wasn't even given a chance to succeed. Yet, I imagine that F*X made a few bucks while it was on air. Though not enough for them to support a show that they didn't like before filming even began. When it comes to DVD sales... well... it's still pretty good and it was released 2003!
When I comes to Serenity, that's in the black and has been for some time. For that matter, do you think that Serenity was the first movie to come out on HD b/c it wasn't selling?
Seriously, do your homework before posting.
I remember a few years back when the CRTC came to the conclusion that the internet could _not_ be regulated. Thus it didn't try. Now, apparently it has decided it can. IMO, the change in government isn't a coincidence.
But, I have an idea for all the arrogant americans that have posted in this thread. Instead of being assholes (ignoring your own backyard btw), how about just sitting back and being amused when they try. I mean, there's nothing wrong with being critical, but seriously *disappointed*
Security is a very fast paced field with new exploits coming out all the time. Are we going to require a refresher class every couple months to keep this cert?
;)) making it counter productive in the long run. People are lazy after all and I know for a fact that only a handful of people I graduated with are keeping there knowledge up to date.
I really think that things like this, although well intentioned and not a bad idea, will lull corps into a false sense of security (no pun intended
So, I predict in the future that we'll have a lot of people with this cert that'll have no clue because it has been so long since they got this cert.
... but isn't the key NOT source code.
I mean sure, if the firmware is GPL'd then according to the GPL we have to have access to it. But, if a key is required (as in a crypto type key) then that would NOT exactly be covered under the GPL. Thus NO violation.
Math does rock!
e t.mp3s et
http://www.jonathancoulton.com/mp3/Mandelbrot%20S
http://www.jonathancoulton.com/lyrics/mandelbrot-
I'm actually asking. B/c as I see it, this will only effect sites physically located in Colorado. For that matter, even if US federal law made this possible, how would this effect any site outside of the US?
Seems to me that there's more than just a little bit of hubris going on in the assumption of how far this ruling will reach.
LOL. So, then the OpenBSD team isn't part of the software industry?
t ures
Because, they've never come up with anything security wise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSD_security_fea
Not at all.
I think you're reading too much into things. It's FAR more likely that the OBSD team has become somewhat overconfidenct in there code. As such, since remote exploit wasn't shown and was unlikely, they dismissed that.
But, cover up? Yah right. Please, note that the OBSD team NEVER denied that a problem existed. They fixed it. It was only the wording that was in contest until remote execution was shown and they verified it.
No shit! Wasn't there a story a while back about almost all of the government agencies not passing some cyber security test? Perhaps this is some fallout and they're trying to limit there own responsibility.
"""
as well as cites a 2005 Department of Homeland Security report that government workers had installed file-sharing programs that accessed classified information without their knowledge.
"""
I don't think this is the fault of file-sharing programs. It's more the profound stupidity of the government worker. I mean seriously, making info public when secret docs are lying around!?!? Perhaps the government should work more on enforcing existing policies instead of putting the blame (falsely) elsewhere.
"""
Do you seriously want to play the same games you played since the SNES over and over -- never getting something really different and new?
"""
You could actually insert SNES with ANY console (or really company) and it'd still be true. The GAMES INDUSTRY itself is nothing but rehashes. Why? Because companies don't like this thing called risk. So, they beat to death anything that works.
But, then again, Nintendo IS actually doing something. Spore may be one game, but the Wii itself has is an innovation which will bleed into ALL its games.
"""
All Wii users seem to want is more Wii sports and mini games, and he's actually standing up and saying that's not good enough for Spore.
"""
And where the hell are you getting that? Because that's exactly wrong (btw, I'M a Wii user).
I agree that his duties have been fulfilled by communicating this security issue to his superior. But, so that his ass is covered, I'd extend this to make sure that a paper trail of sorts exists for his recommendation (if one doesn't exist already). Perhaps a last email bcc'ing himself offsite saying something like:
/anyone/ can access these records. Even just a file cabinet that locks would greatly improve the situation. It is a relatively cheap solution and even if the keys are not required to be handed in at the end of a shift, if something happens, it reduces the amount of people that may be responsible from everyone, to a relatively few people.
"
I know you've already stated that you don't wish to improve the security situation regarding our clients accounting records. So, please consider this my final attempt to improve this security.
As I've already stated,
etc etc etc
Again, this will be my last word on this topic.
best regards,
blah blah blah.
"
As you can see, I'm not exactly good at writing such things, but you get the idea.
This is certainly a good idea. It puts responsibility for ideas with those that creates them. Which is probably the reason why this will never be implemented i.e. plausible deniability goes right out the window (at least if the records are made public).
But, I think that there is another much more practical problem with this. Do we honestly think that people that think the internet is a series of tubes will be able to handle something like CVS?
I've _*never*_ heard it called that, always et cetera. I mean, even pretty much every definition of 'et cetera' fits.
a ;)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=et+ceter
"""
and others; and so forth; and so on (*used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted*):
"""
etc
I'd like to know how someone could call it extended tool chest. There is _not_ any tools in there, only configuration files.
No shit. The first thing that I thought when I read the OP was, how the hell did (s)he get that summary?!?!?
Mr. Schwartz decided that he wanted far more computing power then what he legally had access to. He then found some, used it and got caught. Sheer stupidity and he's bloody lucky to this ruling.
Hopefully he's learned his lesson.
Oh, and for those that think what Mr. Schwartz did was "white hat", it in no way shape or form is that. Hell, it's not even Grey. Yah, installing backdoors. That's soooo white hat.
Matt Damon as Kirk, ok
Adrien Brody as Spock, ok
I can see this. But, Gary Sinise as Scotty? Don't really think that'll work well. He looks more like a Bones to me.
"""
First of all on it's own terms the story makes no sense, the anonymous coward starts off by saying it's interesting when people disagree. He then links to two articles which, as he points out, are written by the same person and then asks who is right. He has just pointed out the opinions are both from the same person and he wants to know who is right, this is just moronic.
"""
It's only stupid if you didn't read this part "metaphorically speaking?". Please actually read before you post.
"""
Secondly although I know nothing about PThreads or Win threads I can see that both those articles are largely the same with just the terms PThreads and Win threads switched so in one article he is claiming an advantage for one based on what he has stated as the advantages of the other in his other article.
Why is this on the front page, why was the submission accepted in the first place when it's complete nonsense and the most recent post by the author of both articles was in 2006.
"""
It's about starting a discussion. It doesn't matter that they are basically the same article, nor does it matter that they were written by the same person. These articles are a starting point for us to discuss something, which as it happens, goes on a fair bit around here.
Honestly, is this your first day? Or did you just have a neural misfire?
But, to contribute to the discussion a bit, since when I program I want to have the code as cross-platform as possible, I go with pthreads. They run pretty much everywhere (including windows: http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32/) whereas win32 threads only run on, *gasp*, windows. But, that's just my opinion.
If they don't say anything then everyone will know that what they're saying is total BS. And any money that they've made from these so called "Linux patents" could be considered fraud. Ooo, that'll go over well.
:) or something else) then they are just as screwed.
If they do reply and they're caught trying to put one over on the community (either by prior art i.e. CVS commits have dates on them
But, if they answer with valid claims, then the community has some answering to do.
Not that I think that they'll be able to do it. M$ is a very large and slow moving beast that I don't really think is capable of meeting the given deadline. I personally think that they'll just continue to make these claims attempting to scare companies to buy this "Linux patent" to add another revenue stream ignoring all logic.
How else would Fox "news" have any influence over people's opinions?
If you don't buy what I'm saying. Just keep reading it over and over until you understand it.
Hm, decoy pulses. Sounds like security through obscurity to me.
/before/ peer review and I'm not willing to even look at it until then - not exactly the science mentality to publish /before/ review IMO).
I'll just wait till this actually gets peer reviewed (I'm assuming this as pretty much every "break through" has be broadcasted
Basically, let me know when the article shows up in something like PhysRef. NOT when it's on some newspaper's website.
"""
/only/ String Theory predicts, it'll continue to be just a bunch of math and hand waving.
This could happen if extra dimensions exist, as string theory suggests, and if they are large enough.
"""
Why is it that every single time that something suggests something that string theory "predicts" but has many many other explanations, it's touted as a victory for evidence of string theory? (btw this is similar thinking to that of "Intelligent Design" folks) In this case, there are many other theories that have more dimensions.
Basically, IF this is happens, it is only a HINT that some theory that has extra dimensions is valid. And String Theory is far from the only one. Until String Theory is able to make an experimentally verifiable prediction, that