and I've heard (though not from a reliable source) that new marines are told during boot camp to always remember that their rifles were made by the lowest bidder.
Speaking as a former marine, that does not seem to be the rule.
There are a lot of drill instructors with their own habits, I would not be
surprised if at least some of them pointed that out.
I do recall one of my drill instructors informing us that some of our rifles were from Word War II.
I believe grandparent meant that nVidia would try to have AMD buy nVidia instead of ATI. 'nVidia: "No! Don't buy them! We're better, and we'll sell to you cheaper!"'
I don't know why, but I get the standalone installer by default as opposed to the download manager one. *does a little test* Aha! Javascript is the culprit. If you enter adobe's site with javascript disabled enabled, they give you access to the standalone installer. I used NoScript in Firefox 1.5.
current link in case you cannot replicate this: http://ardownload.adobe.com/pub/adobe/reader/win/7 x/7.0.8/enu/AdbeRdr708_en_US.exe
Since I already had this version installed I had to uninstall acrobat reader to test whether or not it is really standalone (without toolbar/extras).
After re-installing using this file (no dialog boxes existed for toolbars/extras) I did not notice any extras installed without permission.
In regards to the JavaScript issue in acrobat reader itself: I renamed the directory as a test, and the directory came back next run (empty).
Then I tried explicitly denying 'execute file/traverse folder' permissions on the JavaScripts folder under the reader directory. It can no longer access anything in there and it doesn't seem to complain. I might simply be using the wrong pdf files, but perhaps this will work for you.
I imagine they could act as a credit card processor.
i.e. when you want to checkout, you use a google checkout page.
I am reminded of the yahoo store checkout pages.
Of course some vendors would want their own checkout, and this introduces a new form of fraud
as you stated. Where only Google loses in this case. (Compared to click fraud where both
Google (in reputation and refunds) and the customer loses.)
If the clickers on the ads actually use their checkout service to buy then
This could turn out to be very interesting.
This could definately help out with click fraud if they charge by the purchase/customer instead of click,
or have some form of tiered system where purchases/customers are charged a certain amount, and clicks another.
If they get in between the credit card processors/banks and the online stores then we get another benefit.
Google could not actually pass the credit card information to the store, limiting the number of databases that
have your personal information. We could also have user profiles making checkout much easier (compare to having
a user account for every single online store you ever use.)
I imagine this would also help combat credit card fraud, when online stores have access to some kind of reliability score for a user.
The reverse would be true: Not giving credit information to the store (helps) prevents them from scamming you.
I wouldn't mind having being able to search/store online receipts in a repository either, although I can see how some might given the privacy concerns.
I left some information out by mistake.
The teacher who got injured (Mr. B) held back one student (the one who elbowed him).
The other student in the fight was held back by another teacher at the same time, so there was no danger to the student.
I wanted to stress, that the student did pause at least a few seconds after
recognizing that it was a teacher holding him and seeing the other student was at least
10 feet away and being held by another student before he actually elbowed Mr. B.
It seemed clear (or so it seemed to myself and all witnesses I spoke to) that it was retaliation for stopping the fight.
"a student can basically walk into class and beat the crap out of his teacher and still not get expelled"
A similar situation happened in my school.
A fight broke out between two students and the teacher held one back.
The student turned around. He looked at the teacher, paused to recognized him, and then elbowed him in the face.
He knocked out a couple of the teacher's teeth. This caused the first (and only) day this teacher ever missed a class in his 35+ year career.
The student was not expelled. In fact, IIRC the student was only punished for the fight with the student. Elbowing the teacher was not brought up.
The teachers responded with a strike, and some students staged a walkout to support them.
(Of course the rest of the students then walked out to have a day off.)
If the student was violent, or at least made actual (or veiled) threats to the school or otherwise I could understand the punishment.
As it is, I disagree with their punishment of the student for his posts online.
The information garnered from TFA didn't sound like there was any threat at all.
Unfortunately it seems that we have too many school officials (and this carries on into politics) who are too scared of anyone who doesn't conform. 'What if the threat was real and I did nothing about it?' They start to see threats that aren't even there.
Anyone who is a little different starts to set of these alerts in their heads; he simply brought himself to the attention of some of these people.
I imagine the school in question doesn't really foster free thinking and speech.
Perhaps if it did, he wouldn't have felt it necessary to post what he did online.
(That was the point if I understood the article.)
Slashdot Mirror
There are a lot of drill instructors with their own habits, I would not be surprised if at least some of them pointed that out.
I do recall one of my drill instructors informing us that some of our rifles were from Word War II.
I believe grandparent meant that nVidia would try to have AMD buy nVidia instead of ATI.
'nVidia: "No! Don't buy them! We're better, and we'll sell to you cheaper!"'
I don't know why, but I get the standalone installer by default
7 x/7.0.8/enu/AdbeRdr708_en_US.exe
as opposed to the download manager one.
*does a little test*
Aha! Javascript is the culprit.
If you enter adobe's site with javascript disabled enabled,
they give you access to the standalone installer.
I used NoScript in Firefox 1.5.
current link in case you cannot replicate this:
http://ardownload.adobe.com/pub/adobe/reader/win/
Since I already had this version installed I had to
uninstall acrobat reader to test whether or not it
is really standalone (without toolbar/extras).
After re-installing using this file (no dialog boxes
existed for toolbars/extras) I did not notice any
extras installed without permission.
In regards to the JavaScript issue in acrobat reader
itself: I renamed the directory as a test, and the
directory came back next run (empty).
Then I tried explicitly denying 'execute file/traverse folder'
permissions on the JavaScripts folder under the reader directory.
It can no longer access anything in there and it doesn't seem
to complain. I might simply be using the wrong pdf files, but
perhaps this will work for you.
I imagine they could act as a credit card processor.
i.e. when you want to checkout, you use a google checkout page.
I am reminded of the yahoo store checkout pages.
Of course some vendors would want their own checkout, and this introduces a new form of fraud
as you stated. Where only Google loses in this case. (Compared to click fraud where both
Google (in reputation and refunds) and the customer loses.)
This could turn out to be very interesting.
This could definately help out with click fraud if they charge by the purchase/customer instead of click,
or have some form of tiered system where purchases/customers are charged a certain amount, and clicks another.
If they get in between the credit card processors/banks and the online stores then we get another benefit.
Google could not actually pass the credit card information to the store, limiting the number of databases that
have your personal information.
We could also have user profiles making checkout much easier (compare to having a user account for every single online store you ever use.)
I imagine this would also help combat credit card fraud, when online stores have access to some kind of reliability score for a user.
The reverse would be true: Not giving credit information to the store (helps) prevents them from scamming you.
I wouldn't mind having being able to search/store online receipts in a repository either, although I can see how some might given the privacy concerns.
I can understand that in a very violent school that might be the policy.
Mr. B did in fact follow our school policy.
Seeing as our school isn't particularly violent, our policy is to prevent
the students from hurting each other if you believe you can do so.
I left some information out by mistake.
The teacher who got injured (Mr. B) held back one student (the one who elbowed him).
The other student in the fight was held back by another teacher at the same time, so there was no danger to the student.
I wanted to stress, that the student did pause at least a few seconds after
recognizing that it was a teacher holding him and seeing the other student was at least
10 feet away and being held by another student before he actually elbowed Mr. B.
It seemed clear (or so it seemed to myself and all witnesses I spoke to) that it was retaliation for stopping the fight.
"a student can basically walk into class and beat the crap out of his teacher and still not get expelled"
A similar situation happened in my school.
A fight broke out between two students and the teacher held one back.
The student turned around. He looked at the teacher, paused to recognized him, and then elbowed him in the face.
He knocked out a couple of the teacher's teeth. This caused the first (and only) day this teacher ever missed a class in his 35+ year career.
The student was not expelled. In fact, IIRC the student was only punished for the fight with the student. Elbowing the teacher was not brought up.
The teachers responded with a strike, and some students staged a walkout to support them.
(Of course the rest of the students then walked out to have a day off.)
If the student was violent, or at least made actual (or veiled) threats to the school or otherwise I could understand the punishment.
As it is, I disagree with their punishment of the student for his posts online.
The information garnered from TFA didn't sound like there was any threat at all.
Unfortunately it seems that we have too many school officials (and this carries on into politics) who are too scared of anyone who doesn't conform.
'What if the threat was real and I did nothing about it?'
They start to see threats that aren't even there.
Anyone who is a little different starts to set of these alerts in their heads; he simply brought himself to the attention of some of these people.
I imagine the school in question doesn't really foster free thinking and speech.
Perhaps if it did, he wouldn't have felt it necessary to post what he did online.
(That was the point if I understood the article.)