thanks for impeding the search for this guy amazon
So they have an infrastructure in place that can easily organize & manage a massive search like this and you want to bitch because you had to "like... sign in" and occasionally fill out a CAPTCHA? Jeez, dude. A man's life is likely at stake here and a company stepped up to try and help the cause and you're complaining because they didn't implement the solution exactly as you would've liked. Why don't you spend more time checking out HITs and less time posting stupid shit on/. if you care so much about the process being impeded?
If they were forced to provide routers instead with basic nat firewall would this not block worms from getting in no matter how unpatched the systems were behind the firewall?
It would block unsolicited inbound worms, but it wouldn't do anything to protect the stupid people who click the link when their email says, "Dude, your face is all over the web! www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBUImjOCg5g
The biggest problem is, and always will be, humans doing stupid human stuff.
Re:Opiate of the Masses
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Stupidity is not exclusive to religious people.
(I'm not even a religious person by any stretch, but this concept that believing in a deity is automagically negative to your well-being is silly.)
You sure about that? RELIGION killed the people or stupid choices they made that were *influenced by* religion killed those people? I'm pretty sure it was the poison in their kool-aid that did the killing. People have gotten high on weed and hurt themselves doing other activities, but weed didn't actually hurt the people. Heroin will kill you if you take a big enough dose, it won't wait for you to get high and swallow a different poison.
If they'd made the comment using another feel-good thing without quite the ill effects of heroin, I'd have been more inclined to agree. I'd liken religion more to weed - no real ill effects unless you go overboard, and then it may only cost you a job and some friends but (by itself) it's not going to seriously impact your health. To be corny- nobody's ever died from OD'ing on religion. (Except maybe that Jesus guy.) Yeah, I'm probably missing the real intent of the (now GGGP's) message and focusing too much on the drug they chose, but I thought it was a crappy analogy.
The parent poster has faith in what he/she can scientifically determine.
If something can be scientifically determined it then doesn't require faith, does it? Nobody has faith or believes in gravity, it is known to occur and the science describing it is undisputed (to the best of my knowledge).
Regardless, the (grand)parent poster is an ass. Having faith in something is analogous to heroin? Please.
Maybe he does "get it". Instead of having a library in a fixed location (your iPod), you have a physical token that provides instant access to your centrally (online) stored library. Instead of having to pick the 8gb of songs/audiobooks/videos that you want to carry with you, all you ever have to carry is your token and when you plug it into an enabled theatre system you instantly have access to everything you've purchased (or everything accessible to your subscription tier, since he's talking about subscribing).
There will always be a market for an iPod-like device since the entire planet isn't (and maybe won't be) online-accessible, but that doesn't mean there's not a market for a better storage/distribution model.
Shhh! Don't tell anybody! If they find that we had a friendly & helpful (if only mildy) exchange with no MS flames, fanboish envangelism, or blatantly uninformed & offtopic rhetoric they might not let us come back...;)
The MonsterMaritime.com entry linked to in the writeup was actually posted on July 2, a full 2 months ago. 2 months later and they haven't tried to put the horse back in the barn so while it's technically a secret, it's probably not that important of a secret. Besides, even if they asked MS to blur the image on Live they'd still have to ask other companies with access to the data to blur it, and then they'd have to go to the source of the imagery and ask them to stop selling it (which they may not have a case for).
In reality, if they censored the images the only people who wouldn't be able to see it are people not willing to spend money to see images of a classified submarine. Any country/organization with it's own program for developing nuclear submarines or technology to detect submarines likely has the financial/organizational resources to aquire this imagery without depending on a free website.
Oops, sorry. <em> and <i> work inside <quote> but not <blockquote>.
slashdot.css includes the rule "blockquote * { font-style: normal; }" so all child nodes (including <em> and <i>) are rendered as normal non-italicized style. Font-weight is a different property and is unaffected by "font-style" rules.
I have no idea why they made that style decision, but that's the technical reason why things aren't working the way you expect.
Would it then require some hack to make sure that the inline style doesn't override any stylesheets you've created? The iframe used on bankofindia.com had "style='visibility:hidden;'". Unless I'm mistaken, even if you had custom stylesheets applied to every page you visit the inline CSS would still rule... right?
The consensus also seems to be that if you don't secure your WiFi and somebody wardrives you it's your fault for not locking things down; but if you don't lock down your P2P shares it's the fault of the downloader for taking something he shouldn't. Go figure...
I think 90% of the posts on here should be modded "-1 Jackass" these days but that's another topic...
I misinterpreted your post. I thought you had been trying to imply that Sony was attempting to mimic the Apple design with the Vaio TZ series. Having had a TX (same design as the TZ) for almost a year before Apple launched their smaller Macbooks, it would have been impossible for Sony to be copying the Mac style.
On the other hand, the surviving members of Nirvana wouldn't have to ask Courtney Love for permission to do anything with works they, and not she, co-created.
Not to mention the fact that the average Firefox/Linux/OS X user is smarter than the average Windows n00b, and would never open an executable email attachment.
That is only true while Firefox/Linux/OS X users are more geeks than commonfolk. As soon as Linux is "user-friendly" (read: easy-enough-to-migrate-from-Windows) and widespread enough that Aunt Millie is using it, you'll have plenty of "average Windows n00bs" using Linux and it will become a tastier target.
Why are we so quick to label Michael Moore's films as propaganda?
Because more often than not, Moore doesn't think that the facts are strong enough to stand on their own in support of his arguments. He feels a need to show only 1 side of issues, and more disturbingly he's been known to fabricate "facts" to make his points.
Moore's position seems to be that the end justifies the means. It's ok for him to lie & falsify information because at the end of the day he's trying to make a difference "for good". Unfortunately, his tactics aren't any different than the very people he lambasts so he's a hypocrite and his work is propaganda.
When Moore starts creating legitimate documentaries with a more objective point of view and lets the facts speak for themselves, people will stop labeling him a propagandist.
Google is about making a better, quicker, more effective product or filling a need that wasn't filled before.
I agree with the rest of your post except for the above sentence. In the case of Google Apps, I don't see how the product is better, quicker, more effective, or filling a need. Despite how much people here hate MS, Office really is an excellent product for businesses and Google Apps doesn't even scratch the surface of the functionality. It's a nice proof-of-concept for "hey, we can build a spreadsheet engine using javascript", but I don't see it being useful for anyone accustomed to using more than the most-basic of Excel functionality.
A country err competitor steps in with something new and innovative, something different? Well, if we have no use for it and can't copy it, crush it!
Thank you, it's all so clear to me now. Damn all those innovative & progressive goals of the Muslim world! Thank God that our hero George W. Bush was able to crush the burgeoning center of development & social improvement known as Afghanistan and Iraq. Just think: If the US hadn't made a mess in the middle east, Afghanistan & Iraq would be the pinnacle of technological development, a truly enlightened society bringing nothing but goodness to the rest of the world. Silicon Valley was about to be usurped by Mecca unless Team America did something about it.
If a consumer can afford $500-600 for the unit, I imagine they're in a tax-bracket that can afford $40/mo for unlimited data. That's still less than a tank of gas, a night at the bar, disneyland 1-day pass, cable TV, "broadband" internet service,...
Despite stereotypical cliches, are not the only demographic working in orchards nor are they oppressed.
The people picking fruit in the orchards are largely there because of education issues. If you looked at fields in California, Oregon, & Washington years ago they were dominated by low-education white country people. As local education systems improved the demographic shifted towards Hispanics who were coming in from Mexico. This isn't because they're brown-skinned, or even illegal, but simply because the majority of them don't have the communication skills & background to do much else. The fresh produce supply chain is filled from top-to-bottom with Hispanics in all roles - pickers, field men, growers, sorters, packers, foremen, loaders, salesmen, marketers, and owners. The ones stuck in the low-rung jobs are simply there because they haven't aquired the skills to move higher up the ladder. If you go up to Oregon or Washington, where there is a much smaller Hispanic population (compared to California), you'll find that many jobs in the fields & packing sheds are being worked by low-education white kids.
Education, not skin color, is the deciding factor for most workers. It doesn't matter how hard of a worker an immigrant is, if he can't communicate or interact effectively with the tier above him he won't be able to advance. It's easy to say that farms are stocked with "oppressed" Hispanics working for substandard wages in substandard conditions, but the reality is that most of the industry is filled with companies that provide housing, food, & insurance in addition to the low-but-not-illegal wages. And, perfect-world-ambitions aside, people picking oranges in a field just don't provide a value greater than the $8/hr. Next time you buy oranges at Safeway for $.69/lb, think about the fact that for each pound you purchase that $.39 is split between the retail store, truck driver, distribution center, buying office, another trucker, sales office, packing shed (including sorters, packers, QC, etc.), grower, & pickers. Throw in the rest of the associated costs and there's not a lot of money for a picker who may pick a couple of bins a shift. Even if a worker can pick 250 lbs per hour, he's already responsible for about 10% of the retail price.
How hard would it be to implement a system whereby mail is only delivered if it has a token generated by the receipient's mail server is required?
I don't know anything about mail servers so this may be a ridiculous idea...
A) Inbound mail would only be delivered if it matches 1 of 2 criteria:
1) Has a valid "permanent" token hashed from the sender's email & server seeded within a private key stored on the recipient's mail server.
2) Has a valid "1 time" token for new senders.
B) Inbound mail with a valid "1 time" token causes the server to send a message to the recipient, asking if the sender is valid. C) If the recipient confirms the sender is valid, the mail server generates a "permanent" token based on the sender's email seeded with the recipient's private key.
This token is returned to the sender's server where it is stored as relating to the recepient's email. D) The token would be nontransferable since it's hashed using the sender's unique email address thus "permanent" tokens could be revoked at any time by simply blocking the email address. E) "1 time" token would be changeable by the user at any time so they can continue to use the same "1 time" token for as many new senders as they want.
Eventually the "1 time" token may get compromised by a spammer. No worries, as soon as the user gets a single spam message they know their "1 time" token has been compromised and it's time to change to a new one.
Since all valid repeat-senders have been confirmed and assigned tokens, changing the "1 time" token wouldn't invalidate the "permanent" tokens of any senders.
My thinking is that the only additional hardship on users would be to manage a "1 time" token in addition to their password. The only "cost" to implementation would be to write a few scripts for mail servers to automatically communicate tokens back and forth when a new relationship is forged and then store the token . After the first email, a valid sender's mail server would receive their permanent token to use as long as the recepient wants to get their messages. When a recipient wants to sign up for a new mailing list or trade an email address with a friend they simply have to provide their "1 time" token in addition to their email address and then let the mail servers trade info to manage the rest of the authentication.
The only "big" problem I can think of is that if you send from the same email address but use different SMTP servers or mail clients (depending on where the recipient-related outbound token is stored) then the token associated with a recipient may not be stored in the location you need it. Ie., if it's stored at the server level and I send an email from Gmail's web interface and Gmail's SMTP gets authenticated, if I later send from Thunderbird on my desktop my ISP (Comcast) forces me to use their SMTP with my account credentials but Comcast's server doesn't have the info that Gmail authenticated so it gets rejected. This probably wouldn't be an issue for corporations & mailing lists using the same servers each time, but I could see a problem for "casual" users who bounce back and forth between web interfaces and/or multiple client applications.
There are probably some other holes in my idea, so rip away...
Slashdot Mirror
So they have an infrastructure in place that can easily organize & manage a massive search like this and you want to bitch because you had to "like... sign in" and occasionally fill out a CAPTCHA? Jeez, dude. A man's life is likely at stake here and a company stepped up to try and help the cause and you're complaining because they didn't implement the solution exactly as you would've liked. Why don't you spend more time checking out HITs and less time posting stupid shit on /. if you care so much about the process being impeded?
It would block unsolicited inbound worms, but it wouldn't do anything to protect the stupid people who click the link when their email says, "Dude, your face is all over the web! www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBUImjOCg5g
The biggest problem is, and always will be, humans doing stupid human stuff.
Stupidity is not exclusive to religious people.
(I'm not even a religious person by any stretch, but this concept that believing in a deity is automagically negative to your well-being is silly.)
You sure about that? RELIGION killed the people or stupid choices they made that were *influenced by* religion killed those people? I'm pretty sure it was the poison in their kool-aid that did the killing. People have gotten high on weed and hurt themselves doing other activities, but weed didn't actually hurt the people. Heroin will kill you if you take a big enough dose, it won't wait for you to get high and swallow a different poison.
If they'd made the comment using another feel-good thing without quite the ill effects of heroin, I'd have been more inclined to agree. I'd liken religion more to weed - no real ill effects unless you go overboard, and then it may only cost you a job and some friends but (by itself) it's not going to seriously impact your health. To be corny- nobody's ever died from OD'ing on religion. (Except maybe that Jesus guy.) Yeah, I'm probably missing the real intent of the (now GGGP's) message and focusing too much on the drug they chose, but I thought it was a crappy analogy.
Says the guy posting from that internet.
If something can be scientifically determined it then doesn't require faith, does it? Nobody has faith or believes in gravity, it is known to occur and the science describing it is undisputed (to the best of my knowledge).
Regardless, the (grand)parent poster is an ass. Having faith in something is analogous to heroin? Please.
Maybe he does "get it". Instead of having a library in a fixed location (your iPod), you have a physical token that provides instant access to your centrally (online) stored library. Instead of having to pick the 8gb of songs/audiobooks/videos that you want to carry with you, all you ever have to carry is your token and when you plug it into an enabled theatre system you instantly have access to everything you've purchased (or everything accessible to your subscription tier, since he's talking about subscribing).
There will always be a market for an iPod-like device since the entire planet isn't (and maybe won't be) online-accessible, but that doesn't mean there's not a market for a better storage/distribution model.
Shhh! Don't tell anybody! If they find that we had a friendly & helpful (if only mildy) exchange with no MS flames, fanboish envangelism, or blatantly uninformed & offtopic rhetoric they might not let us come back... ;)
The MonsterMaritime.com entry linked to in the writeup was actually posted on July 2, a full 2 months ago. 2 months later and they haven't tried to put the horse back in the barn so while it's technically a secret, it's probably not that important of a secret. Besides, even if they asked MS to blur the image on Live they'd still have to ask other companies with access to the data to blur it, and then they'd have to go to the source of the imagery and ask them to stop selling it (which they may not have a case for).
In reality, if they censored the images the only people who wouldn't be able to see it are people not willing to spend money to see images of a classified submarine. Any country/organization with it's own program for developing nuclear submarines or technology to detect submarines likely has the financial/organizational resources to aquire this imagery without depending on a free website.
Oops, sorry. <em> and <i> work inside <quote> but not <blockquote>.
slashdot.css includes the rule "blockquote * { font-style: normal; }" so all child nodes (including <em> and <i>) are rendered as normal non-italicized style. Font-weight is a different property and is unaffected by "font-style" rules.
I have no idea why they made that style decision, but that's the technical reason why things aren't working the way you expect.
Would it then require some hack to make sure that the inline style doesn't override any stylesheets you've created? The iframe used on bankofindia.com had "style='visibility:hidden;'". Unless I'm mistaken, even if you had custom stylesheets applied to every page you visit the inline CSS would still rule... right?
I wish you hadn't posted AC. I appreciate the well-reasoned response.
The consensus also seems to be that if you don't secure your WiFi and somebody wardrives you it's your fault for not locking things down; but if you don't lock down your P2P shares it's the fault of the downloader for taking something he shouldn't. Go figure...
"My Sig is a P228"
Awesome sig (and Sig).
I think 90% of the posts on here should be modded "-1 Jackass" these days but that's another topic...
I misinterpreted your post. I thought you had been trying to imply that Sony was attempting to mimic the Apple design with the Vaio TZ series. Having had a TX (same design as the TZ) for almost a year before Apple launched their smaller Macbooks, it would have been impossible for Sony to be copying the Mac style.
Well, if you put forth an incorrect opinion because you didn't educate yourself prior to posting, why shouldn't you deserve a -1 mod?
On the other hand, the surviving members of Nirvana wouldn't have to ask Courtney Love for permission to do anything with works they, and not she, co-created.
That is only true while Firefox/Linux/OS X users are more geeks than commonfolk. As soon as Linux is "user-friendly" (read: easy-enough-to-migrate-from-Windows) and widespread enough that Aunt Millie is using it, you'll have plenty of "average Windows n00bs" using Linux and it will become a tastier target.
Because more often than not, Moore doesn't think that the facts are strong enough to stand on their own in support of his arguments. He feels a need to show only 1 side of issues, and more disturbingly he's been known to fabricate "facts" to make his points.
Moore's position seems to be that the end justifies the means. It's ok for him to lie & falsify information because at the end of the day he's trying to make a difference "for good". Unfortunately, his tactics aren't any different than the very people he lambasts so he's a hypocrite and his work is propaganda.
When Moore starts creating legitimate documentaries with a more objective point of view and lets the facts speak for themselves, people will stop labeling him a propagandist.
I agree with the rest of your post except for the above sentence. In the case of Google Apps, I don't see how the product is better, quicker, more effective, or filling a need. Despite how much people here hate MS, Office really is an excellent product for businesses and Google Apps doesn't even scratch the surface of the functionality. It's a nice proof-of-concept for "hey, we can build a spreadsheet engine using javascript", but I don't see it being useful for anyone accustomed to using more than the most-basic of Excel functionality.
Thank you, it's all so clear to me now. Damn all those innovative & progressive goals of the Muslim world! Thank God that our hero George W. Bush was able to crush the burgeoning center of development & social improvement known as Afghanistan and Iraq. Just think: If the US hadn't made a mess in the middle east, Afghanistan & Iraq would be the pinnacle of technological development, a truly enlightened society bringing nothing but goodness to the rest of the world. Silicon Valley was about to be usurped by Mecca unless Team America did something about it.
Wait, what?
If a consumer can afford $500-600 for the unit, I imagine they're in a tax-bracket that can afford $40/mo for unlimited data. That's still less than a tank of gas, a night at the bar, disneyland 1-day pass, cable TV, "broadband" internet service, ...
Despite stereotypical cliches, are not the only demographic working in orchards nor are they oppressed.
The people picking fruit in the orchards are largely there because of education issues. If you looked at fields in California, Oregon, & Washington years ago they were dominated by low-education white country people. As local education systems improved the demographic shifted towards Hispanics who were coming in from Mexico. This isn't because they're brown-skinned, or even illegal, but simply because the majority of them don't have the communication skills & background to do much else. The fresh produce supply chain is filled from top-to-bottom with Hispanics in all roles - pickers, field men, growers, sorters, packers, foremen, loaders, salesmen, marketers, and owners. The ones stuck in the low-rung jobs are simply there because they haven't aquired the skills to move higher up the ladder. If you go up to Oregon or Washington, where there is a much smaller Hispanic population (compared to California), you'll find that many jobs in the fields & packing sheds are being worked by low-education white kids.
Education, not skin color, is the deciding factor for most workers. It doesn't matter how hard of a worker an immigrant is, if he can't communicate or interact effectively with the tier above him he won't be able to advance. It's easy to say that farms are stocked with "oppressed" Hispanics working for substandard wages in substandard conditions, but the reality is that most of the industry is filled with companies that provide housing, food, & insurance in addition to the low-but-not-illegal wages. And, perfect-world-ambitions aside, people picking oranges in a field just don't provide a value greater than the $8/hr. Next time you buy oranges at Safeway for $.69/lb, think about the fact that for each pound you purchase that $.39 is split between the retail store, truck driver, distribution center, buying office, another trucker, sales office, packing shed (including sorters, packers, QC, etc.), grower, & pickers. Throw in the rest of the associated costs and there's not a lot of money for a picker who may pick a couple of bins a shift. Even if a worker can pick 250 lbs per hour, he's already responsible for about 10% of the retail price.
How hard would it be to implement a system whereby mail is only delivered if it has a token generated by the receipient's mail server is required?
I don't know anything about mail servers so this may be a ridiculous idea...
A) Inbound mail would only be delivered if it matches 1 of 2 criteria:
1) Has a valid "permanent" token hashed from the sender's email & server seeded within a private key stored on the recipient's mail server.
2) Has a valid "1 time" token for new senders.
B) Inbound mail with a valid "1 time" token causes the server to send a message to the recipient, asking if the sender is valid.
C) If the recipient confirms the sender is valid, the mail server generates a "permanent" token based on the sender's email seeded with the recipient's private key.
This token is returned to the sender's server where it is stored as relating to the recepient's email.
D) The token would be nontransferable since it's hashed using the sender's unique email address thus "permanent" tokens could be revoked at any time by simply blocking the email address.
E) "1 time" token would be changeable by the user at any time so they can continue to use the same "1 time" token for as many new senders as they want.
Eventually the "1 time" token may get compromised by a spammer. No worries, as soon as the user gets a single spam message they know their "1 time" token has been compromised and it's time to change to a new one.
Since all valid repeat-senders have been confirmed and assigned tokens, changing the "1 time" token wouldn't invalidate the "permanent" tokens of any senders.
My thinking is that the only additional hardship on users would be to manage a "1 time" token in addition to their password. The only "cost" to implementation would be to write a few scripts for mail servers to automatically communicate tokens back and forth when a new relationship is forged and then store the token . After the first email, a valid sender's mail server would receive their permanent token to use as long as the recepient wants to get their messages. When a recipient wants to sign up for a new mailing list or trade an email address with a friend they simply have to provide their "1 time" token in addition to their email address and then let the mail servers trade info to manage the rest of the authentication.
The only "big" problem I can think of is that if you send from the same email address but use different SMTP servers or mail clients (depending on where the recipient-related outbound token is stored) then the token associated with a recipient may not be stored in the location you need it. Ie., if it's stored at the server level and I send an email from Gmail's web interface and Gmail's SMTP gets authenticated, if I later send from Thunderbird on my desktop my ISP (Comcast) forces me to use their SMTP with my account credentials but Comcast's server doesn't have the info that Gmail authenticated so it gets rejected. This probably wouldn't be an issue for corporations & mailing lists using the same servers each time, but I could see a problem for "casual" users who bounce back and forth between web interfaces and/or multiple client applications.
There are probably some other holes in my idea, so rip away...