Well, it uses an IE browser exploit to get in, so if you don't uses IE, you're at low risk. But far be it from anyone to think that these crooks won't find a way to deliver the Trojan in another manner if their IE route dries up. Everyone will have to remain vigilant, because if it gets on your system, it can theoretically corrupt any browser.
NASA budgeting has little to do with politics or even practical realities. NASA continues to try and thrive on the glory days of its leap to the Moon, even though the first landing was almost 41 years ago now. Whenever things are going bad, the President (choose any one you like) will announce plans for NASA to do something to make America proud and continue our long tradition of space exploration. However, not even Presidential boosterism can keep Congress from continually whittling away NASA's budget, to the point where it becomes a competition for money between the manned program (see as costly, inefficient, and dangerous) and the unmanned programs (see as cheap, flexible, and low-risk). Inevitably, the bulk of the budget goes to the manned program and some promising probes and instruments are shelved for lack of funds.
Now, I am a firm believer in the need for both the manned and unmanned programs. The fact is NASA is underfunded, and those funds could certainly come from somewhere else (DoD for example), but the bottom line with the American people always is, what's in it for me? Now, there a legion of examples of technology spun off from NASA applications, but those are not the kind of things that the everyday citizen is impressed with. And unless you are a Star Trek fan, the idea of exploration for exploration's sake is a dim memory, best left with Lewis & Clark. The sad fact is, unless NASA can come up with something stunning, that captures the imagination of Americans again, as the Moon landings did, this is just another stage in the deterioration of a proud agency that once carried this nation's pride to a new frontier.
This makes about as much sense as shooting a perfectly good horse while you're riding through the middle of the desert.
NASA has been charged with getting back to the Moon and on to Mars and frankly needs all the innovative ideas and thinking they can find. So what do they do? Shut down the people who dream up advanced concepts! It's sad enough that they are going to try and go back to the Moon using souped-up Apollo-era technology, which I predict is a prescription for disaster, but they are not even giving themselves a fair chance of coming up with a better alternative.
My pride in and belief in NASA wanes more with each passing year.
How do you figure? They got their rocket off the ground and up 200 miles, and had some control problems that kept them from getting into orbit. That's pretty good, considering the myriad other ways this thing could have turned out. I think you're not giving them enough credit -- NASA was blowing up rockets pretty regularly in the early days of theie space efforts before they got the hang of it. These folks seem to be doing all right.
This is not trial and error; they didn't simply go to a junkyard, wled a bunch of pieces of interesting stuff together to make what they thought was a rocket, and then fired it off hoping it would work. They started from first principles, used known technologies and augmented them, then attempted to launch the thing, and will use the telemetry to improve the design. Trial-and-error was more what Robert Goddard was doing in the New Mexico desert.
Being someone who uses neither YouTube or iFilm for his viewing pleasure, it amazes me how much consternation the idea of copyright infringement causes in the marketplace. Remember the VCR? That was supposed to spell doom for television -- people would now tape their favorite shows and watch them endlessly, and wouldn't watch re-runs on TV. Duh!!! It then dawned on the networks that this could be turned to their advantage, because fans of shows would gladly buy merchandise, special video mixes, and eventually DVDs of their favorite shows.
Now everyone's up in arms over copyright infringement on the Internet. They need to get with the program. If you don't want people posting these things to YouTube/iFilms, then post it yourself! Make it easily accessible and readily available. Charge a subscription and then over subscribers video clips from their shows they've never seen, or short video pieces that were made for the Internet. And get over it! Once you're product goes out into the market, that's it. You can scream "copyright infringement" all you like, but people are going to record, copy, and share your material whether you like it or not. So find a way to cash or shut up.
Which is the beauty of living in Alaska... no taxes and state government is funded by outside (or in this case inside) revenues. Mind you, they might find themselves in a bit of a pinch when the oil runs out... that's why the push to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
David Byrne agrees with you -- he believes that thanks to the Internet, artists don't need the music labels as much anymore, which means if the RIAA wants to stick around, it better find a way to adapt to the times.
Oh, Balmer's complaint is hugely hypocritical. Google also has huge sums of cash from their stock.
Exactly. When was the last time Microsoft's stock was over $100, let alone $400? Ballmer's more envious than anything -- he keeps wondering why no one at Google is reading the résumés he keeps sending.
Google will eventually hit a wall if they don't come up with other big revenue streams. And I think that's why they hire so many smart people. Even if only one in a thousand comes up with a great idea it'll all pay off.
I don't think so. I think they're pushing the wall further and further, making things less profitable for their competitors. The extra ideas they come up with, good or not, aren't hedges against a collapse but part of a strategy to quietly worm their way into every part of the Internet. Face it: Google the search engine is near ubiquitous now. If they come up with other things (mobile phones, operating systems, etc.) that attain that kind of ubiquity, eventually they'll be able to charge for them and people won't give it a second though, since they will have become dependent on them.
Which, when you think about it, won't actually stop them. All bankruptcy will do is clear the slate of debts, meaning their lawyers will not get paid much if anything, and will probably quit. If SCO survives bankruptcy, the tricks will be to a) find a new source of capital and b) find lawyers stupid enough to take on the case.
Apparently the "Google Mafia" didn't think so, given the parent's "Overrated" mod and your "Offtopic" mod; it just goes to show that some people have no sense of humor. Hopefully meta-moderation will clean this up.
Most of them. Most laws legislate behavior; morality only falls into law where there is no set definition of a concept or the definition is vague and subject to interpretation by a person's moral/ethical self. To take the most heated example, the law states that currently it is legal for a doctor to perform an abortion; the morality of the issue is a matter for the individual. If you believe it morally wrong, you do not have to participate, i.e. have an abortion. I personally think that abortion is morally reprehensible but I also realize that mine is just an opinion, and that I have no right to impose it on others who do not share my belief.
So in the end, as many have said, while this sounds like a good idea, it's not. Content is what content is -- just as kids have been discovering dirty magazines under their parents' beds, they will discover dirty pictures on-line, and it is up to parents to handle that problem, not the legal system.
Exactly. And let's not forget people have been going on and on about Google building it's own computers, operating systems, etc., and yet none of these things has appeared. I doubt it makes any kind of sense for them to get into hardware, given the supply issues, production costs, and other associated hangups. As long as they remain service-oriented, all they have to worry about is being able to get their content out to users and keeping them happy.
They'll do the same as is done right now: very little. If you're a company in this day-and-age, you have to register as many variants of your name as you can to ensure that phishers/domain squatters don't get undue traffic from your name. On the other hand, phishers don't necessarily need domain names that are close to their target domain; people don't generally read URLs that closely, just clicking on links they are sent. That's why phishing is still effective despite all the negative publicity.
In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has "built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google."
Isn't that what Viacom does for a living? It isn't people at Viacom writing and producing all this content -- it's the hard-working staffs of these shows, coming up with ideas, generating scripts, acting them out, putting them on tape/film. Viacom just sits there, puts them in the marketplace, and rakes in the advertising money.
What I want to know is: have they taken into account that due to plate tectonics, the sea floor spreads? "Anchoring" anything to the sea floor guarantees it will move, although certainly a lot slower than a satellite whirling through space.
Psssssssstttttttt... what do you think the Moon is? Huh? Huh? That's why there all these "conspiracy theorists" claiming the Moon landings were faked... wink, wink... nudge, nudge...
He found Pluto at a time when detecting planets was done with glass plate negatives and telescopes that were manually driven. He knew he was looking for a planet but where to find it was a matter of subjective debate. But he was the consummate scientist; as his wife noted after the demotion of Pluto, he would have been disappointed but he would have understood.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it uses an IE browser exploit to get in, so if you don't uses IE, you're at low risk. But far be it from anyone to think that these crooks won't find a way to deliver the Trojan in another manner if their IE route dries up. Everyone will have to remain vigilant, because if it gets on your system, it can theoretically corrupt any browser.
Whoops... faulty math... good thing I don't work at JPL...
NASA budgeting has little to do with politics or even practical realities. NASA continues to try and thrive on the glory days of its leap to the Moon, even though the first landing was almost 41 years ago now. Whenever things are going bad, the President (choose any one you like) will announce plans for NASA to do something to make America proud and continue our long tradition of space exploration. However, not even Presidential boosterism can keep Congress from continually whittling away NASA's budget, to the point where it becomes a competition for money between the manned program (see as costly, inefficient, and dangerous) and the unmanned programs (see as cheap, flexible, and low-risk). Inevitably, the bulk of the budget goes to the manned program and some promising probes and instruments are shelved for lack of funds.
Now, I am a firm believer in the need for both the manned and unmanned programs. The fact is NASA is underfunded, and those funds could certainly come from somewhere else (DoD for example), but the bottom line with the American people always is, what's in it for me? Now, there a legion of examples of technology spun off from NASA applications, but those are not the kind of things that the everyday citizen is impressed with. And unless you are a Star Trek fan, the idea of exploration for exploration's sake is a dim memory, best left with Lewis & Clark. The sad fact is, unless NASA can come up with something stunning, that captures the imagination of Americans again, as the Moon landings did, this is just another stage in the deterioration of a proud agency that once carried this nation's pride to a new frontier.
This makes about as much sense as shooting a perfectly good horse while you're riding through the middle of the desert.
NASA has been charged with getting back to the Moon and on to Mars and frankly needs all the innovative ideas and thinking they can find. So what do they do? Shut down the people who dream up advanced concepts! It's sad enough that they are going to try and go back to the Moon using souped-up Apollo-era technology, which I predict is a prescription for disaster, but they are not even giving themselves a fair chance of coming up with a better alternative.
My pride in and belief in NASA wanes more with each passing year.
How do you figure? They got their rocket off the ground and up 200 miles, and had some control problems that kept them from getting into orbit. That's pretty good, considering the myriad other ways this thing could have turned out. I think you're not giving them enough credit -- NASA was blowing up rockets pretty regularly in the early days of theie space efforts before they got the hang of it. These folks seem to be doing all right.
This is not trial and error; they didn't simply go to a junkyard, wled a bunch of pieces of interesting stuff together to make what they thought was a rocket, and then fired it off hoping it would work. They started from first principles, used known technologies and augmented them, then attempted to launch the thing, and will use the telemetry to improve the design. Trial-and-error was more what Robert Goddard was doing in the New Mexico desert.
Being someone who uses neither YouTube or iFilm for his viewing pleasure, it amazes me how much consternation the idea of copyright infringement causes in the marketplace. Remember the VCR? That was supposed to spell doom for television -- people would now tape their favorite shows and watch them endlessly, and wouldn't watch re-runs on TV. Duh!!! It then dawned on the networks that this could be turned to their advantage, because fans of shows would gladly buy merchandise, special video mixes, and eventually DVDs of their favorite shows.
Now everyone's up in arms over copyright infringement on the Internet. They need to get with the program. If you don't want people posting these things to YouTube/iFilms, then post it yourself! Make it easily accessible and readily available. Charge a subscription and then over subscribers video clips from their shows they've never seen, or short video pieces that were made for the Internet. And get over it! Once you're product goes out into the market, that's it. You can scream "copyright infringement" all you like, but people are going to record, copy, and share your material whether you like it or not. So find a way to cash or shut up.
Which is the beauty of living in Alaska... no taxes and state government is funded by outside (or in this case inside) revenues. Mind you, they might find themselves in a bit of a pinch when the oil runs out... that's why the push to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
David Byrne agrees with you -- he believes that thanks to the Internet, artists don't need the music labels as much anymore, which means if the RIAA wants to stick around, it better find a way to adapt to the times.
1989 patent, slightly used, one owner, last used 1992, $500K or best offer.
Terminators.
Exactly. When was the last time Microsoft's stock was over $100, let alone $400? Ballmer's more envious than anything -- he keeps wondering why no one at Google is reading the résumés he keeps sending.
Google will eventually hit a wall if they don't come up with other big revenue streams. And I think that's why they hire so many smart people. Even if only one in a thousand comes up with a great idea it'll all pay off.I don't think so. I think they're pushing the wall further and further, making things less profitable for their competitors. The extra ideas they come up with, good or not, aren't hedges against a collapse but part of a strategy to quietly worm their way into every part of the Internet. Face it: Google the search engine is near ubiquitous now. If they come up with other things (mobile phones, operating systems, etc.) that attain that kind of ubiquity, eventually they'll be able to charge for them and people won't give it a second though, since they will have become dependent on them.
Which, when you think about it, won't actually stop them. All bankruptcy will do is clear the slate of debts, meaning their lawyers will not get paid much if anything, and will probably quit. If SCO survives bankruptcy, the tricks will be to a) find a new source of capital and b) find lawyers stupid enough to take on the case.
Apparently the "Google Mafia" didn't think so, given the parent's "Overrated" mod and your "Offtopic" mod; it just goes to show that some people have no sense of humor. Hopefully meta-moderation will clean this up.
...if they change "I Feel Lucky" to "I Want to Get Lucky".
Censorship on Slashdot? Nah! I mean I'm here at work reading away and...
[NO CARRIER]
Most of them. Most laws legislate behavior; morality only falls into law where there is no set definition of a concept or the definition is vague and subject to interpretation by a person's moral/ethical self. To take the most heated example, the law states that currently it is legal for a doctor to perform an abortion; the morality of the issue is a matter for the individual. If you believe it morally wrong, you do not have to participate, i.e. have an abortion. I personally think that abortion is morally reprehensible but I also realize that mine is just an opinion, and that I have no right to impose it on others who do not share my belief.
So in the end, as many have said, while this sounds like a good idea, it's not. Content is what content is -- just as kids have been discovering dirty magazines under their parents' beds, they will discover dirty pictures on-line, and it is up to parents to handle that problem, not the legal system.
Exactly. And let's not forget people have been going on and on about Google building it's own computers, operating systems, etc., and yet none of these things has appeared. I doubt it makes any kind of sense for them to get into hardware, given the supply issues, production costs, and other associated hangups. As long as they remain service-oriented, all they have to worry about is being able to get their content out to users and keeping them happy.
What, no coffee maker?
They'll do the same as is done right now: very little. If you're a company in this day-and-age, you have to register as many variants of your name as you can to ensure that phishers/domain squatters don't get undue traffic from your name. On the other hand, phishers don't necessarily need domain names that are close to their target domain; people don't generally read URLs that closely, just clicking on links they are sent. That's why phishing is still effective despite all the negative publicity.
From the article:
In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has "built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google."Isn't that what Viacom does for a living? It isn't people at Viacom writing and producing all this content -- it's the hard-working staffs of these shows, coming up with ideas, generating scripts, acting them out, putting them on tape/film. Viacom just sits there, puts them in the marketplace, and rakes in the advertising money.
What I want to know is: have they taken into account that due to plate tectonics, the sea floor spreads? "Anchoring" anything to the sea floor guarantees it will move, although certainly a lot slower than a satellite whirling through space.
...assassination in the journals. Quick, clean, and ensures they can't just be transferred to another department to create headaches for someone else.
Psssssssstttttttt... what do you think the Moon is? Huh? Huh? That's why there all these "conspiracy theorists" claiming the Moon landings were faked... wink, wink... nudge, nudge...
Clyde Tombaugh.
He found Pluto at a time when detecting planets was done with glass plate negatives and telescopes that were manually driven. He knew he was looking for a planet but where to find it was a matter of subjective debate. But he was the consummate scientist; as his wife noted after the demotion of Pluto, he would have been disappointed but he would have understood.