I don't think Revenge of the Sith was all that loathsome.
I do. JarJar was symptom of the bad prequels... and perhaps a mascot for 'the awful', but he was far from the worst nonsense in the movies.
Anakin joining the Sith... they had 3 whole movies to show us how Anakin was seduced to the darkside... and I was entirely unconvinced. Anakin promptly executing a bunch of children, many who looked up to him... was ridiculous. "Full retard". Mace Windu confronting the emperor by himself... ridiculous. Then Yoda doing the same thing... ridiculous. Then going into exile instead of I dunno... regrouping and trying again maybe with 2 Jedi...??! Two Jedi went up against Darth Maul, who was basically a sith nobody... but the Sith lord under their nose, who'd fooled them all for years... that's a solo play?
Most of the Jedi, including top leaders being trivially executed by Storm Troopers? WTF? In the first one, remember how concerned they were at the beginning when QuiGon and ObiWon show up to 'negotiate'?... what were they worried about?? Apparently you can just shoot them in the back with storm troopers 99% of the time, no fuss at all. Throwaway clones can take care of them with minimal losses.
Then the final fight between Obiwan and Anakin was needlessly long, some of the dialog was painful, and Obiwan not finishing Anakin off was just weak. (What? Leaving him defeated, burnt, and limbless? How Jedi is that?... pity and mercy for his former friend and apprentice would have had him finish him off; even if nothing else.)
And the very end... Padme dies. What loyalty does Anakin have for the emperor now? Sure he can't exactly go back to the Jedi after murdering a bunch of children... but the one thing Palpatine offered him to bring him over isn't even worth anything now. So what? Vader serves the emperor why? Because, hey, its a job, and he burned bridges with his previous employers? What's a Sith lord going to do as an independent... it was just silly. You could see what Lucas was trying to do... that Anakin was seduced by power... that his desire for power came from a desire to do good, and then encompasses him so that the power becomes its own reward. But the story Lucas told just didn't convey that at all.
Yet he would kill a bunch of jedi children because he wanted to save Padme's life and besides Yoda had snubbed him by not making him a master Jedi yet... unbelievable nonsense.
Sure the original star wars movies had plot holes you could drive a truck through; but they still hold up far better than the absolute mess that is the prequel trilogy.
I don't know that this is really a case for storing email forever. Yes that is true, but it also means that decades of email are available for searching and can be required to be searched or given up.
Yes, I agreed, it cuts both ways.
The reality is, design docs should be saved. These sorts of notes and work should be saved. Retaining emails may provide a solution,
Email provides a timeline that is much harder to forge, and which can be verified and testified to by external 3rd parties who were referenced and/or copied on various messages.
Files in a folder somewhere... 5 minutes and anyone here could make them say they were written whatever date we wanted.
I would submit the real issue here is that nobody saved the documents; but instead relied on email to save it for them.
We had documents the documents. But email is what ties them all together, and provides a strong evidence of a timeline. Documents are shown to be referenced on a given date, in a given context, etc. External parties received them on a given date, or even if they weren't attached they were referenced. And those external parties can themselves be asked to confirm the record.
I would submit the real issue here is that nobody saved the documents; but instead relied on email to save it for them.
That seems an argument of semantics. Much of the important documentation in question is the content of the email itself, not the attachments. You assume we didn't have the attachments, but that's not the case here. The case here is that the email "proves" the various attachments existed when we said the existed, that copies sent to external parties contained the contents we claim they contained. And its all mixed with personal records, external contacts, even mentions of then-current-events all which combine to provide a credibility and verifiability to the claims than simply some digital documents that we claim were created on such and such a date.
For example, if I say, here is a word file from april 2002 showing the design. That's worthless. I could have made it yesterday. It could have contained anything in 2002. etc etc etc. But here is an email of THAT word file, with a copy sent to the manufacturer discussing it, and also mentioning the hockey game. It all checks out. And you can go find the guy working for that manufacturer -- they might still have their own copy of that exact SAME email. And THAT is evidence that will stand up in court.
Surely your company would have other evidence than emails to support your prior art?
Sure it does. But email has the advantage of being time stamped, with copies sent to 3rd parties.
The dates on purely internal digital documents are much harder to establish if their integrity is challenged.
Didn't your company apply for a patent?
No. We felt (and still feel) that the 'innovation' was obvious, and that the patent has no merit.
But arguing that is expensive and time consuming and risky. If we can demonstrate that we were making, selling, and using the 'invention' well before they 'invented' it, then what exactly did they invent? And the patent falls apart.
What about the actual drafts and invoices themselves?
Electronic records. And the invoices only show that we sold the product, not what the product actually was. They are an important part of the puzzle but not a complete picture. The original cad drawing files and other drawings... sure they exist, but establishing a date that can withstand a challenge is much harder. When they are referenced and even attached in emails though that gives a strong timeline; and again with references to external 3rd parties who can testify to that timeline if needed.
I would never use an email server as a data repository, though it's convenient to have the date stamps and all.
The email was old enough that it wasn't on the live server. Hence I was tasked with pulling it from actual backups.
If the email server had room for it all though, I'd have no issue with having it available live too. As it is, many of the company principles have mailboxes exceeding 30GB going back a decade or so.
Holding your business emails too long is a liability risk..
I was just asked to recover email from the late 90s as part of a means to prove we had prior art on a patent that was being asserted against us. The email history included draft drawings, work orders to a manufacturer requesting customizations to our manufacturing equipment, invoices and negotiations with customers to work with it. etc. All with a clearly documented timeline that could be verified with multiple 3rd parties if it came to a court situation.
Frankly, I think you just saw Return of the Jedi at precisely the wrong age. Your comment reads like the xbox fanbois who won't play Super Mario Bros or Zelda because its a 'kids game' and they want everyone to know that they only like mature things and therefore are mature.
I saw RotJ when I was 10. And I loved it.
Today I watch it and I get that the ewoks are a bit too cute. But all the scenes they are in are still fine. From them finding Leia, to C3P0 pretending to be a deity, to their attack on the shield generator. I just don't see anything wrong with them; such that they 'ruin' the movie.
They only ruin the movie for someone who wanted... no... needed RotJ to be a "mature" movie so he could enjoy it without people questioning his adulthood. The ewoks aren't "dark" they aren't "serious"... and their presence softens the tone of the movie (especially as Luke was much darker and more serious in this movie and the ewok scenes are spliced with the MUCH darker throne room scenes). But too me RotJ really is quintessentially "Star Wars".
I watch them again before the release of the new trilogy, this time as an adult, and found the original trilogy to be nothing but movies for kids
Right. That's all it ever was.
Apart from the pleasure of reliving childhood memories, I was seriously disappointed.
That's more on you then on the movies. The movies haven't changed. I re-watched them WITH my kids; and they were just as enjoyable as they were the first time(s).
Perhaps I'm wrong about you. Or perhaps I'm right and you won't admit it.;) But whether or not I am right about you specifically, I think a lot of Ewok hate in general is from people who were becoming adults themselves, who wanted Jedi to be a 'mature serious war movie' and not a 'family fun' movie.
As for the prequels, they are just bad movies that spend far too much time throwing shit in your face then telling a story. And then when they get around to the story telling its just painfully bad.
Remember when a story on this site would bring down servers? I'll bet that C|Net article barely tweaks the bandwidth meter.
That says as much about the march of progress as it does about the decline of slashdot. Even if slashdot were at it's peak, times 2, the capacity of the hardware and the internet has grown many times that, plus dynamic loadbalancing and scaling and content delivery networks...
These days even trending on facebook and twitter won't bring anybody significant down.
Yeah.. from laws prohibiting the dumping of garbage in the street, to prohibiting the sale of worthless snake oils as medicine, to prohibiting toxic materials in childrens toys... to the laws that grant rights of way and easements to install sewers and electricity, to the rules of the road (set which side of the road to drive on, no double parking, or blocking fire hydrants, hunting seasons and catch-and-release rules, protected species, seriously...
What kind of nutter does one have to be not to see the benefits legislation have have brought. Sure there is bad legislation, and no shortage of it... but there is a TON of very good law out there.
Yeah, and if Yahoo care an iota they can block trillian and pidgin trivially. All it takes is a few certificates; and 3rd party clients are rendered useless.
Only works if you have the presence of mind to take one, and you do so before the un-send goes through.
In other words, yes, screen cap works, and always will because you can't display someone to something and simultaneously prevent them from seeing it or recording it. Even if it takes another phone taking a picture... it will be doable.
But how many times are people going to miss that window of opportunity before something gets 'unsent' ?
The thing about messaging is you are generally locked into a client; so it'll no longer be up to you whether or not you use a client that ignores it or not.
My internet is currently 120/6; so 100mbps isn't sufficient. I also want my openwrt box to have plenty of ram, cpu, and space, so that I can play with openwrt without worrying too much about running into the limits of the hardware. I have a Dlink dir-835 right now.
I'm open to replacing it with something that will likely be supported by new versions of openwrt sooner than later.
I -like- having wifi AP all built into one box, but if separating them into two separate boxes would make openwrt easier than I'm game to consider it.
You don't need a fancy gigabit router on the edge of your home network.
My internet is currently 120/6; so 100mbps isn't sufficient. I also want my openwrt box to have plenty of ram, cpu, and space, so that I can play with openwrt without worrying too much about running into the limits of the hardware. I have a Dlink dir-835 right now.
I'm open to replacing it with something that will likely be supported by new versions of openwrt sooner than later.
I -like- having wifi AP all built into one box, but separating them into two separate boxes would make openwrt easier than I'm game to consider it.
Price is always a factor but "less than $20" is needlessly frugal. I will pay more for "better".
I would tell you what to get and where and how much it actually costs, but Google won't let me search US shops,
I'm in Canada; so that would have been moot. But model information is appreciated.
Took me a while to parse that.:)// allocate a C D1 int D[1];// how many elements are on it? double elements_in_D1 = sizeof(D1faces)/sizeof(int);// equals 1// initialize for (int i = 0; i++; ielements_in_D1)
D[i] = i;
Even a C D1, which starts at zero, only has one face, valued at zero, so we don't need to roll it, since we know the outcome is zero.:p
And your answer to 'what if people wanted to give every advantage to their children so they're strong, healthy, smart, and pretty' is to prevent that.
I never actually said that I'd prevent it. I merely pointed out that it was the logical conclusion to this technology. And that gattaca as a concept was entirely plausible.
but after that, we should be doing our best to make sure everyone has access to the technology.
How? You're talking about lofty ideals for designer babies when we don't even currently give everyone decent access to pre-natal and post-natal care. And care even during the delivery itself is billed to the patient at exorbitant rates if they don't have the proper insurance. You're putting the cart before the horse suggesting we should be working on giving universal gene screening, gene therapy, and even cosmetic-gene-therapies.
Right now, we should be working on providing universal birth control support structures; so that at least the children coming into the system are wanted by their parents.
only the rich and influential will get it.
I think that's all but inevitable; at least for the foreseeable future.
The idea that people will be judged by their genetics is ridiculous.
Most things HR judges people on right now are ridiculous.
For one, pretty soon everyone will have near perfect genes
Not in a free market economy, where supply and demand meet your parents credit rating; and unplanned pregnancy is still a huge issue. Seriously, *why* on earth do you think this medical procedure will be both universally available and universally used?
and two most jobs do not require olympian physique so who cares?
The company insurance plan that doesn't want to insure employees that are likelier to be less healthy, need medical care, and the management that doesn't want staff that needs time off, or even that just isn't as bright as the edited people.
Why wouldn't you prevent your child from getting cancer, diabetes, heart disease, autism, or any of the number of hereditary diseases if you could
I really can't argue with that. But you can't deny there is also a slippery slope argument. Why stop at merely preventing heart disease, when we can make it a stronger specimen? Why stop at diabetes - what if we can tweak metabolism and resolve obesity? Why stop at merely preventing obestity when you could make them beautiful...? Why wouldn't you give your child all the advantages if you could? Give him height, a full head of hair, a strong chin, too - these are proven to help him socially and in his career.
That does explain a lot... as a D1 only has one surface it would have to be spherical; aka... a marble. Those *would* take a while to stop rolling around.
But I have ask why bother... the result is always going to be '100' anyway... unless you lose some of the marbles into the furnace vent or something?
It shouldn't otherwise ads for everything from the "Passion of the Christ" to "Steve Almighty" would cross that line.
But I don't think they do, they are advertising the movie, not the faith itself, and I think its pretty reasonable and easy to tell one from the other.
If dealers don't want to sell them, let manufacturers sell direct to the customers.
Taking the dealer network out of the equation is largely irrelevant.
If VW or GM or Ford open a direct to customers showroom and service center the sales team there aren't going to be any more motivated than the dealer network to sell electric cars. The managers are STILL going to be pushing the upsell service packages and cars that will bring the owners in for additional services too; and the commission structure and sales incentive plans will be counting those metrics.
The exception of course is manufacturers that only make electric cars. So... Tesla.
is there an obvious difference in the generated assembly?
There would be in most projects that were not outright trying to obscure they were using C++.
Its been a while since I looked at disassembled code, but you used to be able to easily tell what compiler and even version of that compiler was used just from the boilerplate setup code; the way things were 'arranged', exception handlers etc, and obviously library usage was frequently a dead giveaway. Your not going to see a either an iostream or an STL container in a C program.
Everything should be two factor password system with one being a token/phone/pc,
No thank you. I'd like to be able access things like webmail without a token. The reason I'm using webmail in the first place is usually that I don't have my phone or laptop with me. And the last thing I want is a token that can never leave my side, and that upon being lost or damaged locks me out of everything everywhere.
Additionally, I dont' want to give all these entities my cell phone number. (A common identifier that can be used to tie multiple otherwise disconnected accounts together; that ties me to a geolocation, a real identity and even payment information -- unless i go to steps like carrying around a dedicated burner phone.)
I simply don't care to hand them all that information; especially since their marketing deparments treat it as a gold mine.
And if I'm not using a phone as my token... I definitely don't want to carry around a bag of RSA dongles.
the second one should be a short, (no more than 6 symobls - including every key on a standard keyboard
a) Whose standard keyboard? Not everyone speaks US english or uses a US english keyboard.
b) Why limit it to 6 characters? None of my passwords are that short. And at 6 symbols your are into easy "over the shoulder" password theft territory.
"Aha! But they won't have the token!" you'll counter.
Aha nothing! many of the people who might steal my password over my shoulder would be able to get access to my phone too. Coworkers, roomates, the pickpocket at the restaurant, bar, or checkout line...)
Each authenticated resource has a different risk profile, and merits different levels of protection. The registrar account holding our domains and our investment accounts needs a lot more security than a logon at slashdot. The same rules for both don't even make sense.
I certainly don't want a dongle for/. and I don't care to give dice my phone number either; nor have to deal with 2 factor to login to/.
Passwords (and authentication in generall) is a complicated problem. And standardizing electronic authentication is as absurd as standardizing physical authentication. (Can you imagine how absurd you'd look declaring that everything from your luggage to the bank vault should use the same type of key to open the lock?)
No my logic is that claiming to be X when you are really Y is wrong because it hurts the Y group.
Your problem is that you are blaming someone with disrupted mental faculties for their behaviour.
A person in a coma can't be blamed for not picking you up at the airport despite your prior arrangements before they fell into a coma. And a heroin junkie can't really be blamed for spending every penny on heroin.
If I bundle a bunch of subprime mortgages together and lie and claim that it's a AAA investment, I've harmed the investors.
Sure, but unless you are claiming that the functioning of your brain was literally chemically impaired throughout the process by a chemical alteration that created a base overriding drive to commit securities fraud then its not really applicable here.
By your logic, it's okay for a banker to rip off all of their poorest clients because they *need* to make their Lamborghini payment.
Are you really equating the brain chemistry of someone with a heroin problem so bad they are a homeless street junkie to the brain chemistry of a dishonest banker here?
That doesn't mean you can't sympathize with the addict whose life has gone so far off the rails that they are willing to engage in deception to support their habit
They aren't "willing to engage in deception" their brain lives for heroin now. Expecting them to make better choices is absurd, the person who took the heroin isn't in control anymore. The heroin addicted brain is running show.
. If they *need* heroin, is it okay if they engage in armed robbery?
Of course not. But it goes back to my rapid dog comparison. Its not the dogs "fault" it's biting people. Its not ok for it to bite people, and we need to deal with it... but the dog isn't going to get better on its own. You can't yell "Make better choices" and "Heel boy" in your best alpha male voice and expect the rabid dog to settle down. Its rabid. Its brain chemistry is altered. Its not operating under normal dog brain rules now, and can't be expected to. The rabies are in the drivers seat.
A heroin junkie is the same... its not the person it was.
The junkie made a bad decision to take heroin in the first place, and just as with alcohol we've made a collective decision to hold one accountable for the results of the things you do while you are impaired (largely to avoid the undesirable situation where people would claim they werent' responsible for shit they did while drunk), but it is strictly effective as a *deterrent* approach to make the sober person think twice about getting impaired in the first place.
On a purely practical level ONCE they are impaired, they can't, by definition, be expected to be making rational decisions anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think Revenge of the Sith was all that loathsome.
I do. JarJar was symptom of the bad prequels... and perhaps a mascot for 'the awful', but he was far from the worst nonsense in the movies.
Anakin joining the Sith ... they had 3 whole movies to show us how Anakin was seduced to the darkside... and I was entirely unconvinced.
Anakin promptly executing a bunch of children, many who looked up to him... was ridiculous. "Full retard".
Mace Windu confronting the emperor by himself... ridiculous.
Then Yoda doing the same thing... ridiculous. Then going into exile instead of I dunno... regrouping and trying again maybe with 2 Jedi...??! Two Jedi went up against Darth Maul, who was basically a sith nobody... but the Sith lord under their nose, who'd fooled them all for years... that's a solo play?
Most of the Jedi, including top leaders being trivially executed by Storm Troopers? WTF? In the first one, remember how concerned they were at the beginning when QuiGon and ObiWon show up to 'negotiate'? ... what were they worried about?? Apparently you can just shoot them in the back with storm troopers 99% of the time, no fuss at all. Throwaway clones can take care of them with minimal losses.
Then the final fight between Obiwan and Anakin was needlessly long, some of the dialog was painful, and Obiwan not finishing Anakin off was just weak. (What? Leaving him defeated, burnt, and limbless? How Jedi is that?... pity and mercy for his former friend and apprentice would have had him finish him off; even if nothing else.)
And the very end... Padme dies. What loyalty does Anakin have for the emperor now? Sure he can't exactly go back to the Jedi after murdering a bunch of children ... but the one thing Palpatine offered him to bring him over isn't even worth anything now. So what? Vader serves the emperor why? Because, hey, its a job, and he burned bridges with his previous employers? What's a Sith lord going to do as an independent... it was just silly. You could see what Lucas was trying to do... that Anakin was seduced by power... that his desire for power came from a desire to do good, and then encompasses him so that the power becomes its own reward. But the story Lucas told just didn't convey that at all.
Yet he would kill a bunch of jedi children because he wanted to save Padme's life and besides Yoda had snubbed him by not making him a master Jedi yet... unbelievable nonsense.
Sure the original star wars movies had plot holes you could drive a truck through; but they still hold up far better than the absolute mess that is the prequel trilogy.
I don't know that this is really a case for storing email forever. Yes that is true, but it also means that decades of email are available for searching and can be required to be searched or given up.
Yes, I agreed, it cuts both ways.
The reality is, design docs should be saved. These sorts of notes and work should be saved. Retaining emails may provide a solution,
Email provides a timeline that is much harder to forge, and which can be verified and testified to by external 3rd parties who were referenced and/or copied on various messages.
Files in a folder somewhere... 5 minutes and anyone here could make them say they were written whatever date we wanted.
I would submit the real issue here is that nobody saved the documents; but instead relied on email to save it for them.
We had documents the documents. But email is what ties them all together, and provides a strong evidence of a timeline. Documents are shown to be referenced on a given date, in a given context, etc. External parties received them on a given date, or even if they weren't attached they were referenced. And those external parties can themselves be asked to confirm the record.
I would submit the real issue here is that nobody saved the documents; but instead relied on email to save it for them.
That seems an argument of semantics. Much of the important documentation in question is the content of the email itself, not the attachments. You assume we didn't have the attachments, but that's not the case here. The case here is that the email "proves" the various attachments existed when we said the existed, that copies sent to external parties contained the contents we claim they contained. And its all mixed with personal records, external contacts, even mentions of then-current-events all which combine to provide a credibility and verifiability to the claims than simply some digital documents that we claim were created on such and such a date.
For example, if I say, here is a word file from april 2002 showing the design. That's worthless. I could have made it yesterday. It could have contained anything in 2002. etc etc etc. But here is an email of THAT word file, with a copy sent to the manufacturer discussing it, and also mentioning the hockey game. It all checks out. And you can go find the guy working for that manufacturer -- they might still have their own copy of that exact SAME email. And THAT is evidence that will stand up in court.
Surely your company would have other evidence than emails to support your prior art?
Sure it does. But email has the advantage of being time stamped, with copies sent to 3rd parties.
The dates on purely internal digital documents are much harder to establish if their integrity is challenged.
Didn't your company apply for a patent?
No. We felt (and still feel) that the 'innovation' was obvious, and that the patent has no merit.
But arguing that is expensive and time consuming and risky. If we can demonstrate that we were making, selling, and using the 'invention' well before they 'invented' it, then what exactly did they invent? And the patent falls apart.
What about the actual drafts and invoices themselves?
Electronic records. And the invoices only show that we sold the product, not what the product actually was. They are an important part of the puzzle but not a complete picture. The original cad drawing files and other drawings... sure they exist, but establishing a date that can withstand a challenge is much harder. When they are referenced and even attached in emails though that gives a strong timeline; and again with references to external 3rd parties who can testify to that timeline if needed.
I would never use an email server as a data repository, though it's convenient to have the date stamps and all.
The email was old enough that it wasn't on the live server. Hence I was tasked with pulling it from actual backups.
If the email server had room for it all though, I'd have no issue with having it available live too. As it is, many of the company principles have mailboxes exceeding 30GB going back a decade or so.
Holding your business emails too long is a liability risk..
I was just asked to recover email from the late 90s as part of a means to prove we had prior art on a patent that was being asserted against us. The email history included draft drawings, work orders to a manufacturer requesting customizations to our manufacturing equipment, invoices and negotiations with customers to work with it. etc. All with a clearly documented timeline that could be verified with multiple 3rd parties if it came to a court situation.
This sword clearly cuts both ways.
Frankly, I think you just saw Return of the Jedi at precisely the wrong age. Your comment reads like the xbox fanbois who won't play Super Mario Bros or Zelda because its a 'kids game' and they want everyone to know that they only like mature things and therefore are mature.
I saw RotJ when I was 10. And I loved it.
Today I watch it and I get that the ewoks are a bit too cute. But all the scenes they are in are still fine. From them finding Leia, to C3P0 pretending to be a deity, to their attack on the shield generator. I just don't see anything wrong with them; such that they 'ruin' the movie.
They only ruin the movie for someone who wanted... no... needed RotJ to be a "mature" movie so he could enjoy it without people questioning his adulthood. The ewoks aren't "dark" they aren't "serious"... and their presence softens the tone of the movie (especially as Luke was much darker and more serious in this movie and the ewok scenes are spliced with the MUCH darker throne room scenes). But too me RotJ really is quintessentially "Star Wars".
I watch them again before the release of the new trilogy, this time as an adult, and found the original trilogy to be nothing but movies for kids
Right. That's all it ever was.
Apart from the pleasure of reliving childhood memories, I was seriously disappointed.
That's more on you then on the movies. The movies haven't changed. I re-watched them WITH my kids; and they were just as enjoyable as they were the first time(s).
Perhaps I'm wrong about you. Or perhaps I'm right and you won't admit it. ;) But whether or not I am right about you specifically, I think a lot of Ewok hate in general is from people who were becoming adults themselves, who wanted Jedi to be a 'mature serious war movie' and not a 'family fun' movie.
As for the prequels, they are just bad movies that spend far too much time throwing shit in your face then telling a story. And then when they get around to the story telling its just painfully bad.
Remember when a story on this site would bring down servers? I'll bet that C|Net article barely tweaks the bandwidth meter.
That says as much about the march of progress as it does about the decline of slashdot. Even if slashdot were at it's peak, times 2, the capacity of the hardware and the internet has grown many times that, plus dynamic loadbalancing and scaling and content delivery networks...
These days even trending on facebook and twitter won't bring anybody significant down.
Yeah.. from laws prohibiting the dumping of garbage in the street, to prohibiting the sale of worthless snake oils as medicine, to prohibiting toxic materials in childrens toys... to the laws that grant rights of way and easements to install sewers and electricity, to the rules of the road (set which side of the road to drive on, no double parking, or blocking fire hydrants, hunting seasons and catch-and-release rules, protected species, seriously...
What kind of nutter does one have to be not to see the benefits legislation have have brought. Sure there is bad legislation, and no shortage of it... but there is a TON of very good law out there.
Yeah, because a significant proportion of instant messenger users using Yahoo messenger are using 3rd party clients like pidgin and trillian.
Wait, are you trolling me?
Yeah, and if Yahoo care an iota they can block trillian and pidgin trivially. All it takes is a few certificates; and 3rd party clients are rendered useless.
Only works if you have the presence of mind to take one, and you do so before the un-send goes through.
In other words, yes, screen cap works, and always will because you can't display someone to something and simultaneously prevent them from seeing it or recording it. Even if it takes another phone taking a picture... it will be doable.
But how many times are people going to miss that window of opportunity before something gets 'unsent' ?
that my client ignores
The thing about messaging is you are generally locked into a client; so it'll no longer be up to you whether or not you use a client that ignores it or not.
What hardware do you have that isn't supported?
Dlink DIR-835
https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/d...
As I wrote elsewhere in the thread:
My internet is currently 120/6; so 100mbps isn't sufficient. I also want my openwrt box to have plenty of ram, cpu, and space, so that I can play with openwrt without worrying too much about running into the limits of the hardware. I have a Dlink dir-835 right now.
I'm open to replacing it with something that will likely be supported by new versions of openwrt sooner than later.
I -like- having wifi AP all built into one box, but if separating them into two separate boxes would make openwrt easier than I'm game to consider it.
You don't need a fancy gigabit router on the edge of your home network.
My internet is currently 120/6; so 100mbps isn't sufficient. I also want my openwrt box to have plenty of ram, cpu, and space, so that I can play with openwrt without worrying too much about running into the limits of the hardware. I have a Dlink dir-835 right now.
I'm open to replacing it with something that will likely be supported by new versions of openwrt sooner than later.
I -like- having wifi AP all built into one box, but separating them into two separate boxes would make openwrt easier than I'm game to consider it.
Price is always a factor but "less than $20" is needlessly frugal. I will pay more for "better".
I would tell you what to get and where and how much it actually costs, but Google won't let me search US shops,
I'm in Canada; so that would have been moot. But model information is appreciated.
I'm still on barrier breaker; my router isn't supported by chaos calmer (yet)?
If there's a flaw in the older version... I'm pretty much in the same boat as any one with default firmware would be.
way to go /. (And people wonder why I think python is stupid.)
int D[1];
int elements_in_D1 = sizeof(D1faces)/sizeof(int);
for (int i = 0; i++; i < elements_in_D1)
D[i] = i;
Took me a while to parse that. :) // allocate a C D1 // how many elements are on it? // equals 1 // initialize
int D[1];
double elements_in_D1 = sizeof(D1faces)/sizeof(int);
for (int i = 0; i++; ielements_in_D1)
D[i] = i;
Even a C D1, which starts at zero, only has one face, valued at zero, so we don't need to roll it, since we know the outcome is zero. :p
And your answer to 'what if people wanted to give every advantage to their children so they're strong, healthy, smart, and pretty' is to prevent that.
I never actually said that I'd prevent it. I merely pointed out that it was the logical conclusion to this technology. And that gattaca as a concept was entirely plausible.
but after that, we should be doing our best to make sure everyone has access to the technology.
How? You're talking about lofty ideals for designer babies when we don't even currently give everyone decent access to pre-natal and post-natal care. And care even during the delivery itself is billed to the patient at exorbitant rates if they don't have the proper insurance. You're putting the cart before the horse suggesting we should be working on giving universal gene screening, gene therapy, and even cosmetic-gene-therapies.
Right now, we should be working on providing universal birth control support structures; so that at least the children coming into the system are wanted by their parents.
only the rich and influential will get it.
I think that's all but inevitable; at least for the foreseeable future.
The idea that people will be judged by their genetics is ridiculous.
Most things HR judges people on right now are ridiculous.
For one, pretty soon everyone will have near perfect genes
Not in a free market economy, where supply and demand meet your parents credit rating; and unplanned pregnancy is still a huge issue. Seriously, *why* on earth do you think this medical procedure will be both universally available and universally used?
and two most jobs do not require olympian physique so who cares?
The company insurance plan that doesn't want to insure employees that are likelier to be less healthy, need medical care, and the management that doesn't want staff that needs time off, or even that just isn't as bright as the edited people.
Why wouldn't you prevent your child from getting cancer, diabetes, heart disease, autism, or any of the number of hereditary diseases if you could
I really can't argue with that. But you can't deny there is also a slippery slope argument. Why stop at merely preventing heart disease, when we can make it a stronger specimen? Why stop at diabetes - what if we can tweak metabolism and resolve obesity? Why stop at merely preventing obestity when you could make them beautiful...? Why wouldn't you give your child all the advantages if you could? Give him height, a full head of hair, a strong chin, too - these are proven to help him socially and in his career.
That does explain a lot... as a D1 only has one surface it would have to be spherical; aka... a marble. Those *would* take a while to stop rolling around.
But I have ask why bother... the result is always going to be '100' anyway... unless you lose some of the marbles into the furnace vent or something?
23 years ago? That makes it 1992? I was using Turbo Pascal in 1989!
Re-read the summary.
It says 23 years ago development on the Turbo Pascal compatible project "Free Pascal" was started.
It does NOT say 23 years ago development on Turbo Pascal itself was started.
It shouldn't otherwise ads for everything from the "Passion of the Christ" to "Steve Almighty" would cross that line.
But I don't think they do, they are advertising the movie, not the faith itself, and I think its pretty reasonable and easy to tell one from the other.
If dealers don't want to sell them, let manufacturers sell direct to the customers.
Taking the dealer network out of the equation is largely irrelevant.
If VW or GM or Ford open a direct to customers showroom and service center the sales team there aren't going to be any more motivated than the dealer network to sell electric cars. The managers are STILL going to be pushing the upsell service packages and cars that will bring the owners in for additional services too; and the commission structure and sales incentive plans will be counting those metrics.
The exception of course is manufacturers that only make electric cars. So ... Tesla.
is there an obvious difference in the generated assembly?
There would be in most projects that were not outright trying to obscure they were using C++.
Its been a while since I looked at disassembled code, but you used to be able to easily tell what compiler and even version of that compiler was used just from the boilerplate setup code; the way things were 'arranged', exception handlers etc, and obviously library usage was frequently a dead giveaway. Your not going to see a either an iostream or an STL container in a C program.
Everything should be two factor password system with one being a token/phone/pc,
No thank you. I'd like to be able access things like webmail without a token. The reason I'm using webmail in the first place is usually that I don't have my phone or laptop with me. And the last thing I want is a token that can never leave my side, and that upon being lost or damaged locks me out of everything everywhere.
Additionally, I dont' want to give all these entities my cell phone number. (A common identifier that can be used to tie multiple otherwise disconnected accounts together; that ties me to a geolocation, a real identity and even payment information -- unless i go to steps like carrying around a dedicated burner phone.)
I simply don't care to hand them all that information; especially since their marketing deparments treat it as a gold mine.
And if I'm not using a phone as my token... I definitely don't want to carry around a bag of RSA dongles.
the second one should be a short, (no more than 6 symobls - including every key on a standard keyboard
a) Whose standard keyboard? Not everyone speaks US english or uses a US english keyboard.
b) Why limit it to 6 characters? None of my passwords are that short. And at 6 symbols your are into easy "over the shoulder" password theft territory.
"Aha! But they won't have the token!" you'll counter.
Aha nothing! many of the people who might steal my password over my shoulder would be able to get access to my phone too. Coworkers, roomates, the pickpocket at the restaurant, bar, or checkout line...)
Each authenticated resource has a different risk profile, and merits different levels of protection. The registrar account holding our domains and our investment accounts needs a lot more security than a logon at slashdot. The same rules for both don't even make sense.
I certainly don't want a dongle for /. and I don't care to give dice my phone number either; nor have to deal with 2 factor to login to /.
Passwords (and authentication in generall) is a complicated problem. And standardizing electronic authentication is as absurd as standardizing physical authentication. (Can you imagine how absurd you'd look declaring that everything from your luggage to the bank vault should use the same type of key to open the lock?)
No my logic is that claiming to be X when you are really Y is wrong because it hurts the Y group.
Your problem is that you are blaming someone with disrupted mental faculties for their behaviour.
A person in a coma can't be blamed for not picking you up at the airport despite your prior arrangements before they fell into a coma. And a heroin junkie can't really be blamed for spending every penny on heroin.
If I bundle a bunch of subprime mortgages together and lie and claim that it's a AAA investment, I've harmed the investors.
Sure, but unless you are claiming that the functioning of your brain was literally chemically impaired throughout the process by a chemical alteration that created a base overriding drive to commit securities fraud then its not really applicable here.
By your logic, it's okay for a banker to rip off all of their poorest clients because they *need* to make their Lamborghini payment.
Are you really equating the brain chemistry of someone with a heroin problem so bad they are a homeless street junkie to the brain chemistry of a dishonest banker here?
That doesn't mean you can't sympathize with the addict whose life has gone so far off the rails that they are willing to engage in deception to support their habit
They aren't "willing to engage in deception" their brain lives for heroin now. Expecting them to make better choices is absurd, the person who took the heroin isn't in control anymore. The heroin addicted brain is running show.
. If they *need* heroin, is it okay if they engage in armed robbery?
Of course not. But it goes back to my rapid dog comparison. Its not the dogs "fault" it's biting people. Its not ok for it to bite people, and we need to deal with it... but the dog isn't going to get better on its own. You can't yell "Make better choices" and "Heel boy" in your best alpha male voice and expect the rabid dog to settle down. Its rabid. Its brain chemistry is altered. Its not operating under normal dog brain rules now, and can't be expected to. The rabies are in the drivers seat.
A heroin junkie is the same... its not the person it was.
The junkie made a bad decision to take heroin in the first place, and just as with alcohol we've made a collective decision to hold one accountable for the results of the things you do while you are impaired (largely to avoid the undesirable situation where people would claim they werent' responsible for shit they did while drunk), but it is strictly effective as a *deterrent* approach to make the sober person think twice about getting impaired in the first place.
On a purely practical level ONCE they are impaired, they can't, by definition, be expected to be making rational decisions anymore.