I never understood why Dell refused to provide Ubuntu on anything but their toy systems. It probably has to do with internal politics,
Um, no. It has to do with that being the big selling point of Ubuntu aside from the fact that it's free. The Linux community has spent hyears bragging about how much better their OS is on older/light weight hardware than any OS out there. This presents an image to the public that isn't inline for users in your position but don't blame Dell for it.
I disagree. I've run OS/2 and Linux, and love the fact that it runs on older or lower end hardware, and runs well on them. But that simply makes me want to run it on the latest and greatest to see what it can really do.
If people want to take advantage of the newest and fastest hardware, wouldnt it only make sense that they'd want to use one of the fastest operating systems they can on it? Or vice versa?
Perhaps the real reason why is because such boxes (that arent being sold with Ubuntu) would compete with Dell's (and Microsoft's) Windows server offerings? That seems more in line with reality than your scenario.
Nothing shady about it either. Dell and Microsoft both make a lot of money on support contracts for those server installs. They wouldnt for similar Ubuntu installation. Dell also would lose money on certain installs where one Ubuntu machine was purchased for each 3-5 Windows Server machines needed to support whatever server traffic was incoming/outgoing. That translates into lost revenue for both software support AND hardware support.
If there were more offerings available from other vendors, then Dell would be forced to make similar offerings - but there currently are not. While I can go build a "neat little server" from parts, if I want something truly mission critical, I want a big name, near fully redundant box - like my IBM eServer xSeries boxes. With Windows as the only real option, I dont have such an option, unless I want to "roll my own" - which I cannot unless specialized drivers are written to fully utilize the box (which then adds a bunch of time finding stable drivers or doing hardware research to find servers that are well supported). Which again leaves me in a situation where, if I am under time constraints, I am once again stuck with a Windows solution (or a not as redundant, not as hot swappable DIY server***).
There's also the investment in drivers for whatever version of Linux they choose, to handle all the proprietary components. Such an effort would have to be paid somehow - meaning pushing RHEL (or other version) servers - to the loss of their much more profitable Windows Server (hardware and support) groups. Keep in mind, just in case anyone is thinking of suggesting it, Dell and others are unlikely to release the details necessary for the fOSS world to make drivers for their proprietary hardware support, meaning such would either need to be created by the OEMs, or "reverse engineered" in the community.
There's what I think the key reasons are for this issue.
*** The xSeries servers from IBM, as well as various competing Dell models (to at least some extent) support hot swappable drives (yeah, everything "big" does - or can be made to), hot swappable fans, hot swappable power supplies, RAID arrayed memory (mirrored, auto failover with no downtime), CPU deactivation in case of failure (let's keep running the working 3 instead of all 4), hot swap expansion cards (ie: the PCI cards, etc), intelligent management subsystems, separate PCI buses and chipsets and data pathways (5 in my server) to ensure plenty of bandwidth for each add-on I put in the machine, separate switchable power inputs, power regulation, spike handling (to 10KW), and so on. I have yet to figure out how to make a home built server that incorporates all of those (and all the ones I did not list).
Typing this on Ubuntu 10.04 LTS using Google Chrome. Why Chrome? I used 8.04 and Firefox for about a year, year and a half and loved it. Then one day Firefox updated to 3.6.6 and Flash quit working.
Sorry, but that sounds like a selling point to me. Heck, it would save me the trouble of having to install FlashBlock.:-)
From what I understand, Microsoft also offers "rebates" to hardware computer vendors that are primarily or entirely Windows only. It's the loophole in their consent decree (rebates instead of discounts).
It is conceivable that the public exposure Dell's Ubuntu pages made caused one of two scenarios (or a combination of both):
(1) Someone at Microsoft pointed out to Dell that their Ubuntu efforts (especially with Linux becoming more widely known) was flying in the face of Microsoft's rebate terms.
(2) Someone at Dell feared that the news exposure their Ubuntu offerings were gaining would cause backlash with Microsoft, and thus minimize or eliminate what "rebates" they were getting on Windows preloaded systems.
More information (with appropriate login) can be found on Microsoft's pages located here: Microsoft OEM pages where such wording as "This campaign is designed to help you communicate the value of Windows 7 Professional... OEM Software Rebates Accelerate your OEM Sales and earn rebates!" (direct and full quote (from the rotating text at the top), including the use of ellipses) can be found.
"Help you communicate," has been determined by others to mean "Dont offer competing operating systems such as Linux so you dont "confuse" buyers with any option other than Windows" - such statements (and such a definition of the meaning) can be found by searching the web - often attributed to Microsoft themselves. Makes Dell's statement kinda suspicious in who actually came up with it.
Wrong! The tobacco industry is geared up, ready and waiting - including having trademarked various sale names for such products. Google "tobacco companies marijuana" if you dont believe me.
I did and there are exactly 4 google results...and none of them is relevant. You have lied to me and to slashdot. I demand an apology at once!
Instead of an apology, note that I did not write ""tobacco companies marijuana"" - I wrote search for "tobacco companies marijuana" (meaning type (no quotes) tobacco companies marijuana).
You my friend, have been here long enough that you should know how to use Google and should have been able to at least guess that (a) I meant it as a phrase and thus should be searched for in quotes (which would be asinine - c'mon, really, how many sentences would actually have that exact word construction? Oh, wait... according to Google, 4) - or (b) the quotes were in place to indicate that one should search for the words inbetween them and not any other words in the sentence they were included with. Thus, virtually anyone I know would have picked option b - or even having picked option a, would have tried option b next.
I guess I could have used the em tag instead - lesson learned... even others who have been here for ages aren't the best at using Google. That aside, go back to Google and search for tobacco companies marijuana with no quotes, with no em tag, etc - just those three words.
Or, even do it this way, to make the results a bit more accurate (not that it matters much - due to relevance ranking, the relevant results will be "on top" of the other search results): +tobacco +companies +marijuana - in which case, you will still get more than four. At this particular instant, I am getting about 94,096 more results than the four you claim.
LoL, someone who doesn't know much about computers got mod points. One can choose not to like the truth, but, as even Microsoft themselves admitted, this is NOT a change in policy - it's a change in NAME only.
I am very curious how Microsoft defines "ample time" especially considering some of their vulnerabilities (like the one recently "patched" in the DOS subsystem) have existed for years or decades.
This isn't a slam at Microsoft, it's a hope that someone has some clarification that can be used as a context to determine if this statement means anything. Even when the terms of their statements are less ambiguous, they seem to find ways of backpedalling - thus greater clarity on something so very ambiguous is warranted (even if it turns out to be pointless in the long run per whatever practices they actually employ).
Oh wait, the summary is not correct (of course) - but the reality of the statement is worse:
Microsoft:
CVD's core principles are simple: vendors and finders need to work closely toward a resolution; extensive efforts should be made to make a timely response; and only in the event of active attacks is public disclosure, focused on mitigations and workarounds, likely the best course of action -- and even then it should be coordinated as closely as possible.
Inotherwords, this statement really says "You should never tell anyone but us, unless active attacks are taking place - but even then, you should coordinate such with us" (at which point, they will probably say "dont tell anyone" as has been the current and previous cases.
Also, who are they to dictate how (and to who) researchers disclose such information? Is there some legal basis for this, or is (will) it be under the threat of using their financial muscle and influence to try to get the person charged with some sort of online security or terrorist crime? Yes... for those who don't know, the Patriot Act does indeed cover such things.
Additionally, the spin group at Microsoft said this, which is misleading in the grand context of this problem:
Microsoft: However, we fundamentally believe (and our experience over the last 10 years has shown) that once vulnerability details are released publicly, the probability of exploitation rises significantly. Without coordination in place to provide a security update or tested workarounds, risk to customers is greatly amplified.
The truth is, once a vulnerability is released to the public and exploited, Microsoft is somewhat forced to fix it in a more timely fashion - as opposed to ignoring it for years (the numerous.NET exploits that still aren't fully patched) or decades (the DOS exploit recently patched).
This is really a non-news item as this is business as usual, carefully worded to seem like Microsoft is changing their stance on things (while the reality is, they are not).
Both California and the Federal Gov are hurting for a source or revenue. Taxation will only get so far based on the Laffer curve. I honestly think we are at the cusp of legalizing pot across the board, only be taxed heavily in the process. Which of course is why they would do it in the first place.
But what will this do to the price on the average bag of pot on the street? Do we have a Splif Price Index to compare this with?
I assume that even with a tax the price will lower as supply can now meet demand. Of course if this was done right only sales of the narcotic part of the plant would be taxed as there are other uses for the same plant such as producing cloth. But knowing the US govt they will tax growing it until it's no longer profitable.
I always thought that the type of cannibis plant used for pot is not the same as the one used for hemp and the other (non pot related) medicinal purposes.
So does Wikipedia, and a few hundred other sites. Pot plants do not have the same type of fiber or fiber strength, and hemp plants have virtually no THC in them. This is a sad myth that has been spreading for years.
Hemp plants are also very useful as supplements (amino acids, protein and more - in some cases, more than any other thing normally consumed). But again, you cant get high off them. And you cant use pot plants to make decent hemp products.
Don't worry, no company will touch this and no financial institution will fund it. This whole idea has DEA bust written all over it. California can do whatever they want to legalize it but so long as it's illegal under federal statute large scale grow operations will be way too hot to touch. The interesting thing would be if the state were to grow it themselves, would pit states rights against federal drug laws.
Wrong! The tobacco industry is geared up, ready and waiting - including having trademarked various sale names for such products. Google "tobacco companies marijuana" if you dont believe me.
As for the Feds, how long do you think it will be that they hold out? Guarantee you they still have the methods in place to tax this, regardless of the current legality. Money will win out in this.
I was not aware that they even needed evidence. It doesn't seem to have stopped them so far.
True. I should have put evidence in quotes, to imply that though it is a term that the **AA use, in actuality their usage does not fit the accepted definition of the wording, since they often have nothing that fits the criteria for such.
Almost every point you wrote down increases the amount of traffic on the roads and the amount of fuel used.
Sorry, you are incorrect. And unlike your post, I will elaborate (though I do understand that on the face of things, your post didnt seem to need elaboration).
* The car can park itself anywhere, get service or pick up stuff while you're working. Less need to use valuable city real estate and street area on parking. And as people no longer park along the streets they get effectively wider, with more space for traffic but also for bicycle lanes.
As one who has had to drive around NYC for 30 minutes looking for a parking spot, this will save on gas and reduce emissions.
* A two-car family may only need one, as the car can go by itself to pick up family members as they need it.
This depends on where the family needs to go or where they are - all in all, I'd say this may equal out to two cars travelling two places with two sets of passengers.
* A family may in fact own no car. Car pooling becomes much more effective when you can call up a car from the pool to your front door at any time.
Would be similar to them taking mass transit. Comparing the costs per passenger to things like the NYC subway or LIRR, carpooling is actually a better alternative (unless one considers carpooling 2 passengers or less - which most people do not). Check the NY MTA or LIRR or Wikipedia pages for the breakdown of fuel costs per passenger.
* No need for a license. People with dementia, or taking medication, or with severe disabilities, or underage can still get around, no problem.
Unrelated to your or my premise.
* The cars will be scrupulous about obeying traffic laws and speed limits. But even with a small part self-driving cars, they will act as pace cars and slow and smooth traffic for everyone. Even more so, as they'll be recording everything happening around them, and other drivers know it. Pace will be slower, but people will arrive sooner.
Assuming, like some non-US countries that employ "follow trucks" where one is driven, and the rest are computer controlled to follow, we convert HOV lanes into lanes for such vehicles (or "everyone" (ie: a large portion of the population) owns one), this will save a lot on emissions and fuel. As an example, when I used to commute to NYC (48 miles) it would take between 2.5 to 3 hours. Now... with such a car, in a dedicated lane, it would take 50 minutes. Take the MILLIONS of people who do such a commute every day and put them in such a vehicle, and it's a reduction of up to 2 hours EACH way worth of fuel and emissions.
Regardless, as many traffic studies have shown, traffic is largely affected, worsened, or caused by idiotic human driving practices, such as following too closely, resulting in the need to brake sharply when someone ahead hits their brakes, thus slowing down the person behind you (and oneself) to a far slower speed than following at a safer distance would create - which creates a chain reaction and a traffic jam. Such cars as these would not do this, speeding up the average traffic flow, and reducing travel times (and emissions and fuel use).
* Life becomes tough for taxi drivers. Taking a taxi would become the same as short-term car rental in practice, and cheaper than taxis as there's no drivers salary to pay.
Unrelated to our premise, but likely that taxis would simply become automated. Or semi-related, as in the car could care less how much money it makes and would travel from the completion of one fare to the next closest pickup, instead of doing what happens in various suburban areas (like mine) where the taxi driver will instead pick the fare they expect to make the most money off of, and drive cross town to do the pickup instead of picking up the shorter nearby fare.
* Point to point transport becomes cheaper too, with driverless vans and trucks shuttli
A quick read of TFAs and some links within them lead me to think this is a non-story. They write that BP had blank screens and photoshopped them to be not blank, saying "Why were they blank? coffee break ?" There's a ton of reasons they could be blank. A bit stupid of BP to 'shop them though.
Very true... I would expect 3 guys to be sitting there staring at blank screens instead of... oh, I dunno... what's going on at the spill site. Oh wait, that would make things even more incongruous with their claims of hundreds of vessels and such involved, that are all being monitored from this control center.
Guarantee you that was the motivation. Whoever took the picture didnt realize that (a) some (all?) 3 of the people "monitoring" were monitoring nothing when the picture was snapped (looking the wrong direction at blank screens) and (b) making things look less busy and involved and "in control" by having blank screens was probably a bad idea. I would also surmise that the photoshopping was not done by a photographer, but by someone higher up at BP. It would explain the horrendous job.
Heck, people claim we are amatuers, yet if you watch the opening teaser to Star Trek Phase 2: Blood and Fire Part 1, you will see a few bridge scenes where Spock is not at his station (camera showing Kirk and Chekov). He WAS at his station. We removed him because it made the scene look too busy. We removed it from full motion video, and no one has caught it (here's the key... look at the blinkies on Spock's library computer - slow fade on and off (instead of blink on and off) - those are the scenes Spock was removed from). Yet a pro photographer couldnt properly photoshop one image?. Bullshit. I would bet this is some unskilled upper management type who botched the Photoshop job. People who play with Photoshop could do better.
That of course makes this a worse offense, if my guess is correct.
BP= BIG Polluter which translates to any language as "BIG PayDay" for all after they are taken toe the cleaners (the court)!:)
Actually, since British Petroleum (BP) merged with the American Oil Company (Amoco) and became "BP Amoco" the "BP" doesn't actually stand for anything anymore, it's just a "B" and a "P", but lets not allow facts to get in the way of the ranting eh!
The reason this story is newsworthy is because humanity in general hates liars.
I'd argue the exact opposite. Humanity in general seems to love liars and being lied to. They idolize those who present a rosy picture of the world. Even worse, humans have a tendency to villainise those who point out the lies and hypocrisy in what they're being told.
I SOOOO want to disagree with you, you asshole!!! How dare you say that about humanity?!?!?! Humanity hates liars, and true reality has nothing to do with that!!!!!;-)
it's currently the antagonist in what will be recorded as one of the worst environmental disasters of the 21st century.
There's an awful lot of 21st Century left yet, not sure I'd make that statement quite yet.
Yeah, unless some sanction runs BP out of business (unlikely to the point of impossible-to-happen), then there's still plenty of time for BP to screw up even worse. They have been doing pretty well at screwing up worse than their previous efforts. On a regular basis. I expect in another 20 years or so, this will seem like a drop in the ocean compared to their next calamity.
The reason why the Nexus One failed is because it was so damned expensive out of pocket.
False, just like the "article" which neglects to mention the deep subsidy that was applied to the phone price if one bought it via T-Mobile. Also, has anyone actually done a study to see how many people try a phone before they buy? Most of the phone stores I have visited have dummy models and very few actual, working phones. Not just do the dummy models do nothing (and are often empty cases), but because of lack of internal hardware, lack of screen (plastic printed insert instead), etc; I've rarely ever been able to be "hands on" with a new phone unless a friend of mine has owned one before my purchase.
I suspect lack of decent advertising was the real culprit.
The logs they are speaking of is rather who customer got which IP lease for which date and time.
Without those it's just an IP with no-one to charge. With them they got a real person.
until that IP address is witnessed logging in to a facebook account or checking an email address or the 1000s of other ways traffic can be analyzed to pair requests up with real people.
Really? I was not aware such evidence was required in such cases... I wasnt even aware that such evidence needed to be accurate. Numerous **AA cases come to mind...
...under its own volition shuts down its server...
You don't know that. Given the secrecy we allow the government to operate under, there could be a gag order in place. The patriot act permits that kind of thing.
I'd like to add to this... does one really think that a "suggestion" by the government to take down the offending site/server was expected (by the government) to be taken as a suggestion? I wonder what consequences there might be for not, of one's "own" volition, agreeing to and following the government's "suggestion"?
As much as I disliked the DMCA, the safe-harbor provision has done its job.
Google didn't violate peoples copyrights. The individual uploaders may or may not have,
according to the varying nuances of fair use. The benefits of youtube far outweigh
the theoretical loss of revenue.
Google spent a 100m not defending its good name but to set a legal precedent and defend the value of its company.
Once the legal precedent has been set, the cost of defending these suits will drop a great deal.
Of Google will claim the entire 100m as a tax writeoff.
Screw that! I am very happy with the amount Google spent...
*IF* Google remembers this part of the DMCA: 512(f)
(f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
Inotherwords, Viacom owes Google their court costs, expenses AND the expenses related to disabling/removing the content. After all, Viacom knowingly had content removed that they posted or authorized for posting - that's a knowing violation right there - not to mention trying to use the DMCA for an "after the fact, the DMCA has already been satisfied on the other issues" attack.
If memory serves, there are other sections as well that spell out some pretty nice (errr... nasty) damages that Google could be eligible for. So... I'd rather see the full ball game becoming a win for Google, instead of just the first couple innings. That would be a much better precedent. No longer would the **AA groups be seeding content to use to try to catch others, no longer would they recklessly send takedown notices for content they dont have the right to do so.
Maybe for Internet Explorer, but that's Microsoft's responsibility to update.
And it's web developers' responsibility to make sure that their shit works for its target audience, even if that means holding back because the clueless masses that comprise said audience insist on using Microsoft's cripple-ware.
Those with mod points... you may not like his message, you may not like the way he worded it... but if you've ever been a web developer for any company that needs a web presence everyone can use, then you know what geminidomino says is true. So... why is it modded flamebait?
The first oddity is why the author believes that the data would sit around for years before being used. Like there's an "exploit bank" where you can deposit your collection of stolen data and gain interest on it until you "cash them in". I'd think far more likely it'll get used fairly rapidly, or never. How you fence or launder millions of records is kind of a mystery to begin with.
There are - and it's been covered here, even if not called those terms. There are "organizations" that do nothing but collect this info and then sell it off over time to whoever wants to buy it. I'm sure they dont put expiration dates on their data, and will gladly sell you a collection of records with 10 day old data and 10 year old data, all mixed together.
I just bought a Windows 7 PC used for $150. I never even thought about the RAM limit. It's just a 32-bit CPU so that means I can never go larger than 3 gigabyte.:-( On the other hand maybe I'll never need to. My current XP-PC is still on just half-a-gig and works fine. (shrug)
I didnt realize that anyone made 32bit CPUs anymore... what machine is it?
Slashdot Mirror
I never understood why Dell refused to provide Ubuntu on anything but their toy systems. It probably has to do with internal politics,
Um, no. It has to do with that being the big selling point of Ubuntu aside from the fact that it's free. The Linux community has spent hyears bragging about how much better their OS is on older/light weight hardware than any OS out there. This presents an image to the public that isn't inline for users in your position but don't blame Dell for it.
I disagree. I've run OS/2 and Linux, and love the fact that it runs on older or lower end hardware, and runs well on them. But that simply makes me want to run it on the latest and greatest to see what it can really do.
If people want to take advantage of the newest and fastest hardware, wouldnt it only make sense that they'd want to use one of the fastest operating systems they can on it? Or vice versa?
Perhaps the real reason why is because such boxes (that arent being sold with Ubuntu) would compete with Dell's (and Microsoft's) Windows server offerings? That seems more in line with reality than your scenario.
Nothing shady about it either. Dell and Microsoft both make a lot of money on support contracts for those server installs. They wouldnt for similar Ubuntu installation. Dell also would lose money on certain installs where one Ubuntu machine was purchased for each 3-5 Windows Server machines needed to support whatever server traffic was incoming/outgoing. That translates into lost revenue for both software support AND hardware support.
If there were more offerings available from other vendors, then Dell would be forced to make similar offerings - but there currently are not. While I can go build a "neat little server" from parts, if I want something truly mission critical, I want a big name, near fully redundant box - like my IBM eServer xSeries boxes. With Windows as the only real option, I dont have such an option, unless I want to "roll my own" - which I cannot unless specialized drivers are written to fully utilize the box (which then adds a bunch of time finding stable drivers or doing hardware research to find servers that are well supported). Which again leaves me in a situation where, if I am under time constraints, I am once again stuck with a Windows solution (or a not as redundant, not as hot swappable DIY server***).
There's also the investment in drivers for whatever version of Linux they choose, to handle all the proprietary components. Such an effort would have to be paid somehow - meaning pushing RHEL (or other version) servers - to the loss of their much more profitable Windows Server (hardware and support) groups. Keep in mind, just in case anyone is thinking of suggesting it, Dell and others are unlikely to release the details necessary for the fOSS world to make drivers for their proprietary hardware support, meaning such would either need to be created by the OEMs, or "reverse engineered" in the community.
There's what I think the key reasons are for this issue.
*** The xSeries servers from IBM, as well as various competing Dell models (to at least some extent) support hot swappable drives (yeah, everything "big" does - or can be made to), hot swappable fans, hot swappable power supplies, RAID arrayed memory (mirrored, auto failover with no downtime), CPU deactivation in case of failure (let's keep running the working 3 instead of all 4), hot swap expansion cards (ie: the PCI cards, etc), intelligent management subsystems, separate PCI buses and chipsets and data pathways (5 in my server) to ensure plenty of bandwidth for each add-on I put in the machine, separate switchable power inputs, power regulation, spike handling (to 10KW), and so on. I have yet to figure out how to make a home built server that incorporates all of those (and all the ones I did not list).
Typing this on Ubuntu 10.04 LTS using Google Chrome. Why Chrome? I used 8.04 and Firefox for about a year, year and a half and loved it. Then one day Firefox updated to 3.6.6 and Flash quit working.
Sorry, but that sounds like a selling point to me. Heck, it would save me the trouble of having to install FlashBlock. :-)
From what I understand, Microsoft also offers "rebates" to hardware computer vendors that are primarily or entirely Windows only. It's the loophole in their consent decree (rebates instead of discounts).
It is conceivable that the public exposure Dell's Ubuntu pages made caused one of two scenarios (or a combination of both):
(1) Someone at Microsoft pointed out to Dell that their Ubuntu efforts (especially with Linux becoming more widely known) was flying in the face of Microsoft's rebate terms.
(2) Someone at Dell feared that the news exposure their Ubuntu offerings were gaining would cause backlash with Microsoft, and thus minimize or eliminate what "rebates" they were getting on Windows preloaded systems.
More information (with appropriate login) can be found on Microsoft's pages located here: Microsoft OEM pages where such wording as "This campaign is designed to help you communicate the value of Windows 7 Professional ... OEM Software Rebates Accelerate your OEM Sales and earn rebates!" (direct and full quote (from the rotating text at the top), including the use of ellipses) can be found.
"Help you communicate," has been determined by others to mean "Dont offer competing operating systems such as Linux so you dont "confuse" buyers with any option other than Windows" - such statements (and such a definition of the meaning) can be found by searching the web - often attributed to Microsoft themselves. Makes Dell's statement kinda suspicious in who actually came up with it.
I did and there are exactly 4 google results...and none of them is relevant. You have lied to me and to slashdot. I demand an apology at once!
Instead of an apology, note that I did not write ""tobacco companies marijuana"" - I wrote search for "tobacco companies marijuana" (meaning type (no quotes) tobacco companies marijuana).
You my friend, have been here long enough that you should know how to use Google and should have been able to at least guess that (a) I meant it as a phrase and thus should be searched for in quotes (which would be asinine - c'mon, really, how many sentences would actually have that exact word construction? Oh, wait... according to Google, 4) - or (b) the quotes were in place to indicate that one should search for the words inbetween them and not any other words in the sentence they were included with. Thus, virtually anyone I know would have picked option b - or even having picked option a, would have tried option b next.
I guess I could have used the em tag instead - lesson learned... even others who have been here for ages aren't the best at using Google. That aside, go back to Google and search for tobacco companies marijuana with no quotes, with no em tag, etc - just those three words.
Or, even do it this way, to make the results a bit more accurate (not that it matters much - due to relevance ranking, the relevant results will be "on top" of the other search results): +tobacco +companies +marijuana - in which case, you will still get more than four. At this particular instant, I am getting about 94,096 more results than the four you claim.
BTW... love your sig.
LoL, someone who doesn't know much about computers got mod points. One can choose not to like the truth, but, as even Microsoft themselves admitted, this is NOT a change in policy - it's a change in NAME only.
Check YouTube...
I am very curious how Microsoft defines "ample time" especially considering some of their vulnerabilities (like the one recently "patched" in the DOS subsystem) have existed for years or decades.
This isn't a slam at Microsoft, it's a hope that someone has some clarification that can be used as a context to determine if this statement means anything. Even when the terms of their statements are less ambiguous, they seem to find ways of backpedalling - thus greater clarity on something so very ambiguous is warranted (even if it turns out to be pointless in the long run per whatever practices they actually employ).
Oh wait, the summary is not correct (of course) - but the reality of the statement is worse:
Microsoft:
CVD's core principles are simple: vendors and finders need to work closely toward a resolution; extensive efforts should be made to make a timely response; and only in the event of active attacks is public disclosure, focused on mitigations and workarounds, likely the best course of action -- and even then it should be coordinated as closely as possible.
Inotherwords, this statement really says "You should never tell anyone but us, unless active attacks are taking place - but even then, you should coordinate such with us" (at which point, they will probably say "dont tell anyone" as has been the current and previous cases.
Also, who are they to dictate how (and to who) researchers disclose such information? Is there some legal basis for this, or is (will) it be under the threat of using their financial muscle and influence to try to get the person charged with some sort of online security or terrorist crime? Yes... for those who don't know, the Patriot Act does indeed cover such things.
Additionally, the spin group at Microsoft said this, which is misleading in the grand context of this problem:
Microsoft:
However, we fundamentally believe (and our experience over the last 10 years has shown) that once vulnerability details are released publicly, the probability of exploitation rises significantly. Without coordination in place to provide a security update or tested workarounds, risk to customers is greatly amplified.
The truth is, once a vulnerability is released to the public and exploited, Microsoft is somewhat forced to fix it in a more timely fashion - as opposed to ignoring it for years (the numerous .NET exploits that still aren't fully patched) or decades (the DOS exploit recently patched).
This is really a non-news item as this is business as usual, carefully worded to seem like Microsoft is changing their stance on things (while the reality is, they are not).
But what will this do to the price on the average bag of pot on the street? Do we have a Splif Price Index to compare this with?
I assume that even with a tax the price will lower as supply can now meet demand. Of course if this was done right only sales of the narcotic part of the plant would be taxed as there are other uses for the same plant such as producing cloth. But knowing the US govt they will tax growing it until it's no longer profitable.
I always thought that the type of cannibis plant used for pot is not the same as the one used for hemp and the other (non pot related) medicinal purposes.
So does Wikipedia, and a few hundred other sites. Pot plants do not have the same type of fiber or fiber strength, and hemp plants have virtually no THC in them. This is a sad myth that has been spreading for years.
Hemp plants are also very useful as supplements (amino acids, protein and more - in some cases, more than any other thing normally consumed). But again, you cant get high off them. And you cant use pot plants to make decent hemp products.
Don't worry, no company will touch this and no financial institution will fund it. This whole idea has DEA bust written all over it. California can do whatever they want to legalize it but so long as it's illegal under federal statute large scale grow operations will be way too hot to touch. The interesting thing would be if the state were to grow it themselves, would pit states rights against federal drug laws.
Wrong! The tobacco industry is geared up, ready and waiting - including having trademarked various sale names for such products. Google "tobacco companies marijuana" if you dont believe me.
As for the Feds, how long do you think it will be that they hold out? Guarantee you they still have the methods in place to tax this, regardless of the current legality. Money will win out in this.
If only I could find a cable long enough. Watch this part:
NO SIGNAL LOSS - beat that!
I was not aware that they even needed evidence. It doesn't seem to have stopped them so far.
True. I should have put evidence in quotes, to imply that though it is a term that the **AA use, in actuality their usage does not fit the accepted definition of the wording, since they often have nothing that fits the criteria for such.
Thanks for the clarification! :-)
Almost every point you wrote down increases the amount of traffic on the roads and the amount of fuel used.
Sorry, you are incorrect. And unlike your post, I will elaborate (though I do understand that on the face of things, your post didnt seem to need elaboration).
* The car can park itself anywhere, get service or pick up stuff while you're working. Less need to use valuable city real estate and street area on parking. And as people no longer park along the streets they get effectively wider, with more space for traffic but also for bicycle lanes.
As one who has had to drive around NYC for 30 minutes looking for a parking spot, this will save on gas and reduce emissions.
* A two-car family may only need one, as the car can go by itself to pick up family members as they need it.
This depends on where the family needs to go or where they are - all in all, I'd say this may equal out to two cars travelling two places with two sets of passengers.
* A family may in fact own no car. Car pooling becomes much more effective when you can call up a car from the pool to your front door at any time.
Would be similar to them taking mass transit. Comparing the costs per passenger to things like the NYC subway or LIRR, carpooling is actually a better alternative (unless one considers carpooling 2 passengers or less - which most people do not). Check the NY MTA or LIRR or Wikipedia pages for the breakdown of fuel costs per passenger.
* No need for a license. People with dementia, or taking medication, or with severe disabilities, or underage can still get around, no problem.
Unrelated to your or my premise.
* The cars will be scrupulous about obeying traffic laws and speed limits. But even with a small part self-driving cars, they will act as pace cars and slow and smooth traffic for everyone. Even more so, as they'll be recording everything happening around them, and other drivers know it. Pace will be slower, but people will arrive sooner.
Assuming, like some non-US countries that employ "follow trucks" where one is driven, and the rest are computer controlled to follow, we convert HOV lanes into lanes for such vehicles (or "everyone" (ie: a large portion of the population) owns one), this will save a lot on emissions and fuel. As an example, when I used to commute to NYC (48 miles) it would take between 2.5 to 3 hours. Now... with such a car, in a dedicated lane, it would take 50 minutes. Take the MILLIONS of people who do such a commute every day and put them in such a vehicle, and it's a reduction of up to 2 hours EACH way worth of fuel and emissions.
Regardless, as many traffic studies have shown, traffic is largely affected, worsened, or caused by idiotic human driving practices, such as following too closely, resulting in the need to brake sharply when someone ahead hits their brakes, thus slowing down the person behind you (and oneself) to a far slower speed than following at a safer distance would create - which creates a chain reaction and a traffic jam. Such cars as these would not do this, speeding up the average traffic flow, and reducing travel times (and emissions and fuel use).
* Life becomes tough for taxi drivers. Taking a taxi would become the same as short-term car rental in practice, and cheaper than taxis as there's no drivers salary to pay.
Unrelated to our premise, but likely that taxis would simply become automated. Or semi-related, as in the car could care less how much money it makes and would travel from the completion of one fare to the next closest pickup, instead of doing what happens in various suburban areas (like mine) where the taxi driver will instead pick the fare they expect to make the most money off of, and drive cross town to do the pickup instead of picking up the shorter nearby fare.
* Point to point transport becomes cheaper too, with driverless vans and trucks shuttli
A quick read of TFAs and some links within them lead me to think this is a non-story. They write that BP had blank screens and photoshopped them to be not blank, saying "Why were they blank? coffee break ?" There's a ton of reasons they could be blank. A bit stupid of BP to 'shop them though.
Very true... I would expect 3 guys to be sitting there staring at blank screens instead of... oh, I dunno... what's going on at the spill site. Oh wait, that would make things even more incongruous with their claims of hundreds of vessels and such involved, that are all being monitored from this control center.
Guarantee you that was the motivation. Whoever took the picture didnt realize that (a) some (all?) 3 of the people "monitoring" were monitoring nothing when the picture was snapped (looking the wrong direction at blank screens) and (b) making things look less busy and involved and "in control" by having blank screens was probably a bad idea. I would also surmise that the photoshopping was not done by a photographer, but by someone higher up at BP. It would explain the horrendous job.
Heck, people claim we are amatuers, yet if you watch the opening teaser to Star Trek Phase 2: Blood and Fire Part 1, you will see a few bridge scenes where Spock is not at his station (camera showing Kirk and Chekov). He WAS at his station. We removed him because it made the scene look too busy. We removed it from full motion video, and no one has caught it (here's the key... look at the blinkies on Spock's library computer - slow fade on and off (instead of blink on and off) - those are the scenes Spock was removed from). Yet a pro photographer couldnt properly photoshop one image?. Bullshit. I would bet this is some unskilled upper management type who botched the Photoshop job. People who play with Photoshop could do better.
That of course makes this a worse offense, if my guess is correct.
What does BP stand for?
BP= BIG Polluter which translates to any language as "BIG PayDay" for all after they are taken toe the cleaners (the court)! :)
Actually, since British Petroleum (BP) merged with the American Oil Company (Amoco) and became "BP Amoco" the "BP" doesn't actually stand for anything anymore, it's just a "B" and a "P", but lets not allow facts to get in the way of the ranting eh!
eh, you've been here for a while I see. ;-)
The reason this story is newsworthy is because humanity in general hates liars.
I'd argue the exact opposite. Humanity in general seems to love liars and being lied to. They idolize those who present a rosy picture of the world. Even worse, humans have a tendency to villainise those who point out the lies and hypocrisy in what they're being told.
I SOOOO want to disagree with you, you asshole!!! How dare you say that about humanity?!?!?! Humanity hates liars, and true reality has nothing to do with that!!!!! ;-)
it's currently the antagonist in what will be recorded as one of the worst environmental disasters of the 21st century.
There's an awful lot of 21st Century left yet, not sure I'd make that statement quite yet.
Yeah, unless some sanction runs BP out of business (unlikely to the point of impossible-to-happen), then there's still plenty of time for BP to screw up even worse. They have been doing pretty well at screwing up worse than their previous efforts. On a regular basis. I expect in another 20 years or so, this will seem like a drop in the ocean compared to their next calamity.
SOME of BP's environmental disasters - There are a bunch more that are either not listed there or not directly attributed to them.
So... give 'em time. I am sure you are right, and they will do "better" very soon in order to top this environmental disaster. :-)
The reason why the Nexus One failed is because it was so damned expensive out of pocket.
False, just like the "article" which neglects to mention the deep subsidy that was applied to the phone price if one bought it via T-Mobile. Also, has anyone actually done a study to see how many people try a phone before they buy? Most of the phone stores I have visited have dummy models and very few actual, working phones. Not just do the dummy models do nothing (and are often empty cases), but because of lack of internal hardware, lack of screen (plastic printed insert instead), etc; I've rarely ever been able to be "hands on" with a new phone unless a friend of mine has owned one before my purchase.
I suspect lack of decent advertising was the real culprit.
The logs they are speaking of is rather who customer got which IP lease for which date and time. Without those it's just an IP with no-one to charge. With them they got a real person.
until that IP address is witnessed logging in to a facebook account or checking an email address or the 1000s of other ways traffic can be analyzed to pair requests up with real people.
Really? I was not aware such evidence was required in such cases... I wasnt even aware that such evidence needed to be accurate. Numerous **AA cases come to mind...
I hear Google has a great tool for this that they use for Google Voice...
Or... transcribed...
I'm here googoo, hi a grape too fur this that day fuse far google boys...
You don't know that. Given the secrecy we allow the government to operate under, there could be a gag order in place. The patriot act permits that kind of thing.
I'd like to add to this... does one really think that a "suggestion" by the government to take down the offending site/server was expected (by the government) to be taken as a suggestion? I wonder what consequences there might be for not, of one's "own" volition, agreeing to and following the government's "suggestion"?
As much as I disliked the DMCA, the safe-harbor provision has done its job.
Google didn't violate peoples copyrights. The individual uploaders may or may not have, according to the varying nuances of fair use. The benefits of youtube far outweigh the theoretical loss of revenue.
Google spent a 100m not defending its good name but to set a legal precedent and defend the value of its company. Once the legal precedent has been set, the cost of defending these suits will drop a great deal.
Of Google will claim the entire 100m as a tax writeoff.
Screw that! I am very happy with the amount Google spent...
*IF* Google remembers this part of the DMCA: 512(f)
(f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
Inotherwords, Viacom owes Google their court costs, expenses AND the expenses related to disabling/removing the content. After all, Viacom knowingly had content removed that they posted or authorized for posting - that's a knowing violation right there - not to mention trying to use the DMCA for an "after the fact, the DMCA has already been satisfied on the other issues" attack.
If memory serves, there are other sections as well that spell out some pretty nice (errr... nasty) damages that Google could be eligible for. So... I'd rather see the full ball game becoming a win for Google, instead of just the first couple innings. That would be a much better precedent. No longer would the **AA groups be seeding content to use to try to catch others, no longer would they recklessly send takedown notices for content they dont have the right to do so.
Full court press Google!!! Go for the jugular!!!
Maybe for Internet Explorer, but that's Microsoft's responsibility to update.
And it's web developers' responsibility to make sure that their shit works for its target audience, even if that means holding back because the clueless masses that comprise said audience insist on using Microsoft's cripple-ware.
Those with mod points... you may not like his message, you may not like the way he worded it... but if you've ever been a web developer for any company that needs a web presence everyone can use, then you know what geminidomino says is true. So... why is it modded flamebait?
Thanks guys!
The first oddity is why the author believes that the data would sit around for years before being used. Like there's an "exploit bank" where you can deposit your collection of stolen data and gain interest on it until you "cash them in". I'd think far more likely it'll get used fairly rapidly, or never. How you fence or launder millions of records is kind of a mystery to begin with.
There are - and it's been covered here, even if not called those terms. There are "organizations" that do nothing but collect this info and then sell it off over time to whoever wants to buy it. I'm sure they dont put expiration dates on their data, and will gladly sell you a collection of records with 10 day old data and 10 year old data, all mixed together.
I thought most people say XP-64 is crap?
I just bought a Windows 7 PC used for $150. I never even thought about the RAM limit. It's just a 32-bit CPU so that means I can never go larger than 3 gigabyte. :-( On the other hand maybe I'll never need to. My current XP-PC is still on just half-a-gig and works fine. (shrug)
I didnt realize that anyone made 32bit CPUs anymore... what machine is it?