I don't even have a mobile (cell) phone. I think my collection of gadgets is about the same.
Anyway, the more important question is "what is the sacrifice you are making by embracing multi-purpose devices?" A DSLR will produce better photos than your iPhone (or whatever). A point-n-click camera will also. A dedicated scanner is likely to produce a better scan than a scanner tacked on to a printer. I could find examples relevant to the other examples as well but there is no point because they are easy to find. I, personally, would prefer a dedicated "gadget" that does one thing and does it well over a gadget that does many things but with less quality. YMMV.
Actually I am pretty sure that font rendering under Windows is in kernel space, so conceivably simply displaying a font could be an effective attack vector; i.e. I don't think that an exploit relying at least partially the font rendering system is beyond the realm of possibility.
Server-side C or C++ work fine. But then there is the problem that the server is executing the code so most website servers wouldn't be able to handle the load. The alternative is for the client to do the processing which is fraught with danger. It's one of the reasons that I've always been averse to client-side execution from the start but, pragmatically, there is no way around it. Web-browsers these days are more like virtual machines than anything else.
Also, how is he going to prove his innocence? He shouldn't have to prove his innocence because that is not how things should work. The burden of proof is not on him. It's on the prosecutor. But, the prosecutor has lots of evidence such as easily faked IRC logs, so it's basically an open and shut case.
I'm seeing this word used a lot here. "Allegedly", hopefully that means his involvement is still uncertain.
As in, he hasn't been pronounced guilty before he's had his chance to prove his innocence.
But, it's the USA. He *has* been pronounced guilty. As can be clearly read at http://gizmodo.com/5990635/reuters-employee-exposed-as-anonymous-agent (with updates... where is the RSS feed?) it's just a matter of time. The verdict has already been reached. And the alleged culprit will get 30 years imprisonment for scribbling all over the book of his kindergarten friend. This is a very serious thing. The only way the breaking news could be more enthralling and nail-biting is if the death penalty was applicable to scribbling. Oh. Wait. 30 years? The death penalty would probably be too humane.
The reconstructed photo is a montage of known images stuck together to match the analysis of the highly magnified zoomed portions of the photos. Seriously.
Well, I am French and these numbers are possible as Minitel was very popular at the time. Many people were using it for banking, directory search, exam results and of course "Minitel rose".
I certainly didn't mean to cast doubt upon the figures and that was not my intention at all. I merely express surprise at the number. My original response should not be read as a negative thing; my surprise was meant to read as "wow."
From Wikipedia: "In the late 1990s, Minitel connections were stable at 100 million a month plus 150 million online directory inquiries, in spite of growing Internet use."
I'm actually very surprised by that number. We had a similar system in Australia, but I don't know the number of connections it supported, but I really would have guessed the total users for such a system would have been 100000 at the most.
Who is Adam Clark Estes? I'd really like to know, because his "article" reads like it was written like a 5-year-old. "Ooooh, you can't snitch on people; the honour code is not to snitch! They are is not are playing fair! They is are doing what they're s'posed to do! They stoled my donut and lunch money but I didn't snitch! Snitches is are naughty!" Is he still in kindergarten?
His closing words in his "article": "Well, who looks triumphant now?"
Passengers will be able to dress in 1912-style clothing, giving them an opportunity to step back in time [...]
I am so glad they have given permission to dress as one sees fit. But, Mr Palmer and associates, if I want to dress in 1912-stlye clothing I'd do it with or without your permission, so please stay the fuck out of my personal life and dictation of how I should dress. Thank you. Am I allowed to abstain from shaving?
Are you American? I ask only because I think only an American would expect that saying "Aman who inaccuratelyhits the spacebar?" would be an acceptable answer. It relates back to education. Anyway, the question is rhetorical; I know you're an American because only an American would write such an absurd response and have the hubris, or ignorance (or most likely both -- you and your countrymen are known the world over as being particularly stupid with an average IQ of less than 80), and expect people to accept it as valid or sensical. America! Fuck yeah!
The United States of America can't convert to metric and SI units so it's not reasonable that they could convert to any standard. It is a country full of dumb arses (or, asses because they also cannot spell.)
Back in about 1994 I was at a Microsoft conference and they were giving away free copies of Windows NT to anyone who could answer how much NT could address (the address bus was 32 bits at the time). I answered correctly with the answer 2^32 bytes and got my free copy of NT (still in a box somewhere in storage). So at least at that conference I was at MS recognised that the correct quantity was 2^32. So, something seems to be wrong with this article.
Why can they sell it to the "poor people" (your words) at a much cheaper price and still make a profit? But if you're "richer" they sell it to you for more. Does that make any sense at all?
Move location? That's a stupid answer. The correct answer is you stand up for what you believe is right. If you don't stand up for what you believe in (i.e. run away to China as you suggest) then you are a coward. Not only are you a coward but you relinquish your right to have an opinion and believe in that opinion strongly enough to fight for it. Nice answer apart from that.
And your misguided belief is that this is "right". Oh, and don't go and reply to me with a lecture on the difference between business and right, or fairness and unfairness, or ideal scenarios, or any other bullshit. Don't go on about shareholders and the company's responsibility to their shareholders, or that it costs more to transmit data to such-and-such-country (that's definite bullshit as far as Adobe et al. are concerned anyway), or that "business is business", or that "businesses exist to maximise profit". All bullshit. Oh, "they're not a charity?" No, of course they're not. That doesn't answer the question though: "If they can make a profit in the US by selling the digital product for $200 [made up price] then why cannot they make a profit for selling it at the same price -- currency adjusted -- in any other country?" Oh, "support" I hear you think. Think again. They are profiteering. No more, no less.
"It's only logical to assume that conspiracies are everywhere, because that's what people do. They conspire. If you can't get the message, get the man." - Mel Gibson (from an interview)
Holy crap! I have to change my entire thought process because Mel Gibson said that. He is famous as a logician and philosopher, so he must be right:(
Slashdot Mirror
I don't even have a mobile (cell) phone. I think my collection of gadgets is about the same.
Anyway, the more important question is "what is the sacrifice you are making by embracing multi-purpose devices?" A DSLR will produce better photos than your iPhone (or whatever). A point-n-click camera will also. A dedicated scanner is likely to produce a better scan than a scanner tacked on to a printer. I could find examples relevant to the other examples as well but there is no point because they are easy to find. I, personally, would prefer a dedicated "gadget" that does one thing and does it well over a gadget that does many things but with less quality. YMMV.
I solved the problem by:
1) Uninstalling Java
2) Throwing the computer in the trash
Problem solved.
I have done this as well! I also don't use the internet.
Actually I am pretty sure that font rendering under Windows is in kernel space, so conceivably simply displaying a font could be an effective attack vector; i.e. I don't think that an exploit relying at least partially the font rendering system is beyond the realm of possibility.
Even displaying a PDF (or rendering fonts for that matter -- they are code as well in most instances these days) is the browser executing something.
Server-side C or C++ work fine. But then there is the problem that the server is executing the code so most website servers wouldn't be able to handle the load. The alternative is for the client to do the processing which is fraught with danger. It's one of the reasons that I've always been averse to client-side execution from the start but, pragmatically, there is no way around it. Web-browsers these days are more like virtual machines than anything else.
Also, how is he going to prove his innocence? He shouldn't have to prove his innocence because that is not how things should work. The burden of proof is not on him. It's on the prosecutor. But, the prosecutor has lots of evidence such as easily faked IRC logs, so it's basically an open and shut case.
I'm seeing this word used a lot here. "Allegedly", hopefully that means his involvement is still uncertain.
As in, he hasn't been pronounced guilty before he's had his chance to prove his innocence.
But, it's the USA. He *has* been pronounced guilty. As can be clearly read at http://gizmodo.com/5990635/reuters-employee-exposed-as-anonymous-agent (with updates... where is the RSS feed?) it's just a matter of time. The verdict has already been reached. And the alleged culprit will get 30 years imprisonment for scribbling all over the book of his kindergarten friend. This is a very serious thing. The only way the breaking news could be more enthralling and nail-biting is if the death penalty was applicable to scribbling. Oh. Wait. 30 years? The death penalty would probably be too humane.
The United States of America. I would be ashamed if I were a citizen of that country.
And, the "story" by Sam Biddle? Wow, talk about sensationalism. Live updates on this earth-shattering, breaking news! I am on the edge of my seat.
The reconstructed photo is a montage of known images stuck together to match the analysis of the highly magnified zoomed portions of the photos. Seriously.
Well, I am French and these numbers are possible as Minitel was very popular at the time.
Many people were using it for banking, directory search, exam results and of course "Minitel rose".
I certainly didn't mean to cast doubt upon the figures and that was not my intention at all. I merely express surprise at the number. My original response should not be read as a negative thing; my surprise was meant to read as "wow."
From Wikipedia: "In the late 1990s, Minitel connections were stable at 100 million a month plus 150 million online directory inquiries, in spite of growing Internet use."
I'm actually very surprised by that number. We had a similar system in Australia, but I don't know the number of connections it supported, but I really would have guessed the total users for such a system would have been 100000 at the most.
Who is Adam Clark Estes? I'd really like to know, because his "article" reads like it was written like a 5-year-old. "Ooooh, you can't snitch on people; the honour code is not to snitch! They are is not are playing fair! They is are doing what they're s'posed to do! They stoled my donut and lunch money but I didn't snitch! Snitches is are naughty!" Is he still in kindergarten?
His closing words in his "article": "Well, who looks triumphant now?"
Not you, Adam. But you do look like a moron.
You predict that EA will die but maybe they won't? You're worse than a meteorologist!
Passengers will be able to dress in 1912-style clothing, giving them an opportunity to step back in time [...]
I am so glad they have given permission to dress as one sees fit. But, Mr Palmer and associates, if I want to dress in 1912-stlye clothing I'd do it with or without your permission, so please stay the fuck out of my personal life and dictation of how I should dress. Thank you. Am I allowed to abstain from shaving?
Nah it's more like the owner of a car dealership who has never heard of a camshaft.
Are you American? I ask only because I think only an American would expect that saying "Aman who inaccuratelyhits the spacebar?" would be an acceptable answer. It relates back to education. Anyway, the question is rhetorical; I know you're an American because only an American would write such an absurd response and have the hubris, or ignorance (or most likely both -- you and your countrymen are known the world over as being particularly stupid with an average IQ of less than 80), and expect people to accept it as valid or sensical. America! Fuck yeah!
Inaccuratelyhits the space bar three times in a row? Yep, I believe you.
I really do pity you people with an American education. Really. Who is "noone", by the way?
The United States of America can't convert to metric and SI units so it's not reasonable that they could convert to any standard. It is a country full of dumb arses (or, asses because they also cannot spell.)
Sorry, but that's rubbish. GiB was "invented" to justify the incorrect marketing. 1GB has *always* and forever will be 2^30.
Back in about 1994 I was at a Microsoft conference and they were giving away free copies of Windows NT to anyone who could answer how much NT could address (the address bus was 32 bits at the time). I answered correctly with the answer 2^32 bytes and got my free copy of NT (still in a box somewhere in storage). So at least at that conference I was at MS recognised that the correct quantity was 2^32. So, something seems to be wrong with this article.
Why can they sell it to the "poor people" (your words) at a much cheaper price and still make a profit? But if you're "richer" they sell it to you for more. Does that make any sense at all?
Move location? That's a stupid answer. The correct answer is you stand up for what you believe is right. If you don't stand up for what you believe in (i.e. run away to China as you suggest) then you are a coward. Not only are you a coward but you relinquish your right to have an opinion and believe in that opinion strongly enough to fight for it. Nice answer apart from that.
And your misguided belief is that this is "right". Oh, and don't go and reply to me with a lecture on the difference between business and right, or fairness and unfairness, or ideal scenarios, or any other bullshit. Don't go on about shareholders and the company's responsibility to their shareholders, or that it costs more to transmit data to such-and-such-country (that's definite bullshit as far as Adobe et al. are concerned anyway), or that "business is business", or that "businesses exist to maximise profit". All bullshit. Oh, "they're not a charity?" No, of course they're not. That doesn't answer the question though: "If they can make a profit in the US by selling the digital product for $200 [made up price] then why cannot they make a profit for selling it at the same price -- currency adjusted -- in any other country?" Oh, "support" I hear you think. Think again. They are profiteering. No more, no less.
"It's only logical to assume that conspiracies are everywhere, because that's what people do. They conspire. If you can't get the message, get the man." - Mel Gibson (from an interview)
Holy crap! I have to change my entire thought process because Mel Gibson said that. He is famous as a logician and philosopher, so he must be right :(