If I'm alone, I'm quiet because what would be the point? The computer's not listening. I'll only swear if I have an audience and something really fucking catastrophic happens to the system.
As in, "oh SHIT the/home partition is unmountable."
Only a couple of shuttles blew up due to poor maintenance while they were publicly run; how much worse can it be when the maintenance budget is managed by someone trying to actually make a profit?
It should be noted that "chrome" is the name of Mozilla's xml-based user interface (not the web rendering engine). It is unrelated to Chromium or Google.
The side effects of a NAT (not all NATs, but the IP masqerading one which has become synonymous with it) are that you lose the ability to accept incoming traffic. Pretty much all Peer-to-peer protocols depend on that in some measure.
Some can cope (I believe Skype has some server-based way of negotiating a direct connection between two firewalled computers, though I don't know the details), while others like BitTorrent keep some limited functionality (you're limited to connections you initiate), and still others (tor, probably - as a node, not a client) will stop working entirely.
With a simple DSL access, possibly using a push-based dynamic DNS service, you can become a server right now. You can even serve out of a local NAT by forwarding a few ports in your router. Without renting a server, you can host a small website, provide an FTP share, seed a torrent, and host a tor node. Particularly in the last case, many small users with their own computers are what tor thrives on.
If your computer has to share its global address with hundreds behind a NAT at the ISP level, this becomes basically impossible (just try asking your ISP to forward a port for you!). The internet will be split into two halves made up by the content providers who can afford a globally accessible address, and the content consumers who sit behind a glorified television.
Regardless of how much people value instant gratification, why was a delayed release ever a good idea? Of course, it is only particularly harmful now that there exists an illegal free alternative that will satisfy demand if the song is not sold quickly enough. But what was ever gained from not selling it instantly? Just the satisfaction of making customers twitch?
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, if those 26 had voted the other way, it would have scraped through. The Republicans were only 90% evil! Yay Republicans!
They wanted the act extended. They introduced it in the first place.
Doing something right, in this case, means failing at doing something evil. Their redeeming feature is incompetence.
That was the Church of Scientology app.
Nicely consistent, plus or minus .9%.
Installing that proprietary crap from the vendor. ... wait, not that kind of driver? Oh.
If I'm alone, I'm quiet because what would be the point? The computer's not listening. I'll only swear if I have an audience and something really fucking catastrophic happens to the system.
As in, "oh SHIT the /home partition is unmountable."
Only a couple of shuttles blew up due to poor maintenance while they were publicly run; how much worse can it be when the maintenance budget is managed by someone trying to actually make a profit?
(As for wifi, an access point isn't much good if personal devices are confiscated.)
A severed fibre or disconnected plug has little in the way of backdoors.
Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a public office... if you're unable to lie?
Fuck! When did Neo go into politics?
But one has to admit Bill Gates has enormous moral backbone in all areas not related to open source and IP law.
Unlike, say, Rupert Murdoch, who combines his paywall and copyright evil with standard everyday evil.
It should be noted that "chrome" is the name of Mozilla's xml-based user interface (not the web rendering engine). It is unrelated to Chromium or Google.
What's a pair o' dice got to do with it?
If you eat meat, and there is no animal it belonged to, will it still upset PETA?
Stuxnet?
The side effects of a NAT (not all NATs, but the IP masqerading one which has become synonymous with it) are that you lose the ability to accept incoming traffic. Pretty much all Peer-to-peer protocols depend on that in some measure.
Some can cope (I believe Skype has some server-based way of negotiating a direct connection between two firewalled computers, though I don't know the details), while others like BitTorrent keep some limited functionality (you're limited to connections you initiate), and still others (tor, probably - as a node, not a client) will stop working entirely.
With a simple DSL access, possibly using a push-based dynamic DNS service, you can become a server right now. You can even serve out of a local NAT by forwarding a few ports in your router. Without renting a server, you can host a small website, provide an FTP share, seed a torrent, and host a tor node. Particularly in the last case, many small users with their own computers are what tor thrives on.
If your computer has to share its global address with hundreds behind a NAT at the ISP level, this becomes basically impossible (just try asking your ISP to forward a port for you!). The internet will be split into two halves made up by the content providers who can afford a globally accessible address, and the content consumers who sit behind a glorified television.
I hear the site also accepts minor misspellings, anagrams, close synonyms and Cockney rhyming slang.
Groan.
All I heard was "salmon". :P
Don't forget the Personal Appeal.
Spammer: "How shall we ever continue our illegal data-mining now that people can ask us nicely not to abuse their privacy?
Our evil plan is foiled!"
Regardless of how much people value instant gratification, why was a delayed release ever a good idea? Of course, it is only particularly harmful now that there exists an illegal free alternative that will satisfy demand if the song is not sold quickly enough. But what was ever gained from not selling it instantly? Just the satisfaction of making customers twitch?
It involves sharks. That makes it news for nerds. :P