Wouldn't that require spoofing the IP address at the same time?
That and cutting off Internet access for the original computer while someone breaks the Google motto. Thankfully all these tasks are too difficult for a government the size of China's. What's that sarcasm punctuation again? Tilde? ~
Centuries of selective breeding by it's very nature also includes centuries
of testing on humans. The pace and nature of the tinkering is such that
everything is self-governing and self-correcting. Once you have a megacorp
that can buy entire national governments and generally push everyone else
accelerating the process you really have very little to keep the process from
running amok.
Anyone remember Starlink GM corn in Taco shells? Imagine that happening with Doritos or other corn chips just before a Super Bowl. The country can't handle that much diarrhea.
No, it does, however, raise the possibility of holy tech support. Prayer circles praying for your tech problems to be solved, for a small fee, of course.
I have a terrible feeling that already exists somewhere.
I'm certain the Christian Scientists are already advocating a belief that calling hardware tech support at your job is not necessary.
Scientologists probably advocate a similar stance but only for software glitches, the worst of which must be purged of thetans by use of a 45 caliber handgun. And Spammers are fair game.
Because the studios execs are scared crapless at the prospect of putting buckets of money into a movie and see it tank. They'd much rather "reboot"/"re-imagine"/rehash old plotlines that sold before than actually take a risk.
That's what I don't understand here... Spiderman4 with the original cast is a guaranteed moneymaker. Rebooted Spiderman is a guaranteed loser. Maybe they want a loser for some reason?
I thought the exact opposite. I though Venom was a terrible addition to the movie. The "Black suit" was okay, as was Eddie, but having the ending of the movie tie in with the removal of the suit and showing more of Eddie Brock's hatred of Parker as a lead-in for Spiderman 4:Venom would have cleaned up the plot lines from Spiderman 3 and made people's mouths water for Spiderman 4. Venom in this movie was too underdone, and his role could have been played by Crazy Harry easily (Spiderman would defeat him by doing the cliche appeal to Harry's good side, but Flint would end up being persuaded instead since Harry's two coconuts short of a tree).
How many reboots / new franchises has this been for spidey in the last 20 years?
Regular Marvel Earth 616 Spiderman Comics:
Clones
"Spider-Totem" magic powers retcon
Mephisto reboot (Parker and Mary Jane never married)
Spiderman 2099 Comics
Ultimate Spiderman Comics
1990's Spiderman cartoon
Toby MacGuire Spiderman movies
2000's Spectacular Spiderman cartoon
That doesn't count the Spiderman & Amazing Friends, Spiderman cartoon, Spiderman Live action TV, Old Spiderman movies, etc. Technically, these were all supposed to be the same spiderman as Earth 616 and the 1990s Spiderman cartoon. Marvel's starting to dilute a main figure of their mythos. It's like they're writing an Arthurian legend and making King Arthur an evil usurper. Nice for a "What If?" comic, but not so much for a retelling of a well-known story. Given how often the first Toby movie is still played on TV, I don't think a lot of people are going to pay money to go see Uncle Ben get shot again unless it's in a flashback in Spiderman 4.
His foes that use science/technology are already well on the path to "evil" long before they encounter the circumstances that turn them into supervillains.
Curt Conners would beg to differ, but the rest of your argument is sound.
"during tough times he would eat grass, paper and sawdust."
grass will provide some vitamins and fill you up, but you can't digest it very well at all, so I bet it was cooked or stewed. Paper and sawdust (and mud) are often eaten as filling, and the mud can provide needed nutrients like iron. Your ID isn't very new; you should know these things.
I can't find it (I bet it's in this thread), but I read a comment on/. recently which was essentially:
"Information can't want anything. People want to be free from tyranny. Privacy is necessary for this." Anyone know the originating quote/comment?
a few weeks ago when they changed the privacy settings anyone who had already changed ANY privacy settings had nothing changed. Only people who had never changed a single privacy setting had their settings changed.
Incorrect. I knew people who made their profile pictures only available for friends. Those people now use generic landscape photos because profile pictures are now visible to *everyone*. Same with friends lists. Also, I had previously completely "opted out" of the facebook third-party API. Now, I can only prevent limited data being shared by my friends to their third party apps, some information still gets shared (like my friends list). All of these mandatory information exposing changes were done with a fanfare announcement of greater privacy option granularity.
Mark Fuckerberg is a Zucktard.
I remember when they changed it, and I knew exactly where it was, because someone asked me about it at the time. I don't remember a huge slashdot campaign about it though.
lobridge writes "Over the last two days multiple news feeds (and Slashdot) have been reporting that Apple has been quietly recommending antivirus software for their machines. It appears now that Apple has deleted an entry on their forums that suggested this and are saying that Mac computers are 'safe out of the box.'"
Oh really - the base system comes with no open external ports. Write a virus that attacks infects it with no user interaction.
Hmm...
Seems like you are the one re-defining "trivial".
Reading comprehension fail. Or Apple employee. Same difference.
Yes, but it's not just that.. it's also that Apple redefines the terms as they go along.
"It's impossible to write a virus for our platform!"
"Ok, here's one I wrote."
"That's not a virus."
"Oh really? How do you figure?"
"It requires user help to move from machine to machine."
"Uhhhh... yes, that's what a virus is."
"No, it has to move from machine to machine without user intervention to be a virus."
"No.. that's a worm.. as has been clearly defined since the Morris worm."
"We call it a virus."
They want all this experience and pay nothing. I don't know about everyone else but getting degrees and certifications "cost" money to obtain.
I'm confused by those sentences. Did you want experience, or wallpaper artists?
[Managers] want all this experience [from prospective employees] and [will only] pay nothing. I don't know about everyone else but getting degrees and certifications "cost" [me] money to obtain[, so I need a certain salary to recoup my investment].
Easier?
"'Comparing the monthly statistics from different anti-virus companies is truly comparing apples and oranges,' said Tom Kelchner, Sunbelt Research Center manager. 'What one company detects and identifies as a specific, named piece of malcode, another may detect generically.'"
The inconsistency stems from the fact that these so-called "antivirus software research labs" are just Windows terminals with neckbeards in each. Symantec's neckbeard prefers browsing porn sites with ActiveX. Fortinet's neckbeard gets his latest and greatest malware from careless P2P downloads. Kapersky's neckbeard gets his viruses from phishing and gambling sites.
Good to know. Now I know which AV vendor I'll be choosing in the future.
The Obama administration is insisting that ACTA "colors within the lines" of current U.S. law - but of course, there is no way to know that until after it is signed and becomes public. In the meantime, the few public interest folks who have signed NDAs and seen draft texts have said that in their opinion, it goes beyond current U.S. law.
Of course if the agreement simply abides by current U.S. law, why the need to be so secretive about it?
There are a number of other issues - like the fact, IIRC, so-called "graduated response" (three-strikes) style laws are permitted under U.S. law, but not implemented by the DMCA, etc. So, it may be that ACTA contains provisions for three-strikes ISP disconnection despite this not being current law in the U.S. There is also the fact that ACTA will almost certainly not include U.S.-style protections for users/consumers.
To use a slippery slope: Capital punishment is permitted under U.S. law too. There needs to be a limit to what sovereignty the U.S. can give away through the actions of one person.
"Give me an implanted (without surgery, though - like some kind of pill), thought-operated organic quantum computer..."?
You're limited to a single meat sack in only one point of the space-time continuty? Next you'll be telling us you only have five senses. You're still in the Stone Age, buddy.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't that require spoofing the IP address at the same time?
That and cutting off Internet access for the original computer while someone breaks the Google motto. Thankfully all these tasks are too difficult for a government the size of China's. What's that sarcasm punctuation again? Tilde? ~
It's basically the same as an nebulizer with nicotine.
So it's a miniature insecticide sprayer?
We've tried the no-talk, all-action approach: Germany and Japan reconstruction. How well did that work?
Fixed that for you. Give Iraq about twenty more years for attitude changes, and another twenty for massive progress.
We were told that beets were a gateway. Beets->sugar->candy->candy cigs/Big League Chew->tobacco->alcohol->D&D->Brimstone.
Centuries of selective breeding by it's very nature also includes centuries of testing on humans. The pace and nature of the tinkering is such that everything is self-governing and self-correcting. Once you have a megacorp that can buy entire national governments and generally push everyone else accelerating the process you really have very little to keep the process from running amok.
Anyone remember Starlink GM corn in Taco shells? Imagine that happening with Doritos or other corn chips just before a Super Bowl. The country can't handle that much diarrhea.
This one was http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/09/07/27/1514209/English-DJ-Claims-Wi-Fi-Allergy
Or maybe this guy's the real nutty deal.
No, it does, however, raise the possibility of holy tech support. Prayer circles praying for your tech problems to be solved, for a small fee, of course. I have a terrible feeling that already exists somewhere.
I'm certain the Christian Scientists are already advocating a belief that calling hardware tech support at your job is not necessary.
Scientologists probably advocate a similar stance but only for software glitches, the worst of which must be purged of thetans by use of a 45 caliber handgun. And Spammers are fair game.
Because the studios execs are scared crapless at the prospect of putting buckets of money into a movie and see it tank. They'd much rather "reboot"/"re-imagine"/rehash old plotlines that sold before than actually take a risk.
That's what I don't understand here... Spiderman4 with the original cast is a guaranteed moneymaker. Rebooted Spiderman is a guaranteed loser. Maybe they want a loser for some reason?
Venom was the only decent part of the movie.
I thought the exact opposite. I though Venom was a terrible addition to the movie. The "Black suit" was okay, as was Eddie, but having the ending of the movie tie in with the removal of the suit and showing more of Eddie Brock's hatred of Parker as a lead-in for Spiderman 4:Venom would have cleaned up the plot lines from Spiderman 3 and made people's mouths water for Spiderman 4. Venom in this movie was too underdone, and his role could have been played by Crazy Harry easily (Spiderman would defeat him by doing the cliche appeal to Harry's good side, but Flint would end up being persuaded instead since Harry's two coconuts short of a tree).
That doesn't count the Spiderman & Amazing Friends, Spiderman cartoon, Spiderman Live action TV, Old Spiderman movies, etc. Technically, these were all supposed to be the same spiderman as Earth 616 and the 1990s Spiderman cartoon. Marvel's starting to dilute a main figure of their mythos. It's like they're writing an Arthurian legend and making King Arthur an evil usurper. Nice for a "What If?" comic, but not so much for a retelling of a well-known story. Given how often the first Toby movie is still played on TV, I don't think a lot of people are going to pay money to go see Uncle Ben get shot again unless it's in a flashback in Spiderman 4.
His foes that use science/technology are already well on the path to "evil" long before they encounter the circumstances that turn them into supervillains.
Curt Conners would beg to differ, but the rest of your argument is sound.
He said he ate glass, ergo it was a joke.
"during tough times he would eat grass , paper and sawdust."
grass will provide some vitamins and fill you up, but you can't digest it very well at all, so I bet it was cooked or stewed. Paper and sawdust (and mud) are often eaten as filling, and the mud can provide needed nutrients like iron. Your ID isn't very new; you should know these things.
Information wants to be free.
I can't find it (I bet it's in this thread), but I read a comment on /. recently which was essentially:
"Information can't want anything. People want to be free from tyranny. Privacy is necessary for this." Anyone know the originating quote/comment?
Okay, let's talk about Zuckerberg. Can anyone comment on the rumors that he has syphilis? Or why he might have a prescription for viagra?
OMG! I hugged that teddy bear too!
a few weeks ago when they changed the privacy settings anyone who had already changed ANY privacy settings had nothing changed. Only people who had never changed a single privacy setting had their settings changed.
Incorrect. I knew people who made their profile pictures only available for friends. Those people now use generic landscape photos because profile pictures are now visible to *everyone*. Same with friends lists. Also, I had previously completely "opted out" of the facebook third-party API. Now, I can only prevent limited data being shared by my friends to their third party apps, some information still gets shared (like my friends list). All of these mandatory information exposing changes were done with a fanfare announcement of greater privacy option granularity.
Mark Fuckerberg is a Zucktard.
How many OS X boxes have been turned into nodes in a botnet?
Enough to make a DDOS and target Macs specifically with slow brute force SSH attempts.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1196525&cid=27551519
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1196525&cid=27552175
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/16/2327246
I remember when they changed it, and I knew exactly where it was, because someone asked me about it at the time. I don't remember a huge slashdot campaign about it though.
FYI
Apple Quietly Recommends Antivirus Software For Macs Posted by timothy on Tuesday December 02 2008 http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/02/1314208
Apple Says Macs Are Safe, No Antivirus Needed Posted by timothy on Wednesday December 03 2008 http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/03/195229
lobridge writes "Over the last two days multiple news feeds (and Slashdot) have been reporting that Apple has been quietly recommending antivirus software for their machines. It appears now that Apple has deleted an entry on their forums that suggested this and are saying that Mac computers are 'safe out of the box.'"
I said writing viruses for OS X is trivial.
Oh really - the base system comes with no open external ports. Write a virus that attacks infects it with no user interaction.
Hmm...
Seems like you are the one re-defining "trivial".
Reading comprehension fail. Or Apple employee. Same difference.
Yes, but it's not just that.. it's also that Apple redefines the terms as they go along.
"It's impossible to write a virus for our platform!"
"Ok, here's one I wrote."
"That's not a virus."
"Oh really? How do you figure?"
"It requires user help to move from machine to machine."
"Uhhhh... yes, that's what a virus is."
"No, it has to move from machine to machine without user intervention to be a virus."
"No.. that's a worm.. as has been clearly defined since the Morris worm."
"We call it a virus."
They want all this experience and pay nothing. I don't know about everyone else but getting degrees and certifications "cost" money to obtain.
I'm confused by those sentences. Did you want experience, or wallpaper artists?
[Managers] want all this experience [from prospective employees] and [will only] pay nothing. I don't know about everyone else but getting degrees and certifications "cost" [me] money to obtain[, so I need a certain salary to recoup my investment].
Easier?
The Founders would puke at the current complacency.
The Founders would puke at the idea that there's no such thing as a "career" anywhere anymore, except in Congress.
"'Comparing the monthly statistics from different anti-virus companies is truly comparing apples and oranges,' said Tom Kelchner, Sunbelt Research Center manager. 'What one company detects and identifies as a specific, named piece of malcode, another may detect generically.'"
The inconsistency stems from the fact that these so-called "antivirus software research labs" are just Windows terminals with neckbeards in each. Symantec's neckbeard prefers browsing porn sites with ActiveX. Fortinet's neckbeard gets his latest and greatest malware from careless P2P downloads. Kapersky's neckbeard gets his viruses from phishing and gambling sites.
Good to know. Now I know which AV vendor I'll be choosing in the future.
The Obama administration is insisting that ACTA "colors within the lines" of current U.S. law - but of course, there is no way to know that until after it is signed and becomes public. In the meantime, the few public interest folks who have signed NDAs and seen draft texts have said that in their opinion, it goes beyond current U.S. law.
Of course if the agreement simply abides by current U.S. law, why the need to be so secretive about it?
There are a number of other issues - like the fact, IIRC, so-called "graduated response" (three-strikes) style laws are permitted under U.S. law, but not implemented by the DMCA, etc. So, it may be that ACTA contains provisions for three-strikes ISP disconnection despite this not being current law in the U.S. There is also the fact that ACTA will almost certainly not include U.S.-style protections for users/consumers.
To use a slippery slope: Capital punishment is permitted under U.S. law too. There needs to be a limit to what sovereignty the U.S. can give away through the actions of one person.
"Give me an implanted (without surgery, though - like some kind of pill), thought-operated organic quantum computer ..."?
You're limited to a single meat sack in only one point of the space-time continuty? Next you'll be telling us you only have five senses. You're still in the Stone Age, buddy.
I got a OoGhiJ MIQtxxXA.
Legend of Soltar FTW.
I mean, Aquaman is enough of a badass already, isn't he?
Monarch, super-strength, harpoon, magic water control, now invisibility. These things are _necessary_ to combat the Superfriends Aquaman.
Turning people into newts.
Hey, he got better.
Turning water into wine.
BTW, He got better too.