He can give them the password to the one that has his hardcore porn in it, and keep the password to the hidden volume that has his ILLEGAL hardcore porn, because nobody can prove it's there, and the courts aren't really smart enough to consider the possibility anyway.
Note: I categorically do not use TrueCrypt, or hidden volumes.
Jesus, I hate the HFCS debate. Look, HFCS is bad. You know why?
Because it's fucking sugar. Sugar makes you fat, no matter where it's from. If you use more, it makes you more fat.
HFCS is an economic problem, not a chemical problem. People like things that are sweet, and HFCS is a very cheap way to make things sweet. Take away the HFCS, and you'll just get a more expensive product with the same amount of sugar, or a product that isn't as tasty.
If you want people to get less fat, try putting less sugar, of any kind, into your products. First you'll have to get them to agree to buy those products, which don't taste as good. GLWT.
They are just good at hiding it. But they're not even that good. Take, for example, the current fashion of outing conservative, anti-gay Republicans as gay. These people aren't puritans, they're just self-loathing, and it's gotten damn easy to catch them at being hypocrites.. so easy that it's become a cliche that if you sound like a conservative white male, you're probably cruising me.
This applies to all kinds of sins. Human frailty and ego being what they are, you will find plenty of examples of the public teetotaler who gets drunk at home and beats his wife, the anti-drug mom who's hopelessly addicted to Oxy, the pro-censorship nut who's into rape porn, and so on. And technology being what it is, their private sins will soon become part of their permanent record, too. The people they hurt will out them to get revenge or force them to get treatment. It only takes one uploaded video to make your private sin public for eternity.
Worry less about what puritans will do and more about how to forgive your loved ones when you find out what they're really like.
Google doesn't want to execute JS in emails, and never did. Nobody should (nor does) allow JS in email afaik. The problem is the JS is executing *anyway*, despite Google's filters. They found a crack in the filtering and are exploiting it; not because *gmail* executes javascript but because *your browser* does.
Such an option would make email more vulnerable, not less, since some people would set it to "execute", when everyone should be "don't execute".
> For that, you have to start thinking whether or not you met this persona casually at a party or something once, or if you know them from a class or something.
No, you don't. They're called Facebook friends. The only people in my list are people who are really my friends (or close relatives). Even if I know exactly who they are, I don't accept friend requests from anyone I don't have a strong personal relationship with.
And I know who all of those people are. No hard thinking required.
You are right, but so what? If this study were completely wrong, it wouldn't invalidate the mountains of other evidence for global warming. Science exists so that it doesn't matter whether someone agrees with you or not; go to the evidence.
Good question, but the answer is that it does matter. I'm actually a huge fan of Python, but I can indeed see a big advantage in having some element of provability in the language chosen, and I do have some concerns about my favorite language being used for this. Python is a pragmatic, readable language but it isn't a great one for provability.
To address your insightful point: You don't have to trust the compiler. The SEC wants source code to be given. Since you can run the source code on any correct compiler, including one you yourself just wrote, and expect to get the same result, there's no way to exploit it through that.
The unraised point is that you can, in fact, exploit the program code this way. Given innocuous code that in certain situations--some of which may be intentional on the part of the author of the code, some of which may not be--you can get surprising and highly lucrative corner cases. A clever coder can create these intentionally; a bad one can do it unintentionally, and either way it can be hard to spot.
I think the answer to the latter issue is "unit tests". A third party can write tests for a bunch of inputs, run it through your code and make sure your code produces the expected outputs. Discover bugs and backdoors this way, and report them to the code author or SEC, whichever is appropriate.
Sure. As soon as they do that, they'll be blocked. Google is "in" China because Google is physically in China, where:
They are given special access to get through the Great Firewall, and
China can prosecute Google employees if Google doesn't comply with local laws
Google physically shutting down offices means China no longer has leverage over actual human beings working there. So they'll use the only other leverage they have: the Firewall. Expect google.cn to be accessible everywhere but in.cn.
At this point, only the pirates can play the game. They just need to make a list of everyone still playing, and start sending out some local law enforcement. Once all the pirates are in jail, they can disable all DRM everywhere forever. Hooray Ubisoft for making DRM unnecessary!
Who cares about the motivations? "Altruistic" behavior always has motivations, they're just more complex motivations than for "selfish" behavior. Let Google take credit for what they're doing, they're doing the right thing today.
While anyone losing their job is a bummer, the tone of the submission is a little histrionic. What actually happened here is that Oracle laid off two people who were working on accessibility. Again, that's a shame... but as the OSTATIC article points out, if Gnome accessibility work was really just two layoffs away from ending for all time, there were problems with the project before Oracle ever got here.
You know, as the parent, and the article said, if a project is in trouble because of two layoffs, then that project must have been in trouble before they were laid off too. And you can quote me on that.
Then stop doing it. DRM has a development and/or licensing cost associated with it. If using is the same as not using it, then don't use it, and you'll save that money. It's very simple to do a value proposition when the value is zero.
I dunno, kinda seems like you didn't read the article. It leads with "The number one need of any human is to be liked by other humans", and keeps that chord going throughout. A person who is rejected and has no friends is unhappy, whether he's bullied or not, and the focus in the article is rightly on that issue.
If you focus on that part of the message, you see that there is indeed a problem that originates in the suffering child. You can't divide the world into "bullies" and "non-bullies" any more. It's "those who reject him" and "those who don't reject him", and for the kid suffering with no friends, nearly everyone is in the second group. The normative behavior is to reject as alien those who do not respond to social cues. Will you blame the whole world for behaving normally, or try to teach the suffering kid how to break through the perception barrier and get accepted?
Regarding bullies: of course the bully's behavior is non-normative, and needs correction, but that's really the lesser part of the suffering of the lonely child. The greater part is the inability to make friends.
If the thing is done, the actor doesn't have to do anything additional. It doesn't have to be done again, or done more. The only possible change is to undo it. Those who wish to undo it must justify undoing it, because they are the only ones who have need of an affirmative action to be taken.
Huginn and Muninn. I assume they're saving that for some sort of autonomous flying robot system that uses a pair of them to confuse enemy anti-autonomous-aircraft systems.
If you hate the redirects (and I sure do.. copying URLs is the best), then push for HTML5. Specifically this feature: the ping attribute.
It takes what Google (and many, many another site) is doing and makes it possible to implement the ping separately from the target URL. Seems trivial; could make a huge difference.
Of course, the danger is that it gives extension authors an easy target. It's much easier to develop a privacy-enhancing extension that filters out all ping attributes, than it is to perform the same service on a single URL which conflates the ping with the target.
Slashdot Mirror
Use TrueCrypt. Use Hidden Volumes. Any questions?
He can give them the password to the one that has his hardcore porn in it, and keep the password to the hidden volume that has his ILLEGAL hardcore porn, because nobody can prove it's there, and the courts aren't really smart enough to consider the possibility anyway.
Note: I categorically do not use TrueCrypt, or hidden volumes.
God, I wish. Someone should push Ellison down some stairs and find out.
Don't fucking explain to me what "root" means. That's just insulting.
Jesus, I hate the HFCS debate. Look, HFCS is bad. You know why?
Because it's fucking sugar. Sugar makes you fat, no matter where it's from. If you use more, it makes you more fat.
HFCS is an economic problem, not a chemical problem. People like things that are sweet, and HFCS is a very cheap way to make things sweet. Take away the HFCS, and you'll just get a more expensive product with the same amount of sugar, or a product that isn't as tasty.
If you want people to get less fat, try putting less sugar, of any kind, into your products. First you'll have to get them to agree to buy those products, which don't taste as good. GLWT.
He allegedly fucks goats. I have no proof of this, but he hasn't denied it.
I am, of course, talking about Jeffrey Morris, the individual suing TechDirt from the UK.
I wouldn't have bothered with KHTML, even if WebKit being Ellison'd was not only possible but imminent.
The alternate to WebKit is WebKit, forked.
They are just good at hiding it. But they're not even that good. Take, for example, the current fashion of outing conservative, anti-gay Republicans as gay. These people aren't puritans, they're just self-loathing, and it's gotten damn easy to catch them at being hypocrites.. so easy that it's become a cliche that if you sound like a conservative white male, you're probably cruising me.
This applies to all kinds of sins. Human frailty and ego being what they are, you will find plenty of examples of the public teetotaler who gets drunk at home and beats his wife, the anti-drug mom who's hopelessly addicted to Oxy, the pro-censorship nut who's into rape porn, and so on. And technology being what it is, their private sins will soon become part of their permanent record, too. The people they hurt will out them to get revenge or force them to get treatment. It only takes one uploaded video to make your private sin public for eternity.
Worry less about what puritans will do and more about how to forgive your loved ones when you find out what they're really like.
Google doesn't want to execute JS in emails, and never did. Nobody should (nor does) allow JS in email afaik. The problem is the JS is executing *anyway*, despite Google's filters. They found a crack in the filtering and are exploiting it; not because *gmail* executes javascript but because *your browser* does.
Such an option would make email more vulnerable, not less, since some people would set it to "execute", when everyone should be "don't execute".
> For that, you have to start thinking whether or not you met this persona casually at a party or something once, or if you know them from a class or something.
No, you don't. They're called Facebook friends. The only people in my list are people who are really my friends (or close relatives). Even if I know exactly who they are, I don't accept friend requests from anyone I don't have a strong personal relationship with.
And I know who all of those people are. No hard thinking required.
You win an Internet. Just one, but it's a nice one.
He wants to cut the suicide payments.
No, wait, he already did that by fiat. Why is he doing this again?
You are right, but so what? If this study were completely wrong, it wouldn't invalidate the mountains of other evidence for global warming. Science exists so that it doesn't matter whether someone agrees with you or not; go to the evidence.
Good question, but the answer is that it does matter. I'm actually a huge fan of Python, but I can indeed see a big advantage in having some element of provability in the language chosen, and I do have some concerns about my favorite language being used for this. Python is a pragmatic, readable language but it isn't a great one for provability.
To address your insightful point: You don't have to trust the compiler. The SEC wants source code to be given. Since you can run the source code on any correct compiler, including one you yourself just wrote, and expect to get the same result, there's no way to exploit it through that.
The unraised point is that you can, in fact, exploit the program code this way. Given innocuous code that in certain situations--some of which may be intentional on the part of the author of the code, some of which may not be--you can get surprising and highly lucrative corner cases. A clever coder can create these intentionally; a bad one can do it unintentionally, and either way it can be hard to spot.
I think the answer to the latter issue is "unit tests". A third party can write tests for a bunch of inputs, run it through your code and make sure your code produces the expected outputs. Discover bugs and backdoors this way, and report them to the code author or SEC, whichever is appropriate.
Nowadays there's a standard bargain in place that should make it easier to get something like this through.
The school administrators will give the students gaming machines, and in return will get to look at the students naked.
The DS comes with a camera, so there should be no problems pitching this problem to school perverts^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hadministrators.
Yes.
Sure. As soon as they do that, they'll be blocked. Google is "in" China because Google is physically in China, where:
Google physically shutting down offices means China no longer has leverage over actual human beings working there. So they'll use the only other leverage they have: the Firewall. Expect google.cn to be accessible everywhere but in .cn.
At this point, only the pirates can play the game. They just need to make a list of everyone still playing, and start sending out some local law enforcement. Once all the pirates are in jail, they can disable all DRM everywhere forever. Hooray Ubisoft for making DRM unnecessary!
Who cares about the motivations? "Altruistic" behavior always has motivations, they're just more complex motivations than for "selfish" behavior. Let Google take credit for what they're doing, they're doing the right thing today.
. . . when humans do.
You know, as the parent, and the article said, if a project is in trouble because of two layoffs, then that project must have been in trouble before they were laid off too. And you can quote me on that.
Then stop doing it. DRM has a development and/or licensing cost associated with it. If using is the same as not using it, then don't use it, and you'll save that money. It's very simple to do a value proposition when the value is zero.
I dunno, kinda seems like you didn't read the article. It leads with "The number one need of any human is to be liked by other humans", and keeps that chord going throughout. A person who is rejected and has no friends is unhappy, whether he's bullied or not, and the focus in the article is rightly on that issue.
If you focus on that part of the message, you see that there is indeed a problem that originates in the suffering child. You can't divide the world into "bullies" and "non-bullies" any more. It's "those who reject him" and "those who don't reject him", and for the kid suffering with no friends, nearly everyone is in the second group. The normative behavior is to reject as alien those who do not respond to social cues. Will you blame the whole world for behaving normally, or try to teach the suffering kid how to break through the perception barrier and get accepted?
Regarding bullies: of course the bully's behavior is non-normative, and needs correction, but that's really the lesser part of the suffering of the lonely child. The greater part is the inability to make friends.
If the thing is done, the actor doesn't have to do anything additional. It doesn't have to be done again, or done more. The only possible change is to undo it. Those who wish to undo it must justify undoing it, because they are the only ones who have need of an affirmative action to be taken.
Huginn and Muninn. I assume they're saving that for some sort of autonomous flying robot system that uses a pair of them to confuse enemy anti-autonomous-aircraft systems.
If you hate the redirects (and I sure do.. copying URLs is the best), then push for HTML5. Specifically this feature: the ping attribute.
It takes what Google (and many, many another site) is doing and makes it possible to implement the ping separately from the target URL. Seems trivial; could make a huge difference.
Of course, the danger is that it gives extension authors an easy target. It's much easier to develop a privacy-enhancing extension that filters out all ping attributes, than it is to perform the same service on a single URL which conflates the ping with the target.
We'll see; I hold out high hopes for it.