Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:what to do, what to do (Score 1) 553

by James Skarzinskas (#29149387) Attached to: Initial Tests Fail To Find Gravitational Waves

A fluffy metaphor, to be sure, but that's the whole of it. Your basic angle of attack sits on a flawed premise.

There is not, cannot be, any supernatural. That's not a proof you have, it's an assumption that you start with.

And a perfectly valid, logical assumption it is; for to lend credence to, and to posit the supernatural would be to assert a positive claim for which no evidential support can be provided on behalf of the claimant. Failing to accomodate for the insubstantial is not a misguided assumption--it is a rational, sane default.

While I enjoyed your unique perspective on the subject, we're hardly nomadic worshippers roaming the open teal plains of the Windows 95 desktop, paying devout, pious tribute to the seemingly stochastic methods of an almighty oversized mouse cursor. O, the tumbleweed of questionable JPEGs adrift in the sandstorms of this barren, biblical expanse. Truth is, our registers just aren't being rewritten. The inexorable march of scientific advancement has been successfully unraveling alleged "miracles" for nearly as long as they've been purported, with no hallelujah of divine tampering left unrattled to this date. Drawing up images of some cosmic debug session is disingenuous and superfluous, at best.

If you were able to approach this post with a checklist of seemingly random phenomena analogous to the passing whims of a desktop user, totally unapproachable and inexplicable through our established fundamentals, I would quite frankly not be tapping out this reply.

However, the reality is that your post, well not inflammatory, and certainly well composed enough to warrant its superficial, positive moderation, is just another passive aggressive manner for creationists to rudely interject at the dinner table with a new spin on perverting the scientific method. "But, but, but, He's outside science and reason, don't you get it? Assuming He's not is just sooooooo presumptuous of you! And gee-whiz, I thought you guys were the scientists!"

I'm sure you had good intentions, but honestly, that's just not how it works.

Security

AV-Test Deems Windows Security Essentials "Very Good" 318

Posted by timothy
from the if-you're-in-the-right-demographic dept.
CWmike writes "Microsoft's new free security software, Windows Security Essentials, passed a preliminary antivirus exam with flying colors, said independent and trusted firm AV-Test, which tested Essentials, launched yesterday in beta, on Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7. It put it up against nearly 3,200 common viruses, bot Trojans and worms, said Andreas Marx, one of the firm's managers. The malware was culled from the most recent WildList, a list of threats actually actively attacking computers. 'All files were properly detected and treated by the product,' Marx said in an e-mail. 'That's good, as several other [antivirus] scanners are still not able to detect and kill all of these critters yet.' It also tested well on false positives."

Comment: Cheap! (Score 1) 685

by James Skarzinskas (#28422695) Attached to: Blu-ray Adoption Soft, More Still Own HD DVD

And with HD-DVDs failure, retailers dumped their stock cheap. HD-DVD players, HD-DVD discs, all for next to nothing. People picking up that new HDTV, being advised by a sales rep that they'll need an HD source? Probably going to snag that cheap "get rid of all this crap as fast as possible" HD-DVD package. There are many deceptions within these figures, if the figures themselves are not suspect to begin with.

Windows

+ - Why Microsoft is innocent with Internet Explorer->

Submitted by
Crazzaper
Crazzaper writes "With the EU breathing down Microsoft's back in regards to including Internet Explorer with Windows 7, Tom's Hardware took an interesting point of view on the subject and says that Microsoft is the victim. The article made draws up some interesting points about users who install their OS find that there's no browser. What's also interesting is that comments are comparing the EU's move to McDonald's selling KFC or Coke bundling one can of Pepsi with every six-pack of Coke. The article argues that the EU's restriction on Windows will ultimately be an inconvenience for the user."
Link to Original Source
Security

+ - Sniffing Browser History Without Javascript->

Submitted by
Ergasiophobia
Ergasiophobia writes "I'm just going to quote the page itself here, as it gives a pretty good description.

It actually works pretty simply — it is simpler than the Javascript implementation. All it does is load a page (in a hidden Iframe) which contains lots of links. If a link is visited, a background (which isn't really a background) is loaded as defined in the CSS. The "background" image will log the information, and then store it (and, in this case, it is displayed to you).

http://www.making-the-web.com/misc/sites-you-visit/nojs/ Is a demonstration of a method to find out the browsing history of a visitor to a website, no javascript required. It seems the only drawbacks to this method are the increased load on your browser, and that it requires a list of websites to check against."
Link to Original Source

Google

+ - Youtube finally fixes HD problem

Submitted by
Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward writes "In the last few days, YouTube have fixed the issue whereby HD videos stream in lower quality than standard definition unless the HD button is clicked. Now, without clicking the HD button, HD streams in high quality and in the standard screen size. The feature does not appear to work with existing HD content, only for newly uploaded files. Example video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOcEIUrAkOE No announcement regarding this major improvement appears to have been made by YouTube"
Security

+ - 4Chan Attacks YouTube, Uploads Kids Clips w/ Porn-> 2

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Anonymous members of the internet board 4Chan have organized an attack on YouTube, uploading a number of children's clips and cartoons that switch mid-movie to videos depicting adults engaged in various sexual acts. This is very reminiscent of their attack last year on an internet forum for epileptics, which triggered a number of photosensitive seizures by uploading fast-moving and colorful images to the forum."
Link to Original Source
Social Networks

+ - Should Wikipedians Edit Stories for Pay?

Submitted by
Hugh Pickens
Hugh Pickens writes "The Register reports that a longtime Wikipedia admin has been caught offering to edit the online encyclopedia in exchange for cash after someone noticed a post to an online job marketplace where he was advertising his services. "Besides technical writing, I also am an accomplished senior Wikipedia administrator with several featured articles to my name," read the post, which has since been changed. "If you need a good profile on Wikipedia, I can help you out there too through my rich experience." Wikipedia promptly opened a discussion page to try to reach consensus on the community view of "paid editing" and so far opinion seems to be divided between those who say it's ok as long as full disclosure is made and "edits are compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:N," and others who say that paid editing automatically creates a conflict of interest. Back in 2006, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales shot down a company known as MyWikiBiz, where you could "author your legacy on the Internet" which was forced to reinvent itself outside of Wikipedia. "It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc., I will personally block any cases that I am shown," wrote Wales. But as the Register points out although Wales "frowns on individual editors making cash from the free encyclopedia, he has no problem doing so himself" making "upwards of $75,000 for each of his Wikipedia-centric speaking engagements.""

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all alike.

Working...