Comment Re:Note the spin... (Score 5, Funny) 423
Bah, 65TB? Wait till they discover what's in /dev/rand! I wish the cryptanalysts good luck!
Comment Re:Infamous? (Score 2, Funny) 109
Like how inflammable is more than... flammable?
Comment Re:Get sharks with laser beams. (Score 2, Insightful) 304
That's what the cyborg raptors are for!
Comment Re:A bit of factness. (Score 1) 622
I'd surprised to find that they are undetectable by electric or magnetic means. I mean, can you really hide the magnetic or electric signature of a big sub?
Someone has already thought of this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_anomaly_detector
Comment Re:So (Score 3, Insightful) 203
With over 6 billion 1% possibly looks like a natural population control mechanism.
Which part of "[The mutation's] effects don't occur until after the childbearing years." did you fail to grasp?
Comment Re:We're so smart we never bother to test (Score 1) 855
Really, just making a textbox that didn't accept spaces or other invalid input (displaying a text message below the box when the user attempts to type an invalid character) would solve all the issues.
I believe this technique is already commonly used in several Windows applications and the OS itself. I can't remember if I've seen the same for OSX.
I believe this technique is already commonly used in several Windows applications and the OS itself. I can't remember if I've seen the same for OSX.
Comment Re:This just says it all: (Score 1) 315
Firstly, the words 'innocent' and 'guilty' do not belong in a civil suit. The questions the jury had to answer were whether the defendant infringed on the plaintiffs copyrights, and how much the defendant should pay in damages.
After reading the transcripts, I'm of the opinion that she did willfully infringe. However, the point I tried to make was that large corporations (or in this case, a whole group of large corporations) have financial resources that are simply incomparable to the resources accessible by a private individual. This makes for extremely lopsided trials where the better funded lawyer can call expert after expert until the defense is trounced.
Then there is the matter of quality of representation. It seems to me, from the transcripts, that the defense picked an extremely poor strategy (trying to call the evidence into doubt) rather than trying to mitigate the amount damages that the defendant would have to pay. This of course resulted in rather substantial damages when the defended was found to have made and distributed infringing copies.
After reading the transcripts, I'm of the opinion that she did willfully infringe. However, the point I tried to make was that large corporations (or in this case, a whole group of large corporations) have financial resources that are simply incomparable to the resources accessible by a private individual. This makes for extremely lopsided trials where the better funded lawyer can call expert after expert until the defense is trounced.
Then there is the matter of quality of representation. It seems to me, from the transcripts, that the defense picked an extremely poor strategy (trying to call the evidence into doubt) rather than trying to mitigate the amount damages that the defendant would have to pay. This of course resulted in rather substantial damages when the defended was found to have made and distributed infringing copies.
Comment Re:This just says it all: (Score 1) 315
I was mainly trying to underline the fact that in most of these cases, the defendant is hopelessly outnumbered. Can there really be a fair trial when one side has access to nearly unlimited financial resources, not to mention significant political clout?
Comment This just says it all: (Score 5, Informative) 315
FTFA:
Capitol Records, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Sony BMG Music Entertainment, a Delaware general partnership; Arista Records, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Interscope Records, a California general partnership; Warner Bros. Records, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and UMG Recordings, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Jammie Thomas,
Defendant.
I rest my case.
Submission + - AOL's Embarassing Password Woes
An anonymous reader writes: AOL.com users may think they have up to sixteen characters to use as a password, but they'd be wrong, thanks to this security artifact detailed by The Washington Post's Security Fix blog:
"Well, it turns out that when someone signs up for an AOL.com account, the user appears to be allowed to enter up to a 16-character password. AOL's system, however, doesn't read past the first eight characters."
This means that a user who uses "password123" or any other obvious eight-character password with random numbers on the end is in effect using just that lame eight-character password.
Submission + - US makes Gattaca-like discrimination illegal
Soulshift writes: NewScientist reports that a law has been passed in the US that prevents companies from denying jobs or insurance to citizens based on the results of genetic tests. This purportedly addresses scenarios where corporations might employ people preferentially based on their genetic "fitness."
From the article: "Clearly the House finally understood the incredible significance this has. The American public can now access genetic tests, feel safe about their genetic information not being misused and participate in research that involves genetic information."
The full text of the bill can be found here.
The full text of the bill can be found here.
Submission + - Why use wordprocessor?
iveqy writes: "Word processors like MS word or OO writer belongs to the most used software programs in office enviroments today. They have evolutionized the paper handling and is very flexible.
But when are they the right tool to use? I can't figure it out, because they are never best on anything.
When writing plain text, many texteditors are much better. Textpad, vim, emacs and textmate are just a few examples on texteditor that are very good in handling text.
When it comes to fancy papers, like posters, school newspapers etc. Other programs like MS publicher and scribus are a much better tool.
When it comes to textlayout, longer texts, theises etc. latex or docbook are to prefer for a good and flexible format.
Despite this the wordprocessors are still very popular. Why? Because they can be used to everything with a good (but not best) result? Why do you use a wordprocessor?"
But when are they the right tool to use? I can't figure it out, because they are never best on anything.
When writing plain text, many texteditors are much better. Textpad, vim, emacs and textmate are just a few examples on texteditor that are very good in handling text.
When it comes to fancy papers, like posters, school newspapers etc. Other programs like MS publicher and scribus are a much better tool.
When it comes to textlayout, longer texts, theises etc. latex or docbook are to prefer for a good and flexible format.
Despite this the wordprocessors are still very popular. Why? Because they can be used to everything with a good (but not best) result? Why do you use a wordprocessor?"
Submission + - Pirated software until Legit software is delivered
An anonymous reader writes: I need to buy Adobe Flash for a big job that is due in a couple of weeks. However, the Adobe production suite premium is far more cost efficient because I will also need those programs for other jobs. Flash is included in the suite and it is really not worth it to buy it on its own.
However, if I preorder CS3 produciton suite, then I wont have it during the course of this actual job which I need it for.
I can, however, purchase CS2 production suite and get a free upgrade to CS3 when it comes out... however, the CS2 production suite doesn't include flash.
So either way, if I buy the suite and legitimately own it, I won't have flash for this job.
Is it wrong and/or risky to buy CS2 now, but use a pirated version of flash until the free upgrade to CS3 is made available?
Is there anything in the flash file that would show who's license it was made under?
However, if I preorder CS3 produciton suite, then I wont have it during the course of this actual job which I need it for.
I can, however, purchase CS2 production suite and get a free upgrade to CS3 when it comes out... however, the CS2 production suite doesn't include flash.
So either way, if I buy the suite and legitimately own it, I won't have flash for this job.
Is it wrong and/or risky to buy CS2 now, but use a pirated version of flash until the free upgrade to CS3 is made available?
Is there anything in the flash file that would show who's license it was made under?
Submission + - Second Life Seeks Sensitive Data About Residents
deviantphil writes: Linden Labs, the company that runs Second Life, is seeking to roll out a new age verification mechanism which among others things may require residents to turn over their Social Security Number, government ID, or other sensitive personally identifying data in order to access content which is "explicitly sexual or excessively violent in nature". This would be equivalent to requiring a person to give out their Social Security Number before purchasing a game rated "M".
Submission + - Quake Author Gets Drunk to Save Lives
ddt writes: "My friend Naomi Mercer and I get sh*tfaced in the 10th episode of Gadget Gossip in order to review two portable breathalyzers, which could conceivably save lives, assuming we can convince a critical mass of drunk driving slashdot readers to get one of these little doohickeys so that there's a closed feedback loop on their debauchery. Happy Cinco de Mayo, and avoid Paris Hilton's fate, or you could end up in there with her!"
