Posts by Waseem Alkurdi 1240 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Apr 2018
I don't speak Hong Kong-ese*, but does there happen to be any etymological relationship between the two words being mixed up? Dunno, but there seems to be a possibility that "airplanes" fly in "open country" (air?) and that may turn up some relationship?
* I believe they speak Chinese, but I'm not sure if it's the same Chinese as China, you know, you have Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese ...
Google overhauled its online translation services using a giant neural machine translation model, an AI system that uses natural language processing to encode and decode words in different languages.
Many would be like, "oh, really?".
But rest assured, Google's AI is really great so far.
Arabic is one language that used to be really butchered in Google Translate (with a fair share of memes about it!)
But recently, Google Translate has really, really improved the experience. Not totally perfect, but a huge leap.
Another thing is YouTube's auto-gen Closed Captions. In the past, they used to be really terrible; nowadays, they're pretty reliable*! It even recognizes and "fixes" weird accents (when the speaker doesn't have a US or UK accent, trying to sort out things is a royal piece of crap!)
* English subs; YMMV for other languages.
I really want your citation for any proper piece of research that shows any relation whatsoever between nudity in the media and paedophilia.
I remember having read that particular bit somewhere, but as I dug Google for the reference, I couldn't find any.
It’s easy to assume that pedophilia is always the result of some early sexualization or abuse, and certainly there seems to be a connection in some cases. (emphasis mine)
The point I was making is that it's society's collective approach (including that of traditional religion as well as "early sexualization by media") is what's screwing up our children (not given a choice nor responsibly informed about sex).
And as to the point about "religions doing it wrong", I believe that complete hiding, blocking of all impulses gives the opposite of the desired effect.
But frankly, I don't agree with "the naturists". Complete, unregulated exposure only creates problems! In this case, it's random relationships, AIDS and all (in my opinion, subject to revision!)
Children should be educated responsibly about sex, not blocked away totally from it, nor have it thrown upon them!
The comments above boil to these points:
- Catholic priests have their image of Jesus nailed to a cross. Bad Catholics!
- Nudity (esp. child nudity) is everywhere. Bad children!
- Nudity in ads. Bad adults!
In my opinion, this piece research *is* important, very important in fact. But a whole "reform" of society is needed first!
The solution to this problem should be a contol of the amount of nudity bypassers (children) are exposed to (Looking at you media!) - that's why we've got future pedos.
Fuck money. Can't we for once not care about profit at the expense of our children?
But is that too realistic perhaps?
they stuck on 2010 because that did what they wanted, and even had a good color scheme.
I have to agree here. Visual Studio 2010 was ~2 GB, and ~ 600 MB for the Express Edition's ISO (across four language editions, making VB Express as light as 200 MB!)
Visual Basic 2017 is 6 GB as downloaded from Microsoft Imagine.
And they've fucked up the installer hard. Instead of a single ISO, they've gone all Visual-Studio-as-a-Service and chopped it up like a fruit in Fruit Ninja.
Today's excuse? To keep every single component up to date.
I've been doing some triple-boot (Hackintosh macOS - Linux - Windows) recently, and the time between the three is out of sync (the universal/local BIOS time issue in Windows) and I've noticed something weird:
I was replying to somebody's comment on a thread, and I've noticed that all the posts say "Just posted" as well as the stories on the main page. The Edit (X mins) buttons also had x=186 mins (in this case) (the clock was set back three hours as I live in a GMT+3 time zone).
Does it seem odd that time is measured on the user's side, not the server's side?
Wine is what they drink, whine is what they do.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/07/28/bofh_and_the_linux_evangelist/
You seriously failed to understand Simon Travaglia's pun.
"But wait a minute, you could run a Windows EMULATOR on your Linux box!! Something like Wine."
"Wine? What is it?"
"Something that users do."
"Pardon?!"
"Wine? It makes your Linux box pretend to be a Windows box again. Say, how much memory has your machine got?"
And so the W10 Disney Magic Kingdom Tile edition will soon be deployed.
As far as I know, you get the licenses for both Enterprise and Enterprise LTSB together and you get to pick. Why the hell does your boss even care to listen to M$'s droids?
@Danny 14
1511 was shit. 1604 was good enough for office machines. 1703 (?) broke loads of shit for us. 1709 works nicely. 1803 was a load of steaming crap as far as breaking stuff went.Windows 10 was/is shit.
There, fixed.
Next LTSB looks like it wont play with MS office so that will nail a few coffins.
Try Office 2013. It was introduced before LTSB and therefore has no problems as far as I can see.
Linux wont run over half of software we need to run so we are stuck with windows.
Can Wine do it? How about a decrapified Windows PE?
Are you sure you understand why Trump did this? He couldn't care less about Iran or Saudi Arabia (the latter except where money is concerned of course, where it earns him something).
He just wanted to bend the Chinese's back, and teach them that they don't get to evade American sanctions (and send a message to Iran as well that they can't). And in that he succeeded.
Well said, m'lord!
We really to define what or who is meant by the term "God" when we discuss God's existence.
The problem is like you and me arguing whether a round, sweet-and-sour fruit that's colored #FFA500 (or a shade of that) is called an orange or a orange (Fr.) or a naranja (Sp.).
In much of the world there still exist more difficult living conditions than in the west and lower levels of education. In many of those places you'll find religion still has a stronger sway than in much of Europe or NA.
There's no correlation though.
North Korea is a fully atheist nation. Is it any richer? China? 90% atheists and not exactly the world's best or most "free" country.
@jake
First, I apologize for the long, long post.
The fact of the matter is that over the last umpteen thousand years, humans have postulated gods or a god exist.
"Postulated" means that there's definitely no supernatural entity but humans have made one(s) up.
There's quite a bit of circular reasoning in this statement, don't you see?
You assumed that there's no evidence for such an entity, then assumed that humans assumed that a supernatural cause doesn't exist based on that first assumption.
In all those thousands of years, there is not a single shred of evidence that a god or gods actually do exist.
Not if you look though. I used to swing between atheism and agnosticism myself, until I looked for the evidence. The first shred of evidence is that something doesn't spring out of nothing. A program can't write itself. "Laws of nature" need an "enforcer" to keep them in effect.
And is absence of evidence evidence of absence? Not necessarily true, not necessarily false.
This sword has two edges, mind you.
One thing to point out though: Evidence for a supernatural deity isn't necessarily of a definitive/conclusive nature. Don't raise your hopes too high; you won't "see God".
The opposite is also true. We can't "go up there and see that there's no supernatural power" as well.
Based on the above, the proverbial thinking man could easily come to the conclusion that god or gods is/are an invention of man. In other words, man made god in his own image.
If these were premises built on facts, then sure. But these aren't premises, but rather built on a mix of opinions stated as facts (<u>The fact of the matter</u> is that over the last umpteen thousand years, humans have postulated gods or a god exist. - that's your opinion until you definitely prove the absence of a supernatural entity).
Unless you have proof that god or gods exist, of course. Do not use "faith" as proof, unless can prove to me that you do, in fact, have that faith.
I agree with that - faith by and of itself is no proof (I believe in a ghost under my bed != there's a ghost under my bed)
Until then, this conversation is pretty useless.
Ever asked why is this topic still brought up?
Ever asked why is the concept of a supernatural creator still "not dead", despite numerous figures in the past claiming the "death" of the creator?
Because there are still strong arguments on both sides. The eternal debate is still going on.
your web browser began operating as a RDP (Remote control Desktop) that has a key logger which gave me accessibility to your screen and also webcam
Seems that our h4ckz0r doesn't know that browsers couldn't "opearte as" a proprietary Microsoft protocol, or that RDP doesn't stand for "Remote control Desktop", nor that a keylogger can give "accessibility" to a "screen" and "webcam", or that it's called "access", not "accessibility".
Wonder how he's got his spelling and grammar correctly though.
@ST
BEGIN PYTHON PROCEDURE Foo
[ ... ]
END PYTHON PROCEDURE Foo
And yes, the name of the PYTHON PROCEDURE must be repeated in the END clause. What else are parsers for?
Visual Basic is calling and it wants its End Function/End Sub/End (something) back.
while all other variable types must be declared with dim.
Visual Basic is calling again and wants its Dim x As Integer back.
<rant>
Like Windows NanoServer and ServerCore, this distro is not intended to be a sysadmin’s or developers daily desktop.
Why should it be?
Why is something this wonderful "not intended to be comfortable to use at the command line” ?
Imagine ... a desktop with an OS image this light!
Why didn't anybody do it before? A super-light desktop that includes proper coreutils (not shitty BusyBox)!
The problem if we use this one is the KVM-optimized kernel. Simply ripping it out might not work.
</rant>
one which completely denied the existence of Jerusalem for the reality challenged community.
You mean "completely denied the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". That's right, because it, well, isn't Israel's capital. Let me tell you why:
I'm going to buy a pistol, take over your house, kill your wife and children - may God forbid any harm happens to them - and call it mine.
Does that make it really mine? I'm the stronger entity and I took your house by force. Does that give me the right to it?
I've got plenty of sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians, but that doesn't extend to flattering them and the rest of the Israeli hostile Arab world when they want to engage in delusional wishful thinking.
I live in an Arab nation and I'm a Muslim so let me answer this with regards to our community.
Let me make it clear first that we have absolutely no problem with Jews. They believe in the same God as we Muslims and our fellow Christians believe in. There is a large Jewish community in the western part of the Arab world, and we live in peace with them.
That is why I believe that Israel's claim of "anti-Semitism" that they throw upon Arabs and Muslims is groundless.
However, we absolutely have a problem with anybody, anybody, who comes over to the houses of our neighbors with heavy guns, take over their land, spill the blood of their children, and drive them to exodus and madness.
Why? Remember the analogy I gave above about me taking over your house and claiming it to be mine ... that's why.
The people who chant "death to Israel" in protests are the very people whom had their families killed by Israeli forces in 1948 and 1967 and beyond.
But don't get me wrong. I don't advocate the use of force and violence as a solution, and I hate revenge that sheds more blood. But is letting Israel take over Palestinian lands fair? Is letting Intel set up its R&D facilities in Kiryat-Gat, on the rubble of the houses of the Palestinian village of al-Fallujah fair, at least to the fathers and children of the victims?
Hope I explained it! :-)
If anybody has another viewpoint, I'll be glad to hear it!
Security software writers benefit from being unique, from being the ONLY guy who can discover that nasty. Therefore, malware discovery to them is an asset.
On the other hand, malware writers collaborate because of mutual interest. You have something I need, I have something you need, we're friends!
That's the whole issue. Try to work around that ... any solution (including "collective intelligence"/sharing mentioned in the article) _won't_ work because it's solely based upon ethics and goodwill. Unfortunately, these two don't put dinner on the table, even though they might give a temporary PR boost (on launch day, day one, and day two - then forgotten afterwards).
But, jokes aside, I think that some malicious code can be successfully obfuscated to look more innocent to average lazy folk like me.
Just like what he did here. He put the malicious code in a script retrieved from the Internet.
What if you have a package that retrieves "additional data" from the Internet, not only a script?
Like a game retrieving its assets for example.
Should every single byte it downloads be checked?
The conspirators demonstrated pretty good operational security – compartmentalizing their hardware and wireless hotspots solely for their illegal trading and destroying some equipment to cover their tracks.
Theoretically and technically speaking, isn't that enough to prevent them from being caught?
If you use (totally, completely) separate devices and Wi-Fi hotspots, aren't you a separate person to the Internet? (Assume that no mistakes are made - no "clean" identity is leaked through "dirty" devices, for example)
(of course keeping your personal equipment out of range of the "dirty" ones so techniques like cell triangulation and identification of the private phone and "dirty" phone are out of question?)
However, SEC investigators spotted the similarities in multiple trades, and started asking questions.
What trades and what similarities? If they've known there was trade about this in particular, couldn't they just interrogate the other party, like they do with drug dealers for example, where they arrest the "customer" to get to the dealer?
And is a scammer? Somebody's gotta tell him that he can't serve both God and Mammon.
Seriously? You literally worship money and you call yourself a priest?
If you're fine with passing that image to your community, then I'm glad to have explained to you another reason why people are turning to atheism.
It would not at all surprise me if the touch screen has it's own ARM core, or at least a microcontroller or PIC.
All of these could run additional code that captures all sorts of information, but I have to ask, what does it do with the data after it's been collected?
@Peter Gathercole
I loved your post ... Very logical inferences.
I have to ask this though: Is it necessarily true that the data is going to be sent *somewhere*? The data could be stored on the "spy IC" itself in some form of flash storage. Then, when the phone is retrieved again (assuming military/intelligence force/organized crime in this) after killing the owner, the flash storage is dumped to a file and read.
Who but the Boffins from Ben-Gurion University in Israel , home of the HDD activity LED blinking hacking?
Hats off to you and your work though. We appreciate the effort.
But there’s a problem with this technique: What if the touch event capture stream is out of sync with the actual input?
Let me explain. What if the “recorder” misses a tap or two? That’ll screw up the whole session/tape/whatever.
What if a user “cancels” a touch (by holding down on an object then swiping off bounds)?
The hypothetical recorder still registers a swipe but no equivalent takes place in software - screwing up all subsequent recording.
I've even abandoned excellent XP and Win7 for Linux Mate, mint desktop and modified "Traditional OK" theme. Cold Turkey for 18 months now.
I do have some Win 10 stuff to show people using Win7 how bad it is.
I've not need to boot up the XP or Win7 for any actual work.
Do you do that with a touchscreen?
- How could this mighty computing power be fitted in a size of, er, a rat?
Isn't this evidence of some intended design, not really randomness, and natural selection not exactly clear?
- Another question: I've never understood why can't a regular PC simulate a human neural network. Aren't PCs powerful enough?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
