There's no trademark infringement - the bank is giving away a bona fide iPad. Just like this post is talking about *actual* iPads. Calling something an iPad that *isn't* an actual iPad is trademark infringement. Saying you'll give away an iPad is simply an accurate statement.
The US isn't as coy about its cyber warfare as you are - the Navy has a designation titled "Information Warfare," the Air Force Information Warfare Center lists "offensive and defensive counter information and information operations" as its main goal, and the US Cyber Command hopes to "recruit, train and retain highly qualified cyber-warfare combatants"
Well in this case, you're not making "your" data available - the power companies are, hypothetically.
However, that data doesn't belong to you any more than conductivity data belongs to a chunk of Tungsten or airspeed data belongs to a falcon - the data belongs to the observer. The proposals focus on what rules the observers must follow to be given the privilege of observing. If you want to "own" your own data, you have to make sure that no one other than yourself observes you.
Does every law need a logical moral basis? Does every crime need a victim?
If we "legalized" sexting, or maybe taking pictures of yourself at a young age, waiting until you turn 18 and releasing them (which I believe is also illegal), we've opened up a loophole for child pornographers: you can take pictures of a girl and pressure/bribe her to release them herself.
Of course, you might say "punish the criminal, not society as a whole," but maybe the risk of abuse is simply too great to make something that *should* be legal, legal.
What he means is "Nobody asked me." And it's true, nobody asked me. Oh, and no, not everyone's represented. In our bastardization of a representative democracy, everyone has the *chance* of being represented (if his candidate wins), but nowhere close to everybody is represented.
Like shimdaddy said, you have to understand their perspective. If you're reading slashdot, there's a good chance that you like to tinker with stuff and zap yourself. If you're reading the PS3 blog, you're probably a gamer who has probably dealt with cheating before. When they hear "modded box," they automatically think "aimbot" because that's been their only experience with modded consoles. When we hear "modded box" we think of a job well done. They can't understand why someone would *want* to modify their box unless they wanted to cheat.
It would be illegal for Remington to sell you a sawed off shotgun in the first place. It's not illegal for Sony to sell you a modded PS3. In the shotgun scenario we're talking about banning a category of item. There's nothing categorically wrong with "modded consoles" except for the fact that Sony, a public foreign company not associated with the US government, doesn't want you to have one.
So in order to be accelerated, you need to have a force applied to you. I don't think there's a force moving the entire universe around you at your whim.
Well what if searching for this his name on Google results in the top 10 hits being titled along the lines of "This dude is a con man and a fraud!!"? Is Google responsible for *that* algorithm? After all, the autocomplete algorithm is just another search algorithm, except instead of searching through pages it searches through past inputs.
This job is for *naturalists.* If you're a naturalist and are still put off by the sight of naked people, you're probably not a naturalist - just selfish.
They have not said that the personal information was limited to names and email addresses.
Yes, they have. The whole "We want to let you know" construct is not a literal construct in modern English; it's simply a redundancy that allows you to open a sentence slowly to avoid sounding curt. When Amazon tells me "We just wanted to let you know that your order has shipped," they're not just sharing their feelings with me, they're let me know that my order has shipped. They wanted to let me know it, and now they're letting me know it.
In this case, the literal usage of those word (trying to tell me that they *want* to let me know something that may or may not be true) is not just deceitful, it's incorrect usage and bad grammar. Simply put, Krogers is telling us that only email addresses and names were stolen, and any attempt by Krogers to argue to the contrary is, frankly, hogwash.
FTS: The main point of these fake movie UIs is different than that of real UIs: to tell a story very quickly, not to reveal and enable function.
Re:Apart from being dumbfoundingly mundane like al
on
Dragon Age II Released
·
· Score: 1
It's not that game manufacturers are lazy or unimaginative; they've been chasing the Holy Grail of games that you just described, but the limits of the computer interface create what I can only describe as the "Spore problem," which I will explain in a bit.
The problem with your "hybridization of games" figure of speech is that real life (or fantasy life, for that matter) is not a hybridization of anything - it's just life. It's not like the commanders of actual armies have a screen with their units on it that they can left click to select and right click to move/attack, they have offices with reports and people working for them (and, yes, visualizations of the battlefield,) but they're still basically playing a first-person RPG: they're looking out a pair of eyes, they can move around the room, they can throw a chair at the map, etc. Actual communication is a very complex matter: commander gives objectives and standing orders, assistant sends the report out, company commanders send out mission-specific orders, unit commanders give tactical commands, individual soldiers can follow the orders or not. And each individual soldier is living his own life with his personal problems and politics that come with it. And the whole "political" stage of LOTR; current AI can't even think about the level of "politics" you speak of without pre-programmed routes and reactions. Politics depends so much on realistic human reactions.
Now you might say "it doesn't *have* to be that complicated. Just have 'soldier' NPCs, or simplify the communication and game mechanics of battle. Maybe when you walk up to the map it switches over to the RTS mode and you can command your units like Command and Conquer." This is where the Spore problem comes in: a game wants to be everything (RPG/RTS/city simulator/space simulator) and realizes that real life is just too epic to program into a game, not to mention that the keyboard/mouse interface is severely limiting. So because of this, they create "stages," which in essence is 5 distinct, separate games that happen to follow each other, each being the best at a specific genre. This *kills* immersion, because just when you thought you were playing an RPG and your world existed in the 1st person, your perspective is suddenly shifted to the 3rd dimension and game mechanics change. The result feels contrived. Even if the game you have in mind is a little more subtle than this, the limits of the keyboard/mouse combo, as well as the limits of programming time and money, are bound to make end up as a series of minigames that'll destroy the immersive world you've set up.
True, and to elaborate: The whole "Internet was designed to reroute around nuclear disasters" catchphrase requires a dependable layer 1. The govt knows that killing DNS servers or creating firewalls can only be so effective, but once they can control the layer 1 (kill the 4G signals) suddenly the Internet might as well not exist. The Internet may live on, but you and I can never escape the fact that we live in a physical world.
And the government is an expert in layer 1: bullets, tanks and handcuffs are all layer 1 protocols.
I imagine this has been suggested before, and I'm sure *all* of these things have been uploaded onto it, but instead of all these single-entity whistleblower avenues why don't whistleblowers just upload their secretz onto Freenet? Is it because you couldn't verify the authenticity of a document that was uploaded completely anonymously? Is it because the secret war plans will just get lost in the shuffle between child porn and random flogs? Or is it because of the low visibility it'll receive? I mean, isn't this what Freenet was created for?
Snyder mentioned a concept called "open-source economic development." He said the state is going to look at every region and see which area is the best at a certain practice and ask if the community is willing to share it with the rest of the motherland.
Applying best practices around the motherland is not about getting credit but rather uplifting the motherland for all, Snyder said.
In all seriousness, though, the "open source development model" (not necessarily a Mozilla Foundation version of that, but rather a GIMP version) is a viable economic model, one that is called communism (Think early-Christian communism, not soviet communism.) And everyone here will tell you that it'll work on paper until you account for human nature. Will communities be willing to share their abilities with the rest of the state simply because they're part of a family? Unlikely, since Michigan is a state, not a family.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no trademark infringement - the bank is giving away a bona fide iPad. Just like this post is talking about *actual* iPads. Calling something an iPad that *isn't* an actual iPad is trademark infringement. Saying you'll give away an iPad is simply an accurate statement.
The US isn't as coy about its cyber warfare as you are - the Navy has a designation titled "Information Warfare," the Air Force Information Warfare Center lists "offensive and defensive counter information and information operations" as its main goal, and the US Cyber Command hopes to "recruit, train and retain highly qualified cyber-warfare combatants"
http://www.navy.com/careers/information-and-technology/information-warfare.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/aia/cyberspokesman/97aug/afiwc.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cyber_Command
"Zhang allegedly violated the open source licenses for projects that parts of his programs were derived from"
How ironic that Google would punish a developer for doing that...
And Texas (should have) wrote back "no shit, that's the point."
Being that the majority of military patches incorporate some sort of trademarked pop culture icon, I doubt the DoD really cares what Disney does or trademarks.
I presumed the govt will be asking for those records. Since "in free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns", and I am a citizen who is supposed to be part of this govt... may I please have a peek at those records? No?
...why not?
Well in this case, you're not making "your" data available - the power companies are, hypothetically.
However, that data doesn't belong to you any more than conductivity data belongs to a chunk of Tungsten or airspeed data belongs to a falcon - the data belongs to the observer. The proposals focus on what rules the observers must follow to be given the privilege of observing. If you want to "own" your own data, you have to make sure that no one other than yourself observes you.
Does every law need a logical moral basis? Does every crime need a victim?
If we "legalized" sexting, or maybe taking pictures of yourself at a young age, waiting until you turn 18 and releasing them (which I believe is also illegal), we've opened up a loophole for child pornographers: you can take pictures of a girl and pressure/bribe her to release them herself.
Of course, you might say "punish the criminal, not society as a whole," but maybe the risk of abuse is simply too great to make something that *should* be legal, legal.
What he means is "Nobody asked me." And it's true, nobody asked me. Oh, and no, not everyone's represented. In our bastardization of a representative democracy, everyone has the *chance* of being represented (if his candidate wins), but nowhere close to everybody is represented.
Like shimdaddy said, you have to understand their perspective. If you're reading slashdot, there's a good chance that you like to tinker with stuff and zap yourself. If you're reading the PS3 blog, you're probably a gamer who has probably dealt with cheating before. When they hear "modded box," they automatically think "aimbot" because that's been their only experience with modded consoles. When we hear "modded box" we think of a job well done. They can't understand why someone would *want* to modify their box unless they wanted to cheat.
It would be illegal for Remington to sell you a sawed off shotgun in the first place. It's not illegal for Sony to sell you a modded PS3. In the shotgun scenario we're talking about banning a category of item. There's nothing categorically wrong with "modded consoles" except for the fact that Sony, a public foreign company not associated with the US government, doesn't want you to have one.
a=f/m
So in order to be accelerated, you need to have a force applied to you. I don't think there's a force moving the entire universe around you at your whim.
I think that would make them underlords.
Well what if searching for this his name on Google results in the top 10 hits being titled along the lines of "This dude is a con man and a fraud!!"? Is Google responsible for *that* algorithm? After all, the autocomplete algorithm is just another search algorithm, except instead of searching through pages it searches through past inputs.
This job is for *naturalists.* If you're a naturalist and are still put off by the sight of naked people, you're probably not a naturalist - just selfish.
Parents don't know anything; they're so out of touch with the way the world works today.
If British Telecom really *is* aiming at giving its customers "a alternative to file sharing"[sic], Spotify isn't competition, it's an ally.
They have not said that the personal information was limited to names and email addresses.
Yes, they have. The whole "We want to let you know" construct is not a literal construct in modern English; it's simply a redundancy that allows you to open a sentence slowly to avoid sounding curt. When Amazon tells me "We just wanted to let you know that your order has shipped," they're not just sharing their feelings with me, they're let me know that my order has shipped. They wanted to let me know it, and now they're letting me know it.
In this case, the literal usage of those word (trying to tell me that they *want* to let me know something that may or may not be true) is not just deceitful, it's incorrect usage and bad grammar. Simply put, Krogers is telling us that only email addresses and names were stolen, and any attempt by Krogers to argue to the contrary is, frankly, hogwash.
I don't think he was talking about shopping...
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/10/01/24/1821248/Designing-the-Computer-UIs-In-Movies
FTS: The main point of these fake movie UIs is different than that of real UIs: to tell a story very quickly, not to reveal and enable function.
It's not that game manufacturers are lazy or unimaginative; they've been chasing the Holy Grail of games that you just described, but the limits of the computer interface create what I can only describe as the "Spore problem," which I will explain in a bit.
The problem with your "hybridization of games" figure of speech is that real life (or fantasy life, for that matter) is not a hybridization of anything - it's just life. It's not like the commanders of actual armies have a screen with their units on it that they can left click to select and right click to move/attack, they have offices with reports and people working for them (and, yes, visualizations of the battlefield,) but they're still basically playing a first-person RPG: they're looking out a pair of eyes, they can move around the room, they can throw a chair at the map, etc. Actual communication is a very complex matter: commander gives objectives and standing orders, assistant sends the report out, company commanders send out mission-specific orders, unit commanders give tactical commands, individual soldiers can follow the orders or not. And each individual soldier is living his own life with his personal problems and politics that come with it. And the whole "political" stage of LOTR; current AI can't even think about the level of "politics" you speak of without pre-programmed routes and reactions. Politics depends so much on realistic human reactions.
Now you might say "it doesn't *have* to be that complicated. Just have 'soldier' NPCs, or simplify the communication and game mechanics of battle. Maybe when you walk up to the map it switches over to the RTS mode and you can command your units like Command and Conquer." This is where the Spore problem comes in: a game wants to be everything (RPG/RTS/city simulator/space simulator) and realizes that real life is just too epic to program into a game, not to mention that the keyboard/mouse interface is severely limiting. So because of this, they create "stages," which in essence is 5 distinct, separate games that happen to follow each other, each being the best at a specific genre. This *kills* immersion, because just when you thought you were playing an RPG and your world existed in the 1st person, your perspective is suddenly shifted to the 3rd dimension and game mechanics change. The result feels contrived. Even if the game you have in mind is a little more subtle than this, the limits of the keyboard/mouse combo, as well as the limits of programming time and money, are bound to make end up as a series of minigames that'll destroy the immersive world you've set up.
True, because then you wouldn't be setting the land speed record anymore.
True, and to elaborate: The whole "Internet was designed to reroute around nuclear disasters" catchphrase requires a dependable layer 1. The govt knows that killing DNS servers or creating firewalls can only be so effective, but once they can control the layer 1 (kill the 4G signals) suddenly the Internet might as well not exist. The Internet may live on, but you and I can never escape the fact that we live in a physical world.
And the government is an expert in layer 1: bullets, tanks and handcuffs are all layer 1 protocols.
I imagine this has been suggested before, and I'm sure *all* of these things have been uploaded onto it, but instead of all these single-entity whistleblower avenues why don't whistleblowers just upload their secretz onto Freenet? Is it because you couldn't verify the authenticity of a document that was uploaded completely anonymously? Is it because the secret war plans will just get lost in the shuffle between child porn and random flogs? Or is it because of the low visibility it'll receive? I mean, isn't this what Freenet was created for?
In all seriousness, though, the "open source development model" (not necessarily a Mozilla Foundation version of that, but rather a GIMP version) is a viable economic model, one that is called communism (Think early-Christian communism, not soviet communism.) And everyone here will tell you that it'll work on paper until you account for human nature. Will communities be willing to share their abilities with the rest of the state simply because they're part of a family? Unlikely, since Michigan is a state, not a family.