No way in hell is the UK going to give something to Russia in this particular case. I mean, just imagine the situation if the UK now pulls of some sort of exchange with Russia for this guy: he's going to continue denying that he did it, even if found guilty Russia will deny all allegations and accuse the brittish government for orchestrating these false charges, they get to have Litvinenko dead AND they get something else in return for someone they don't really care about anyway.
Fact of the matter is, Russia trounced on the UK's sovereignty and did it with a lot of noise. The UK essentially got humiliated and they are going to have to apply negative leverage over Russia in order to get that guy in order to save face. Since the UK actually is a lot more powerful economically speaking and have a lot more say in organizations such as the WTO and EU they are in a position to put a lot of hurt on Russia for this, if they would really want too.
Who is even dumb enough to make their purchases based on spam mail. I mean, surely everyone must know what spam is by now? How can one be so dense as to trust a completely random, badly worded, illarticulated e-mail full of spelling mistakes from someone you don't know to make informed decisions about what stock they should buy?
It simply makes no sense to me. As long as people remain so completely clueless that they will fall for spam, there will be spam.
So total internet data traffic is going to multiply by 30 in the next 3-4 years you say? That's a nice statement to make without any research to back it up.
The only thing he's got is google buying up loads of fiber and apparently power for their datacenters, while the immediate goal for this is as yet is unknown to us, a takeover of the internet infrastructure would be one of the less likely scenarios.
Oh no! Time travel and alternate realities for the second movie. How strikingly original, how ever did they come up with that? Next you'll be telling me that they will use violence and guns to achieve their goals and that the heroes will come out on top through great personal sacrifice! Man, after 10 years the writers of SG-1 seem to have completely lost the ability to tell an original and engaging story.
Just to offset that previous comment, I am actually a fan of SG-1 and quite like the current story line. I'm just really sick of time travel and alternate reality crap. It's been done to death, hell, even season 8 of SG-1 ended with that crap. It sucks, leave it be. For the love of god STOP IT.
It isn't really fair to compare IT professionals to doctors. I mean, doctors don't go around telling people they're stupid because they got sick because people usually can't help it. In IT however, that's usually not the case. If you want a real analogy, try going to the dentist complaining of teeth rotting and then explain to him that you never saw the need to actually brush them once or twice a day.
Now, I'm not excusing bad behaviour towards users, but merely pointing out the source of the problem. A problem that doesn't exist way as much as in other professions. People usually take care of things, they exercise, they eat healthy, they maintain their house, their car, their garden, they take out insurance, they watch both ways when they cross the street. But the second they sit themselves down in front of a computer, things get real ugly, real fast. And once they do, they come to us, the dentists, complaining of a toothache but upon further inquiry, turns out they never bothered to brush. So until the users start taking an interest in the welfare of their systems as much they do with other aspects of their life, they are always going to be the subject of scorn and ridicule, and a lot of the time, they are quite deserving.
On a brighter note, it's my own personal experience that people are in fact learning how to take care of their systems more and more. Personally, I do think that a lot of the perceived ignorance is simply just that, perceived. Things change, and as they change, so will the jokes.
This article isn't about the iPhone, it's about the iPod and it's DRM model for selling songs online. Whereas his claims towards the ipod may be justified, the title is just plain misleading.
This is just some guy trying to latch onto the current iPhone news by putting the word iPhone in the title, and then going on about the iPod, good catch by slashdot! What news value indeed!
Cisco wanted more than just plain name association. It's hard to say without details, but it seems to me Cisco wanted to let the two products work together, rather than just be competitors. Personally I see an image in my mind of the two iPhones on the same billboard, Cisco betting that the Apple phone would get lots of success and people with less money would go out and buy it's "little brother" rather than expensive apple phone. The same scenario still applies, but much less than if they were to really work together.
Ofcourse, can't know anything for sure, but one thing is clear from Cisco's statement: They wanted to be involved a whole lot more than just skimming some money off the top.
After reading the full article, it seems very likely to me that this 'open approach' and 'interoperability' stuff from Cisco is them trying to hitch a ride on the success of the apple iphone. I can understand why Apple doesn't want their phone associated with the Linksys phone, so quite frankly I don't see how this can come as a surprise to Cisco.
On the other hand, iPhone is quite clearly a trademark belonging to Cisco, and Apple knows it. So should be interesting to see what is going to happen.
What fascinates me most about this subject is that our biological body figured out a way to make use of quantum physics. If this turns out to be true, it could really revolutionalise the way we see the human body, and even life itself. I saw a lecture the other day of another neuroscientist proclaiming he found evidence of quantum entanglement in the human brain, in parts that are supposedly linked to our conscience. How the hell does a biologal organism know about quantum entanglement? I ask you! (if it turns out to be true that is)
I mean, it might just be a sign of the times. We start to get a grasp on how quantum physics work, and suddenly evidence for quantummechanics is found everywhere. But still, it is interesting.
It might even make sense. Our body makes use of normal physics to operate, so why not quantum physics right? Except I never really got how our bodies, or life for that matter, managed to figure out the universe. Sure, we'll use positive ions to seperate the H2O from our intestines! All electrons please use the neural pathways to travel and carry messages for us!
I regret that my attempt to blow up and exaggerate pieces of gameplay that do not fall within the realm of 'normal gameplay', and the fictional reactions of gaming companies towards those instances to point out how gaming companies are dictating the terms of our consumption of their products and how we are all falling in line like the good little consumers that we are, was lost on you.
There is ofcourse a slight chance I included cheat codes not only to simply adress the word 'cheat', but also to point out that perhaps, blizzard might not have a leg to stand on, as they would have when sueing people for using build in cheat codes. Perhaps, I also used these hyperboles to point out that not keeping to the terms of the agreement when it comes to playing games, does in fact not constitute a breach of any actual 'law' and therefore is not 'illegal' and might not have a place in any court of law.
But yeah, you are probably correct. I am ignorant, have no idea what I'm talking about and am just another sucker without a clue. Whereas you are the greatest and smartest person I have ever met and after reading your short but oh so subtle comment I already want to join your fan club.
If anyone is an actual legal expert btw, which I am not, I would like to know if there is any 'real' grounds for blizzard to pursue this case on.
In other news, E.A. has started a series of lawsuits against people who use cheat codes in their games. An E.A. spokesman announced earlier today that "..cheaters and other lamers will be brought to justice..". This newest revelation comes only days after the first aimbot users have been convicted of crimes against gaming companies and sentenced to death row. Sources in the game industry are hinting at more legal action to come, remarking that anyone that does not play the game exactly as stipulated by the gaming companies could soon be facing legal retribution.
And now when an alien civilization takes pictures from outer space and discover 'the face on earth' they will know for absolutely sure that there is no intelligent life on this planet.
No no I agree, but that's always the question with fledging technologies isn't it? Who's going to be the first to invest a substantial amount and take the dare. When is the time right for such actions? It's always about taking a chance, and usually people aren't that happy about taking chances with the amount of money that this particular billionaire is putting down for it.
It's almost something like out of a comic book or a movie. Eccentric billionaire builds launch pad for private space flight, headline of the Daily Planet or something:)
Commercial space travel is just still so much in its infancy that it seems hard to imagine that someone is actually willing to invest such huge amounts rather than your average tinkering with miniature rockets kind of stuff.
I'm not sure how the intelligence community usually handles their information sharing between agencies and members, but this seems a rather easy target.
One database with thousands of user accounts, remotely accessible, each account has full viewing access, the information is displayed in an easy to copy format ready to be picked clean by a single compromised account. One key logger, one leak, one vulnerability and it's all gone, that to me seems rather risky.
Now like I said, I don't know if it would be the same if one single person in the CIA or something would be compromised, ie that they would have unlimited access to a full database, but to me this seems a rather risky business.
If death penalty can't, what makes you think a camera will?
People will commit crimes, regardless of the consequenses. The only way you will ever prevent that is to change the social situation of the people committing the crimes.
You realize that in order of the police to follow you they need a warrant right? So now instead of having someone trail you, they just watch you over the camera's, they check what internet pages you visited and all without a warrant, 24/7 continuous motion. Exploiting semantics is awesome.
Safety through camera's is an illusion. A camera is not able to physically protect you against harm, a camera can only record the crime, nothing else. A camera will never prevent a crime, simple as that. The only reason camera's are considered as a safetymeasure is because compared to the real deal is that they are cheap, easy to implement and they sound good on an election flyer.
Camera's serve no other purpose than to invade your privacy. They are prone to abuse, especially with 'intelligent' programming like this. They are sold to the general public as crime prevention methods, but in reality they are used to catch speeding vehicles (Plate recognition through CCTV is hot in the UK), hand out parking tickets (new experiment in Amsterdam) and the like. In the meanwhile however, when someone gets robbed the police doesn't have any cars available to send because of budget cuts.
How about you take all the money they waste on useless camera's and the subsequent developpement for so called smart programming like this and then invest it in better police training, crime prevention methods, investing in neighbourhoods. You know, generally do something usefull with it.
It's a good thing that google is not removing racist blogs. Fact is that any content, is highly subjective. If you start removing something because a certain party finds it offensive, you might as well blank the entire internet. Yeah it's a shame that such measures also include things like racism, but that is in my opinion a small price to pay for the greater value of free speech on the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
No way in hell is the UK going to give something to Russia in this particular case. I mean, just imagine the situation if the UK now pulls of some sort of exchange with Russia for this guy: he's going to continue denying that he did it, even if found guilty Russia will deny all allegations and accuse the brittish government for orchestrating these false charges, they get to have Litvinenko dead AND they get something else in return for someone they don't really care about anyway.
Fact of the matter is, Russia trounced on the UK's sovereignty and did it with a lot of noise. The UK essentially got humiliated and they are going to have to apply negative leverage over Russia in order to get that guy in order to save face. Since the UK actually is a lot more powerful economically speaking and have a lot more say in organizations such as the WTO and EU they are in a position to put a lot of hurt on Russia for this, if they would really want too.
Who is even dumb enough to make their purchases based on spam mail. I mean, surely everyone must know what spam is by now? How can one be so dense as to trust a completely random, badly worded, illarticulated e-mail full of spelling mistakes from someone you don't know to make informed decisions about what stock they should buy?
It simply makes no sense to me. As long as people remain so completely clueless that they will fall for spam, there will be spam.
So total internet data traffic is going to multiply by 30 in the next 3-4 years you say? That's a nice statement to make without any research to back it up.
The only thing he's got is google buying up loads of fiber and apparently power for their datacenters, while the immediate goal for this is as yet is unknown to us, a takeover of the internet infrastructure would be one of the less likely scenarios.
300 ml yoghurt
1 orange
1 banana
40 grams of brinta porridge
----------------- + Blend
filling, tasty, low fat, low calories, fibers, proteins, vitamins, calcium and some other stuff!
Actually, the plan is to release these movies directly to DVD, so they won't be in theaters at all.
Oh no! Time travel and alternate realities for the second movie. How strikingly original, how ever did they come up with that? Next you'll be telling me that they will use violence and guns to achieve their goals and that the heroes will come out on top through great personal sacrifice! Man, after 10 years the writers of SG-1 seem to have completely lost the ability to tell an original and engaging story.
Just to offset that previous comment, I am actually a fan of SG-1 and quite like the current story line. I'm just really sick of time travel and alternate reality crap. It's been done to death, hell, even season 8 of SG-1 ended with that crap. It sucks, leave it be. For the love of god STOP IT.
Seems more like a complaint/accusation masked as a question, rather than a serious question and might have been removed for that reason.
It isn't really fair to compare IT professionals to doctors. I mean, doctors don't go around telling people they're stupid because they got sick because people usually can't help it. In IT however, that's usually not the case. If you want a real analogy, try going to the dentist complaining of teeth rotting and then explain to him that you never saw the need to actually brush them once or twice a day.
Now, I'm not excusing bad behaviour towards users, but merely pointing out the source of the problem. A problem that doesn't exist way as much as in other professions. People usually take care of things, they exercise, they eat healthy, they maintain their house, their car, their garden, they take out insurance, they watch both ways when they cross the street. But the second they sit themselves down in front of a computer, things get real ugly, real fast. And once they do, they come to us, the dentists, complaining of a toothache but upon further inquiry, turns out they never bothered to brush. So until the users start taking an interest in the welfare of their systems as much they do with other aspects of their life, they are always going to be the subject of scorn and ridicule, and a lot of the time, they are quite deserving.
On a brighter note, it's my own personal experience that people are in fact learning how to take care of their systems more and more. Personally, I do think that a lot of the perceived ignorance is simply just that, perceived. Things change, and as they change, so will the jokes.
This article isn't about the iPhone, it's about the iPod and it's DRM model for selling songs online. Whereas his claims towards the ipod may be justified, the title is just plain misleading.
This is just some guy trying to latch onto the current iPhone news by putting the word iPhone in the title, and then going on about the iPod, good catch by slashdot! What news value indeed!
Cisco wanted more than just plain name association. It's hard to say without details, but it seems to me Cisco wanted to let the two products work together, rather than just be competitors. Personally I see an image in my mind of the two iPhones on the same billboard, Cisco betting that the Apple phone would get lots of success and people with less money would go out and buy it's "little brother" rather than expensive apple phone. The same scenario still applies, but much less than if they were to really work together.
Ofcourse, can't know anything for sure, but one thing is clear from Cisco's statement: They wanted to be involved a whole lot more than just skimming some money off the top.
After reading the full article, it seems very likely to me that this 'open approach' and 'interoperability' stuff from Cisco is them trying to hitch a ride on the success of the apple iphone. I can understand why Apple doesn't want their phone associated with the Linksys phone, so quite frankly I don't see how this can come as a surprise to Cisco.
On the other hand, iPhone is quite clearly a trademark belonging to Cisco, and Apple knows it. So should be interesting to see what is going to happen.
... fuck.
What fascinates me most about this subject is that our biological body figured out a way to make use of quantum physics. If this turns out to be true, it could really revolutionalise the way we see the human body, and even life itself. I saw a lecture the other day of another neuroscientist proclaiming he found evidence of quantum entanglement in the human brain, in parts that are supposedly linked to our conscience. How the hell does a biologal organism know about quantum entanglement? I ask you! (if it turns out to be true that is)
I mean, it might just be a sign of the times. We start to get a grasp on how quantum physics work, and suddenly evidence for quantummechanics is found everywhere. But still, it is interesting.
It might even make sense. Our body makes use of normal physics to operate, so why not quantum physics right? Except I never really got how our bodies, or life for that matter, managed to figure out the universe. Sure, we'll use positive ions to seperate the H2O from our intestines! All electrons please use the neural pathways to travel and carry messages for us!
You are ofcourse, completely correct.
I regret that my attempt to blow up and exaggerate pieces of gameplay that do not fall within the realm of 'normal gameplay', and the fictional reactions of gaming companies towards those instances to point out how gaming companies are dictating the terms of our consumption of their products and how we are all falling in line like the good little consumers that we are, was lost on you.
There is ofcourse a slight chance I included cheat codes not only to simply adress the word 'cheat', but also to point out that perhaps, blizzard might not have a leg to stand on, as they would have when sueing people for using build in cheat codes. Perhaps, I also used these hyperboles to point out that not keeping to the terms of the agreement when it comes to playing games, does in fact not constitute a breach of any actual 'law' and therefore is not 'illegal' and might not have a place in any court of law.
But yeah, you are probably correct. I am ignorant, have no idea what I'm talking about and am just another sucker without a clue. Whereas you are the greatest and smartest person I have ever met and after reading your short but oh so subtle comment I already want to join your fan club.
If anyone is an actual legal expert btw, which I am not, I would like to know if there is any 'real' grounds for blizzard to pursue this case on.
Here's Tom with the weather!
And now when an alien civilization takes pictures from outer space and discover 'the face on earth' they will know for absolutely sure that there is no intelligent life on this planet.
No no I agree, but that's always the question with fledging technologies isn't it? Who's going to be the first to invest a substantial amount and take the dare. When is the time right for such actions? It's always about taking a chance, and usually people aren't that happy about taking chances with the amount of money that this particular billionaire is putting down for it.
It's almost something like out of a comic book or a movie. Eccentric billionaire builds launch pad for private space flight, headline of the Daily Planet or something :)
Commercial space travel is just still so much in its infancy that it seems hard to imagine that someone is actually willing to invest such huge amounts rather than your average tinkering with miniature rockets kind of stuff.
I'm not sure how the intelligence community usually handles their information sharing between agencies and members, but this seems a rather easy target.
One database with thousands of user accounts, remotely accessible, each account has full viewing access, the information is displayed in an easy to copy format ready to be picked clean by a single compromised account. One key logger, one leak, one vulnerability and it's all gone, that to me seems rather risky.
Now like I said, I don't know if it would be the same if one single person in the CIA or something would be compromised, ie that they would have unlimited access to a full database, but to me this seems a rather risky business.
If death penalty can't, what makes you think a camera will? People will commit crimes, regardless of the consequenses. The only way you will ever prevent that is to change the social situation of the people committing the crimes.
You realize that in order of the police to follow you they need a warrant right? So now instead of having someone trail you, they just watch you over the camera's, they check what internet pages you visited and all without a warrant, 24/7 continuous motion. Exploiting semantics is awesome.
Camera's serve no other purpose than to invade your privacy. They are prone to abuse, especially with 'intelligent' programming like this. They are sold to the general public as crime prevention methods, but in reality they are used to catch speeding vehicles (Plate recognition through CCTV is hot in the UK), hand out parking tickets (new experiment in Amsterdam) and the like. In the meanwhile however, when someone gets robbed the police doesn't have any cars available to send because of budget cuts.
How about you take all the money they waste on useless camera's and the subsequent developpement for so called smart programming like this and then invest it in better police training, crime prevention methods, investing in neighbourhoods. You know, generally do something usefull with it.
It's a good thing that google is not removing racist blogs. Fact is that any content, is highly subjective. If you start removing something because a certain party finds it offensive, you might as well blank the entire internet. Yeah it's a shame that such measures also include things like racism, but that is in my opinion a small price to pay for the greater value of free speech on the internet.