It's somewhat hidden, but yes, you can disable the entire application platform including facebook connect, and can also disallow friends' apps from reading your profile.
the authors of any Facebook apps that any of your friends decide to run,
I believe that is disable-able.
The rest are no different than any information on any website or non-website business. My grocery shopping is available to the grocery store, anyone who compromises the grocery store's info, and anyone the store (possibly illegally) sells my private information to.
That's still a MASSIVELY smaller amount of publicity or potential publicity than having, eg., a facebook account set to public.
The article is rather short on details and could easily be a few quotes out of context.
As perfectly demonstrated by the misquote you mention in your post, in which Schmidt was actually warning about the information that the government already has access to. What he really said amounted to "Don't google 'how to make bombs' if you're about to make a bomb and expect to get away with it - the feds can subpoena your search history."
There's a good chance his speech was actually about what you're saying - that there are increasing threats to privacy, and we will need to find ways around them if we want to retain anonymity.
Exactly. As long as people have the freedom to run their own web servers, people will continue to create and migrate to websites that allow anonymous or at least private posting.
I can't imagine the US courts upholding a law that bans anonymous posting without a constitutional amendment.
Who DOESNT set their facebook as friends-only? This applies to photos friends tag of you too, at least if someone is going through your profile to try to find them. I'm not sure if the tag can be indexed and searched from elsewhere if the friends has his photos open to the public?
Either way, I'm sick of people claiming "lol you has a facebook!", as if a private friends-only website implies you're OK with a public open-to-everyone display of your personal information, posts, etc. If anything it implies the exact opposite - the friends-only nature of facebook is exactly why it's so popular. Just look at the backlash every time Facebook has tried to force people's private information public.
Agreed. It did too many things at once, and was too buggy and slow to be used regularly at this stage of development. I loved the idea but every time I made a serious attempt to use it, I got stonewalled by performance, bugs, or both.
If they had used the same backend technology but made you pick a "type" of wave, eg. version-controlled document or threaded chat, people may have been able to grasp the concept and eventually move on to making generic "waves" that used all of the features at once. Even if it never ended up making sense to have version control, real time chatting, and threading in a single conversation, the subsets of these features would still be an improvement over many of the tools we use today.
Chronicles of Riddick did this exact same thing. Nope, Vin Diesel isn't some badass, he was just born from a race of badasses who can't help but have glowing eyes, huge muscles, and a chaotic good alignment.
I actually liked the movie, but that bit came close to ruining it for me.
One disk? The last HP I helped setup required burning 4 recovery DVDs. Which were actually included in the box. Remember, you don't just need room for the OS, you need room for another 3 disks of shovelware.
Wouldn't the proper scenario here be that with the update to "OIE6/7/8" the IE-specific hacks stop working, and the web page defaults to functionality that works in all browsers?
Same thing here - can Eclipse not run at all without using the -XX:MaxPermSize? Shouldn't it default to not using this argument if it sees an unexpected vendor name?
In this case I think it is a more of a matter of 'yeah so?'. I put my information on that website *SO* I could be found.
YOU may have. The issue here is that Facebook keeps defaulting more and more info to public. Many of these users may have no clue their information is currently public, nor how much of it is public.
At best it's a usability issue, where Facebook isn't making it clear to users what is private and what is public. At worse (and more likely) it's intentional obfuscation on Facebooks part to try to make money.
You have by its nature shared with at least 2 parties. Your friends and facebook.
If you talk on your cell phone you have by nature shared it with at least 2 parties. The other caller and your mobile carrier. This in no way implies you have no right or expectation to privacy.
The ring is interesting. My take on that is the ring indicates Cobb has gotten over Mal, with Ariadne's help. This is also why Mal won't show up to torture him in the final scene's dream world.
I'm not sure if Valve has ever made an effort to fix it, but this is why I stopped playing Counter-strike. I'm ALL for custom servers, custom game types, custom maps, etc.
But when you're selling a boxed game with a presumably well-designed game experience, there should be a checkbox in the server search for "vanilla"/default game rules and maps.
It's very frustrating to try to play a game of CS or TF2 and repeatedly end up on servers with strange rules, or that soon switch to a terrible map, or have an admin kicking/slapping/killing anyone who does better than him.
Another remote possibility, based on some comments about Cobb having gone to limbo and had his mind turned somewhat to mush:
Maybe Mal and the kids were in his limbo, and never existed in reality. This could be why Mal keeps breaking into his dreams - thats the only place she ever existed. This idea kind of breaks from people saying things about Mal as if they had met her, but it's possible they had met her as a projection in a dream before she killed herself in one. Once she did that in a dream Cobb started thinking of her as dead and vengeful, so thats how she kept reappearing.
On top of what you said about the kids, it's not clear when they were born. The kids weren't in limbo with Mal and Cobb, seemingly. But then she seemed to go crazy shortly afterwards, and the kids jumped from non-existant to ~3+ years old for the older kid.
It's a long shot, but just another possible interpretation of this crazy movie.
I mentioned this above, and that it isn't 100% certain, buuut:
1) Cobb and Mal got out of limbo with death only because they weren't heavily sedated at the time. The reason they ended up in limbo wasnt from death while sedated, it was from staying in a life-like dream so long they forgot it was a dream.
2) Saito and Cobb are heavily sedated, and thats the only reason they went to limbo in the first place. Their bodies couldn't wake up without a kick. (falling)
3) Ariadne didn't get out because she died, she got out because of the falling sensation from jumping off the building, paired with the simultaneous falling sensation in the other 3 levels above their limbo.
4) It's possible (just realizing this) that time moved so slowly in Saitos limbo that he could have, after killing Cobb, jumped out his building and "caught" the kick as well to wake up. However, he would still have get out of the van in the first dream level before drowning. The movie seemed to show enough of the other guys getting out of the van in level 1 to indicate that didn't happen.
Yeah, this. I do think the movie puts Mal and Cobb's kids in questionable enough light that I could believe they never existed at all. But a movie where everything you hear is a meaningless lie seems like it would be a pretty meaningless movie. So I still hope that wasn't the intended interpretation of the movie.
It turns out that the way out of limbo is to kill yourself?? I thought the big thing with being in limbo was that there was no way out until you eventually woke up. The way it was portrayed in the film, you could just get out of limbo if you 'die(in your dream)'. Doesn't that just defeat the whole fear of going to limbo to begin with? I mean Cobb's first foray into limbo only ended when they killed themselves. How could he not care to share that fact with everyone else? Can anyone clear this one up?
Those are good questions, and I'm not sure the movie provided the answers. I sort of got the impression that Mal and Cobb were not heavily sedated when they went into "limbo" - it was really just limbo because they stayed in it so long, and used real world buildings, and forgot it was a dream. If that's true, limbo really equals any dream you don't realize is a dream.
If that's true, death would have gotten Mal and Cobb out of that limbo, but wouldn't get Saito and Cobb out of their limbo, just, presumably, send them to another (still heavily sedated, perhaps even deeper/slower time-passage) level of limbo.
I do think there are a lot of hints in the movie that none of it may have been real. But I still consider this a "hidden" or more complicated explanation, where "Saito shot Cobb" is the straight forward easily-supported one. In particular, believing the whole movie is a dream requires disbelief in the entire idea of totems, or at least that Cobb's top was a valid totem.
Don't get me wrong, I do think the question of whether Cobb's totem was accurate is valid. Especially when they say it was Mal's totem originally. The best argument against the theory that the whole thing is a dream though, is again, the totem not falling at the end. If Cobb was in a dream at the end, which he believed was real, his totem would have fallen, just like did in the "top" level dream, which he thought was real.
Several times in the movie they point out that one of the ways you can tell you're in a dream is that you don't know how you got to the present state, you just assume there's a reason and go with the flow. We just don't notice it in reference to the movie itself because that's how movies work, but really think about it - what was Cobb doing before going into Saito's head?
This is one of the more infuriating topics they bring up in the movie:) As you said, due to the nature of movies, we never have access to the full flow of every minute here-to-there. Does that mean the film is meant to imply there was no here-to-there? It's hard to say.
If you die when shot in limbo, why were they using a complicated 3-level kick to get out of their dreams? The only reason they went to limbo in the first place is because they were heavily sedated. Death in limbo would not wake them up. If it would have, the guy in the van could have just shot them all to wake them up.
There is also no possibility that Saito performed inception, particularly not by telling Cobb something while he was awake.
Not "performed inception" in the sense of "implanted an idea by going 3+ levels deep in someone's head", no. But you don't have to invade someone's dreams to give them an idea.
He was dreaming at the end, the top didn't fall. Considering the slow zoom in on the top, if the filmmaker intended anyone to interpret the ending as reality, the top would have fallen. The wobble was just to elicit groans from the audience as it failed to fall, and made us start cranking our minds to figure out what happened.
The simple and non-ambiguous ending is that he is in a dream because Saito shot him. The last scene before Cobb woke up was Saito picking up a handgun. This was Saito's plan all along. He sent Cobb back to limbo after planting the idea (inception) that Cobb would be able to make it through customs. This allowed him to life a life with his kids. Well, his creepy fake dream kids.
There are many more complicated theories, but I think this is the intended "obvious" ending.
I don't think Valve games are flawless, but I would categorically state in a survey "Oh yes, I'm going to buy another Valve game!" Same with Blizzard. Same with Google. Same with my Dell desktop. Same with my Microsoft mouse. Same with Apple.
These are companies that make standout products worth loving. None of these companies nor products are perfect. That's OK.
The problem isn't expressing subtraction. The problem is creating complexity where it isn't needed, usually in the name of some ivory tower abstracted reusability in a place where the code will never ever be reused.
Instead if only makes the code buggier, harder to understand, and eventually rewritten entirely because there are too many abstracted layers to make changes.
Slashdot Mirror
It's somewhat hidden, but yes, you can disable the entire application platform including facebook connect, and can also disallow friends' apps from reading your profile.
I certainly agree that Facebook is trying hard to destroy any trust the public may have once had in them. :\
the authors of any Facebook apps that any of your friends decide to run,
I believe that is disable-able.
The rest are no different than any information on any website or non-website business. My grocery shopping is available to the grocery store, anyone who compromises the grocery store's info, and anyone the store (possibly illegally) sells my private information to.
That's still a MASSIVELY smaller amount of publicity or potential publicity than having, eg., a facebook account set to public.
Ok, which part of that should I keep telling myself?
The article is rather short on details and could easily be a few quotes out of context.
As perfectly demonstrated by the misquote you mention in your post, in which Schmidt was actually warning about the information that the government already has access to. What he really said amounted to "Don't google 'how to make bombs' if you're about to make a bomb and expect to get away with it - the feds can subpoena your search history."
There's a good chance his speech was actually about what you're saying - that there are increasing threats to privacy, and we will need to find ways around them if we want to retain anonymity.
Exactly. As long as people have the freedom to run their own web servers, people will continue to create and migrate to websites that allow anonymous or at least private posting.
I can't imagine the US courts upholding a law that bans anonymous posting without a constitutional amendment.
Who DOESNT set their facebook as friends-only? This applies to photos friends tag of you too, at least if someone is going through your profile to try to find them. I'm not sure if the tag can be indexed and searched from elsewhere if the friends has his photos open to the public?
Either way, I'm sick of people claiming "lol you has a facebook!", as if a private friends-only website implies you're OK with a public open-to-everyone display of your personal information, posts, etc. If anything it implies the exact opposite - the friends-only nature of facebook is exactly why it's so popular. Just look at the backlash every time Facebook has tried to force people's private information public.
Agreed. It did too many things at once, and was too buggy and slow to be used regularly at this stage of development. I loved the idea but every time I made a serious attempt to use it, I got stonewalled by performance, bugs, or both.
If they had used the same backend technology but made you pick a "type" of wave, eg. version-controlled document or threaded chat, people may have been able to grasp the concept and eventually move on to making generic "waves" that used all of the features at once. Even if it never ended up making sense to have version control, real time chatting, and threading in a single conversation, the subsets of these features would still be an improvement over many of the tools we use today.
Chronicles of Riddick did this exact same thing. Nope, Vin Diesel isn't some badass, he was just born from a race of badasses who can't help but have glowing eyes, huge muscles, and a chaotic good alignment.
I actually liked the movie, but that bit came close to ruining it for me.
One disk? The last HP I helped setup required burning 4 recovery DVDs. Which were actually included in the box. Remember, you don't just need room for the OS, you need room for another 3 disks of shovelware.
Wouldn't the proper scenario here be that with the update to "OIE6/7/8" the IE-specific hacks stop working, and the web page defaults to functionality that works in all browsers?
Same thing here - can Eclipse not run at all without using the -XX:MaxPermSize? Shouldn't it default to not using this argument if it sees an unexpected vendor name?
In this case I think it is a more of a matter of 'yeah so?'. I put my information on that website *SO* I could be found.
YOU may have. The issue here is that Facebook keeps defaulting more and more info to public. Many of these users may have no clue their information is currently public, nor how much of it is public.
At best it's a usability issue, where Facebook isn't making it clear to users what is private and what is public. At worse (and more likely) it's intentional obfuscation on Facebooks part to try to make money.
You have by its nature shared with at least 2 parties. Your friends and facebook.
If you talk on your cell phone you have by nature shared it with at least 2 parties. The other caller and your mobile carrier. This in no way implies you have no right or expectation to privacy.
The ring is interesting. My take on that is the ring indicates Cobb has gotten over Mal, with Ariadne's help. This is also why Mal won't show up to torture him in the final scene's dream world.
I'm not sure if Valve has ever made an effort to fix it, but this is why I stopped playing Counter-strike. I'm ALL for custom servers, custom game types, custom maps, etc.
But when you're selling a boxed game with a presumably well-designed game experience, there should be a checkbox in the server search for "vanilla"/default game rules and maps.
It's very frustrating to try to play a game of CS or TF2 and repeatedly end up on servers with strange rules, or that soon switch to a terrible map, or have an admin kicking/slapping/killing anyone who does better than him.
Another remote possibility, based on some comments about Cobb having gone to limbo and had his mind turned somewhat to mush:
Maybe Mal and the kids were in his limbo, and never existed in reality. This could be why Mal keeps breaking into his dreams - thats the only place she ever existed. This idea kind of breaks from people saying things about Mal as if they had met her, but it's possible they had met her as a projection in a dream before she killed herself in one. Once she did that in a dream Cobb started thinking of her as dead and vengeful, so thats how she kept reappearing.
On top of what you said about the kids, it's not clear when they were born. The kids weren't in limbo with Mal and Cobb, seemingly. But then she seemed to go crazy shortly afterwards, and the kids jumped from non-existant to ~3+ years old for the older kid.
It's a long shot, but just another possible interpretation of this crazy movie.
In that case the movie is about how unreliable inception is: everyone left the theater with a different idea :)
I mentioned this above, and that it isn't 100% certain, buuut:
1) Cobb and Mal got out of limbo with death only because they weren't heavily sedated at the time. The reason they ended up in limbo wasnt from death while sedated, it was from staying in a life-like dream so long they forgot it was a dream.
2) Saito and Cobb are heavily sedated, and thats the only reason they went to limbo in the first place. Their bodies couldn't wake up without a kick. (falling)
3) Ariadne didn't get out because she died, she got out because of the falling sensation from jumping off the building, paired with the simultaneous falling sensation in the other 3 levels above their limbo.
4) It's possible (just realizing this) that time moved so slowly in Saitos limbo that he could have, after killing Cobb, jumped out his building and "caught" the kick as well to wake up. However, he would still have get out of the van in the first dream level before drowning. The movie seemed to show enough of the other guys getting out of the van in level 1 to indicate that didn't happen.
Yeah, this. I do think the movie puts Mal and Cobb's kids in questionable enough light that I could believe they never existed at all. But a movie where everything you hear is a meaningless lie seems like it would be a pretty meaningless movie. So I still hope that wasn't the intended interpretation of the movie.
It turns out that the way out of limbo is to kill yourself?? I thought the big thing with being in limbo was that there was no way out until you eventually woke up. The way it was portrayed in the film, you could just get out of limbo if you 'die(in your dream)'. Doesn't that just defeat the whole fear of going to limbo to begin with? I mean Cobb's first foray into limbo only ended when they killed themselves. How could he not care to share that fact with everyone else? Can anyone clear this one up?
Those are good questions, and I'm not sure the movie provided the answers. I sort of got the impression that Mal and Cobb were not heavily sedated when they went into "limbo" - it was really just limbo because they stayed in it so long, and used real world buildings, and forgot it was a dream. If that's true, limbo really equals any dream you don't realize is a dream.
If that's true, death would have gotten Mal and Cobb out of that limbo, but wouldn't get Saito and Cobb out of their limbo, just, presumably, send them to another (still heavily sedated, perhaps even deeper/slower time-passage) level of limbo.
I do think there are a lot of hints in the movie that none of it may have been real. But I still consider this a "hidden" or more complicated explanation, where "Saito shot Cobb" is the straight forward easily-supported one. In particular, believing the whole movie is a dream requires disbelief in the entire idea of totems, or at least that Cobb's top was a valid totem.
Don't get me wrong, I do think the question of whether Cobb's totem was accurate is valid. Especially when they say it was Mal's totem originally. The best argument against the theory that the whole thing is a dream though, is again, the totem not falling at the end. If Cobb was in a dream at the end, which he believed was real, his totem would have fallen, just like did in the "top" level dream, which he thought was real.
Several times in the movie they point out that one of the ways you can tell you're in a dream is that you don't know how you got to the present state, you just assume there's a reason and go with the flow. We just don't notice it in reference to the movie itself because that's how movies work, but really think about it - what was Cobb doing before going into Saito's head?
This is one of the more infuriating topics they bring up in the movie :) As you said, due to the nature of movies, we never have access to the full flow of every minute here-to-there. Does that mean the film is meant to imply there was no here-to-there? It's hard to say.
If you die when shot in limbo, why were they using a complicated 3-level kick to get out of their dreams? The only reason they went to limbo in the first place is because they were heavily sedated. Death in limbo would not wake them up. If it would have, the guy in the van could have just shot them all to wake them up.
There is also no possibility that Saito performed inception, particularly not by telling Cobb something while he was awake.
Not "performed inception" in the sense of "implanted an idea by going 3+ levels deep in someone's head", no. But you don't have to invade someone's dreams to give them an idea.
That's unfortunate. I guess we still need to push the legislative branch to fix the DMCA then?
He was dreaming at the end, the top didn't fall. Considering the slow zoom in on the top, if the filmmaker intended anyone to interpret the ending as reality, the top would have fallen. The wobble was just to elicit groans from the audience as it failed to fall, and made us start cranking our minds to figure out what happened.
The simple and non-ambiguous ending is that he is in a dream because Saito shot him. The last scene before Cobb woke up was Saito picking up a handgun. This was Saito's plan all along. He sent Cobb back to limbo after planting the idea (inception) that Cobb would be able to make it through customs. This allowed him to life a life with his kids. Well, his creepy fake dream kids.
There are many more complicated theories, but I think this is the intended "obvious" ending.
I don't think Valve games are flawless, but I would categorically state in a survey "Oh yes, I'm going to buy another Valve game!" Same with Blizzard. Same with Google. Same with my Dell desktop. Same with my Microsoft mouse. Same with Apple.
These are companies that make standout products worth loving. None of these companies nor products are perfect. That's OK.
The problem isn't expressing subtraction. The problem is creating complexity where it isn't needed, usually in the name of some ivory tower abstracted reusability in a place where the code will never ever be reused.
Instead if only makes the code buggier, harder to understand, and eventually rewritten entirely because there are too many abstracted layers to make changes.