Now we can go and track their orbits and if anyone gets close to being a threat maybe have some small chance at dealing with it or preparing for the really bad results if we can't deal with it.
I'm wondering how - exactly - Blizzard intends to verify 'real' names. I'm also wondering how they intend to survive the legal ramifications of publishing the PII of minors on the internet.
Google's ranking algorithm now includes a penalty for sites that load too slowly.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. My initial response was a happy one, but the more I think about it, the more it seems to be unnecessarily discriminating against those who are too far away from the bleeding edge. Do we really live in a world where 'Speed=Good' so completely that we need to penalize those who don't run fast enough? And where are we drawing the line between 'fast' and 'slow'?
There was a time when tabbed browsing was a new idea. If I remember correctly, IE was the last browser to get on board with it. In fact, I'm pretty sure that IE is the last browser to get on board with just about everything. Eventually, though, IE does come on board with everyone else (it may take years, but hey - possessing the lion's share of the market share has its advantages). I don't see any reason to believe that this will be any different with HTML5. And then (as now) the so-called 'Browser Wars' will boil down to a simple matter of personal preference.
I'm still confused about this whole concept of computer security. No other aspect of my life is particularly secure - why should I expect my computer to be secure? More to the point - why should I expect someone else to provide that security? In every other part of my life, my security is up to me to arrange and maintain. In my job, in my relationships, in my retirement, in my health - it's all up to me. Why do we think our computers will be different?
But since most ISPs use public land or funds, we, the taxpayers have a say in their operations.
A quaint and interesting idea. In this scenario, we should have a say in how all of our tax money gets spent. What do you suppose would happen if we all declared that we wanted our tax money to go to public education and welfare rather than the military-industrial complex?
I know - you're the kind of douchebag that thinks someone else should protect your privacy for you. God forbid you should have to put any effort into your own protection. In fact, you can walk through the mall bare-ass naked, and we'll all promise to turn around and look away - just to protect your privacy. We wouldn't want you to have to wear clothes or anything.
If you really want to protect your privacy, there's only one way to achieve it. Don't type anything into a computer (or a smart phone). Ever. Especially a computer that's connected.
Otherwise, just give up on this mythical creature called 'Privacy'.
Both. Scientists almost never talk about 'truth' in a scientific context. Science is not in the business of truth, and for good reason - truth is neither objective nor verifiable. Truth is born of faith and belief, which is why it is the business of religion (and philosophy, although philosophy only claims to seek truth, not to have found it).
Science and religion exist in separate worlds which don't really overlap. It is foolish to presume science can 'disprove' religion, for the same reasons it is foolish to presume religion can 'disprove' science. They live by different sets of rules.
You're right. In fact, I think the most common statement in the Victorian Era was something along the lines of: "You're six feet tall, smell of cloves and talk with a lisp, but that tiny mask you're holding over your eyes makes it impossible for me to discern who you are."
I can't help but question the continued usefulness of Wine, though. I recently tried to run some apps in Wine and failed. I ended up just running the app (and several others) in a VM (VirtualBox) - a no-muss, no-fuss solution.
Actually, I'd argue that a right to anonymity was purposefully left out of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Human society pretty much depends upon a lack of anonymity to function. If people are relieved of personal responsibility, the social order has very little keeping it together (if you doubt this, just look at any situation in human history in which the rules were removed - riots, wars, blackouts). We are not, by nature, moral creatures. Morality is something that must be imposed, either from within or without. Unfortunately, most people need it to be imposed from without. I do not doubt that the Founding Drunkards were painfully aware of this.
Slashdot Mirror
Now we can go and track their orbits and if anyone gets close to being a threat maybe have some small chance at dealing with it or preparing for the really bad results if we can't deal with it.
Exactly. Call Bruce Willis.
Did we actually win one?
... to contradict the previous story. Power to the people!
I'd just like to thank the author for not using the ridiculous term 'identity theft'.
I'm wondering how - exactly - Blizzard intends to verify 'real' names. I'm also wondering how they intend to survive the legal ramifications of publishing the PII of minors on the internet.
Calling it INSTALL_ASSET makes it seem so real.
Google's ranking algorithm now includes a penalty for sites that load too slowly.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. My initial response was a happy one, but the more I think about it, the more it seems to be unnecessarily discriminating against those who are too far away from the bleeding edge. Do we really live in a world where 'Speed=Good' so completely that we need to penalize those who don't run fast enough? And where are we drawing the line between 'fast' and 'slow'?
- Jeremy
What if some of those 114,000 iPad users live in Massachusetts? http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/04/25/1745210/Mass-Data-Security-Law-Says-Thou-Shalt-Encrypt
This pretty much describes the entirety of academia - all theory, no practice. Nothing new here.
There was a time when tabbed browsing was a new idea. If I remember correctly, IE was the last browser to get on board with it. In fact, I'm pretty sure that IE is the last browser to get on board with just about everything. Eventually, though, IE does come on board with everyone else (it may take years, but hey - possessing the lion's share of the market share has its advantages). I don't see any reason to believe that this will be any different with HTML5. And then (as now) the so-called 'Browser Wars' will boil down to a simple matter of personal preference.
So now helping the government = good. Wow. What country do you live in?
I'm still confused about this whole concept of computer security. No other aspect of my life is particularly secure - why should I expect my computer to be secure? More to the point - why should I expect someone else to provide that security? In every other part of my life, my security is up to me to arrange and maintain. In my job, in my relationships, in my retirement, in my health - it's all up to me. Why do we think our computers will be different?
..is that the fly got Jeff Goldblum's nose.
I'm curious - In your head, does it seem as though you actually responded to the question asked?
When did the FCC become the Dauntless Defender of the Little Guy?
But since most ISPs use public land or funds, we, the taxpayers have a say in their operations.
A quaint and interesting idea. In this scenario, we should have a say in how all of our tax money gets spent. What do you suppose would happen if we all declared that we wanted our tax money to go to public education and welfare rather than the military-industrial complex?
I know - you're the kind of douchebag that thinks someone else should protect your privacy for you. God forbid you should have to put any effort into your own protection. In fact, you can walk through the mall bare-ass naked, and we'll all promise to turn around and look away - just to protect your privacy. We wouldn't want you to have to wear clothes or anything.
Otherwise, just give up on this mythical creature called 'Privacy'.
Science and religion exist in separate worlds which don't really overlap. It is foolish to presume science can 'disprove' religion, for the same reasons it is foolish to presume religion can 'disprove' science. They live by different sets of rules.
Trouble is, religions have this nasty habit of attempting to make claims that are, in fact, empirically verifiable (or, typically, falsifiable)
If - and only if - you mistakenly consider 'truth' and 'fact' to be the same thing.
You're right. In fact, I think the most common statement in the Victorian Era was something along the lines of: "You're six feet tall, smell of cloves and talk with a lisp, but that tiny mask you're holding over your eyes makes it impossible for me to discern who you are."
Do we actually need Wine anymore?
Actually, I'd argue that a right to anonymity was purposefully left out of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Human society pretty much depends upon a lack of anonymity to function. If people are relieved of personal responsibility, the social order has very little keeping it together (if you doubt this, just look at any situation in human history in which the rules were removed - riots, wars, blackouts). We are not, by nature, moral creatures. Morality is something that must be imposed, either from within or without. Unfortunately, most people need it to be imposed from without. I do not doubt that the Founding Drunkards were painfully aware of this.
Nature.
Really? Which part of living naked in trees equates to privacy?