Communication tools tend to get a bit more love from churches. In 10 years we could have local, interactive mass anywhere. Most churches want that...especially for the sake of the sick.
On the contrary, he had a head wound in the police footage. I -thought- I saw one when I first saw the video, but it was obscured by the ABC news banner/watermark. Competing media outlets are claiming that ABC edited the video, but it was probably just bad luck with the placement of that banner. (much like the watermark for TMZ and others like it, they probably just use software to stick it in the same place for every video/still)
Remember that this all took place over many many hours if not days. It didn't get picked up by the media until about three weeks later.
It'll be more downgraded for everyone than people immediately realize. Offline play will be severely affected.
Even if each game only requires online access once, it will be a major inconvenience to users that may not have their device connected all the time for one reason or another. (and I'll bet there are still users out there who keep their consoles offline at all times -- i.e. when young children are the players, or players whom their game console is their sole luxury)
Well, in terms of science...yeah. The right's idiot wing is far worse. The left's idiot wing simply doesn't know how the economy works.
Modern intelligent conservatives are plentiful, though. They have a silent understanding of the need to pander to get votes in favor of the fiscal policies they desire. It's kind of how like intelligent liberals pander to the "free stuff" wing despite knowing much of it is not economically feasible. I do hope that the state of affairs will change someday.
Romney may be the least anti-science candidate on the right, and he's still silently crushing ass juice. He won't win to become the first science friendly Republican president in decades, but it's a start.:P
If conservatives are so skeptical of faked data, then please explain the blind adherence to their religious texts.
American conservatives are not that simple. We live in a two-party system and going independent essentially erases your voice, so most people pick a label and form sub-groups. Under "conservative" you have libertarians, (far more than are in the Libertarian Party, mind you) the religious right, the log cabin republicans, most of wall street:p, and a whole slew of other conflicted groups who only really agree on economic policy a little. (one of the drums beat during Tea Party movements was to put social issues on the back burner, though the candidates have been somewhat contrary to this -- especially Santorum) Liberals also have libertarians, socialists (both authoritarian and "legalize everything"), people who want free stuff, etc. People on both sides hold their nose and pretend some of the people on their side don't exist. Third parties can't prosper because then the "other side" will have a supermajority, and "all hell will break loose".
That said, it's a bit of a blanket statement to make that assumption. Cable news is all about getting ratings from people who are generally unemployed and can't find something better to do than sit in front of the TV. I've been going along with the right for the last few years (and believe me, my nose is bleeding from how hard I've held it) but I'm as interested in interacting with the religious right as I am with the free stuff left. My argument isn't about liberals and conservatives, it's about politics and science. Missteps like the claimed exclusion of the medieval warm period from presentations made to the public may have been the biggest political blunder related to climate change.
If you're going to convince the public to do something extremely inconvenient, you have to be honest. It doesn't matter if you're right, it matters that the public believes you are.
If you look at it this way, how would you -personally- go about verifying all the data and conclusions about climate change? That's the heart of the problem.
Conservatives do have an anti-regulation stance (and my libertarian biases also lead that way) but if you ignore the idiot wing of the right, (believe me, there's one just as bad on the left) a lot of conservatives are concerned that the scientific method is properly being followed. The problems with mixing politics and science is that modern scientific studies have become so complicated that verification of them is like understanding half of what's being argued at the Supreme Court today. Most people can't do it.
Recent stories of faked data in other fields don't help.
I have to agree. The real potential damage by Netflix is so small, suing them makes little sense to begin with. That said, I find it amusing that they mention in the TOS that you can sue in small claims. A torrent of those could do a lot of damage, and would be difficult to defend. (Insufficient legal resources) Probably what the AT&T guy was going for.
Cool. We can end it with that -- in the context of the averages of the general public. Best to keep away from debating the fine particulars of any individual's ability to handle it while maintaining productivity. I was only bothered by "However, no one is simply "wired" to handle excessive amounts of work."
The summary writer really seemed to have an axe to grind, and there actually are countries that have laws against basic overtime under conditions that would make Americans go "WTF? Seriously?"
I think you're getting a bit off topic. The discussion is focused on much shorter time frames. Over years, a person will get burnt out not necessarily because they are working too much, but because they are tired of what they're doing. It's common to get bored of something, need change, etc. This goes for work, hobbies, everything...
Not sure if our little back and forth has become a discussion of determinism, but re-read the post this reply is to. Kind of seems like you're swinging both ways with the notion of being "wired that way".:)
Personally? I'm wired to be a busybody and I do get bored of things after awhile. I can only do pure relaxation/recreation in small doses...excess idle time brings me misery. It's a great big world and life's too short to explore everything that intrigues me.
And yeah, we're capable of self-deception (being a dying individual in a dying world in a dying solar system in a dying galaxy in a dying universe would be difficult without some amount of self-deception), but we're also capable of getting a more grounded sense of self by analyzing the assertions of others alongside any imperial evidence we can find. I'm not going to argue that much further as self-deception is a trap argument. ("You're deceiving yourself." [Two answers] A:"No I'm not. Prove it." B: "No I'm not, cause I know I'm not...err wait." -- irresolvable)
Speaking of things I'm bad at, properly proofreading my posts.;) The key thing that really set me off was when you said "They're doing poorly but they don't know it." The "but they don't know it" part is key to the code phrase. I've been excessively fatigued and very, very drunk enough times (and um other...yeah, public forum;) ) to know when I'm doing poorly. If that's egotistical of me to assert, then I'm egotistical. But I know myself at least that well.
I don't think I'm magical and I don't think I'm superman. But to paint a broad brush the way you did is just fallacious. Some people gain muscle without even trying. Some people can last twice as long underwater with the same build/weight/height and the same capacity in their scuba tanks. Some people have far more reliable memories than others. Some people can weave logic better/faster than others. (they make great programmers, btw) Some people can function with 4 hours of sleep while others feel lethargic with a mere 7. Some people fly off the handle with the smallest trigger, while others keep their cool as if all their food is laced with pot. Some people can function well without coffee, others can't -- you've seen them around the office. Some people panic more easily than others. The list goes on.
It annoys the hell out of me when someone makes the basis of their 40 hour week argument the following: "No one's inherently more capable than others to handle overtime." With all the variability across humanity? Bullshit. It's really just code for the following: "I don't want to live in a meritocracy where someone who's more capable of working overtime can get ahead of me career-wise." Deal with it. The free market rewards "good with overtime" person just as it rewards the person who keeps their cool, someone who gains muscle without even trying, the commercial diver with a good SAC, etc. We are not all equal, but most of us have advantages over others. Find them, embrace them, and make money with them. But don't whine because you don't have certain advantages.
I have to disagree. Anyone who makes such broad statements does not understand how widely people can vary. I could personally handle an 80 hour work week if I had enough passion for what I do, too. That is the mindset that allows small business to flourish.
I'm not being generous. I'm just saying: people will do what they need to do. It's kind of a social engineering thing. Better that they drive around uninsured instead of mugging someone or turn tricks in a dark alley.
I'm basically asserting the importance of having a car, and giving these people the benefit of the doubt -- assuming that they're driving uninsured or their registration isn't up to date because they have to make cuts somewhere. They already run the risk of getting stopped, I'd imagine. Clamping down on this issue automagically and squeezing the poor this way can only lead to more desperate forms of crime.
So about $550. That's admittedly much better than I had in California. (I was happy enough with my $400 single room, rented from a homeowner) I'm really in no position to debate the financial burdens of a UK citizen who's starting out their adult life, as I know nothing about the situation. (minimum wage, unemployment%, taxes, etc.) It would be interesting to see how long those 4% of uninsured motorists stay that uninsured, what their motivations are, etc...
Surely the UK has less densely populated areas than the major cities. Even then, from a US perspective, I couldn't afford to live in any city when I was dirt poor. Is it different in the UK? Just from a college-age perspective, I had to juggle with finding sufficiently low rents, time constraints, and distance between schooling and whatever job I could get. (I was in no position to be picky) A car was _not_ optional -- mass transit doesn't cover everything.
The more the UK implemens things like this, the more pressure will be put on them to fix whatever social problems they may have. I don't live in the UK but I know what it's like to be poor. I know that car is just not optional if anything resembling success, or getting out of the miserable rut you're in, is important to you. So yeah, from my own experiences I do have sympathy for those who break the rules. If the system is broken, people have to do what they need to make it in soiety. If the UK keeps making it more and more difficult to commit minor infractions and don't deal with the underlying issues, they will only see a rise in more desperate activiy...and it will serve them right. Glad I'm not poor anymore. Heh. (Sorry for speling, sent on a slow phone browser)
That, combined with the college/student loan bubble. S&E students tend to be, well, intelligent. The combination of outsourcing concerns, college costs vastly exceeding inflation (which any intelligent middle/high schooler witnessed during those years), college costs more or less exceeding what one could realistically pull in with employment, and the fact that there's no way out of student loans that didn't produce return on investment would scare away plenty of people with the natural talent needed for S&E. These people may seek out other fields that can be entered through different means, finding other means to make it.
Those who simply equate college=more money and don't THINK, often go into unprofitable majors, don't work part of it off and leave their four year with five figures of debt, or worse. Incidentally, their burden on the demand is responsible for scaring away those who would otherwise get into profitable S&E fields.
At the risk of getting too political, we have deep inlaid problems that will take years if not decades for the masses to finally pick up on...
You know, this inspires me to another possible workaround: talking slowly. Ttthhheee dddiiifffeeerrreeennnccceee aaattt ttthhhiiisss rrraaattteee might not be mentally jarring enough to trigger the effect.
I bet something similar (albeit with reduced range) could be put together with off-the-internet parts. Seems more like a great way to be a pain in the arse than for [insert your least favorite politician here] to take over the world.
Plan B is always rushing the gun owner, grabbing it out of their hand, smashing it, and then yelling at them. She'll probably figure that out pretty quickly.
More megapixels + multitouch interface = win Reason: It makes digital zoom less of a gimmick
Imagine this: You take a shot, then do the pinch gesture to zoom in on a certain spot. You also use a single finger to get exactly what you want from the shot to appear on screen. You keep on pinching/dragging until you have the exact final image you want. You've ultimately zoomed 3x and focused on a bird flying by (or something else) and you click "save". You have an effortlessly taken image of a bird flying by, not needing any editing software to get it exactly how you want, with the same quality as current phone digital cameras -- but essentially an impossible shot since you'd have to be flying with other phones to take it.
With the right software and interface, even a gigapixel camera would be worth my $$.
While this can be a concern, you have to put it into perspective. You download some game and now Google knows you play that game because it has AdMob. So what? Apple already has insane amount of your usage statistics that would make Google foam at the mouth. In the end, though, for all these tech giants know about me, they only want to use it to sell me stuff.
The only exception to this rule has been Facebook, which is why I quarantine my Facebook account in a browser I don't normally use. They have a track record of publishing unapproved information to a user's friends, and my philosophy is once a scumbag, always a scumbag. I'm finding it too hard to completely boycott them, so I've just metaphorically stuffed them into a box.
But Google and Apple (the latter of which I'm a certified hater of) are mature companies who just want to be able to charge more for impressions and click-throughs, so I just don't care. I can easily quarantine searches that I don't want even them being aware of. As for the makers of the game you downloaded, they just want statistics across their entire portfolio for making smarter business decisions in the future. None of these parties want to harass you.
I know that there is a considerable off-grid contingent on/., but I don't get why people use getting unique device identifier (UDID) as an example of stealing user data. It isn't hacking or anything -- it's a public API usable by any app writer. If it weren't acceptable to use, Apple wouldn't allow apps which access the UDID onto their store.
There are a large number of practical applications for the UDID, ranging from the more user friendly uses such as automatic backup of app-specific data (i.e. game save), to mutually beneficial things like incentivization schemes, to features less popular to the user but necessary to make free content financially viable, i.e. targeted advertising.
Whenever I rail against Apple around here, people always bring up the concept that most people just want their device to be an applicance, and don't want to care about the internals. This comes with said blissful ignorance. But those 20% of apps passing data back home aren't stealing anything -- they're just using another tool to profit in the modern mobile space. More than 99% of that 20% is sending no more than the UDID and data specific to the application itself. Stealing would be to somehow get the user's underlying iTunes account info and buying stuff with it. (though what Path was doing is a bit of a mess, heh...)
Slashdot Mirror
Oracle's courtroom slideshow at the bottom was really damning... as was its purpose.
Wow, you're not kidding. That slideshow looks bad. Google's going to lose this case.
Unless the importance of Android is considered so great that there is outside intervention. See also RIM in 2006 or "too big to fail."
Total waste of money. They should have been studying cat genes if they're trying to detect intelligence. Cats have it figured out...
Communication tools tend to get a bit more love from churches. In 10 years we could have local, interactive mass anywhere. Most churches want that...especially for the sake of the sick.
On the contrary, he had a head wound in the police footage. I -thought- I saw one when I first saw the video, but it was obscured by the ABC news banner/watermark. Competing media outlets are claiming that ABC edited the video, but it was probably just bad luck with the placement of that banner. (much like the watermark for TMZ and others like it, they probably just use software to stick it in the same place for every video/still)
Remember that this all took place over many many hours if not days. It didn't get picked up by the media until about three weeks later.
It'll be more downgraded for everyone than people immediately realize. Offline play will be severely affected.
Even if each game only requires online access once, it will be a major inconvenience to users that may not have their device connected all the time for one reason or another. (and I'll bet there are still users out there who keep their consoles offline at all times -- i.e. when young children are the players, or players whom their game console is their sole luxury)
Well, in terms of science...yeah. The right's idiot wing is far worse. The left's idiot wing simply doesn't know how the economy works.
:P
Modern intelligent conservatives are plentiful, though. They have a silent understanding of the need to pander to get votes in favor of the fiscal policies they desire. It's kind of how like intelligent liberals pander to the "free stuff" wing despite knowing much of it is not economically feasible. I do hope that the state of affairs will change someday.
Romney may be the least anti-science candidate on the right, and he's still silently crushing ass juice. He won't win to become the first science friendly Republican president in decades, but it's a start.
If conservatives are so skeptical of faked data, then please explain the blind adherence to their religious texts.
American conservatives are not that simple. We live in a two-party system and going independent essentially erases your voice, so most people pick a label and form sub-groups. Under "conservative" you have libertarians, (far more than are in the Libertarian Party, mind you) the religious right, the log cabin republicans, most of wall street :p, and a whole slew of other conflicted groups who only really agree on economic policy a little. (one of the drums beat during Tea Party movements was to put social issues on the back burner, though the candidates have been somewhat contrary to this -- especially Santorum) Liberals also have libertarians, socialists (both authoritarian and "legalize everything"), people who want free stuff, etc. People on both sides hold their nose and pretend some of the people on their side don't exist. Third parties can't prosper because then the "other side" will have a supermajority, and "all hell will break loose".
That said, it's a bit of a blanket statement to make that assumption. Cable news is all about getting ratings from people who are generally unemployed and can't find something better to do than sit in front of the TV. I've been going along with the right for the last few years (and believe me, my nose is bleeding from how hard I've held it) but I'm as interested in interacting with the religious right as I am with the free stuff left. My argument isn't about liberals and conservatives, it's about politics and science. Missteps like the claimed exclusion of the medieval warm period from presentations made to the public may have been the biggest political blunder related to climate change.
If you're going to convince the public to do something extremely inconvenient, you have to be honest. It doesn't matter if you're right, it matters that the public believes you are.
If you look at it this way, how would you -personally- go about verifying all the data and conclusions about climate change? That's the heart of the problem.
Conservatives do have an anti-regulation stance (and my libertarian biases also lead that way) but if you ignore the idiot wing of the right, (believe me, there's one just as bad on the left) a lot of conservatives are concerned that the scientific method is properly being followed. The problems with mixing politics and science is that modern scientific studies have become so complicated that verification of them is like understanding half of what's being argued at the Supreme Court today. Most people can't do it.
Recent stories of faked data in other fields don't help.
I have to agree. The real potential damage by Netflix is so small, suing them makes little sense to begin with. That said, I find it amusing that they mention in the TOS that you can sue in small claims. A torrent of those could do a lot of damage, and would be difficult to defend. (Insufficient legal resources) Probably what the AT&T guy was going for.
Cool. We can end it with that -- in the context of the averages of the general public. Best to keep away from debating the fine particulars of any individual's ability to handle it while maintaining productivity. I was only bothered by "However, no one is simply "wired" to handle excessive amounts of work."
The summary writer really seemed to have an axe to grind, and there actually are countries that have laws against basic overtime under conditions that would make Americans go "WTF? Seriously?"
I think you're getting a bit off topic. The discussion is focused on much shorter time frames. Over years, a person will get burnt out not necessarily because they are working too much, but because they are tired of what they're doing. It's common to get bored of something, need change, etc. This goes for work, hobbies, everything...
:)
Not sure if our little back and forth has become a discussion of determinism, but re-read the post this reply is to. Kind of seems like you're swinging both ways with the notion of being "wired that way".
Personally? I'm wired to be a busybody and I do get bored of things after awhile. I can only do pure relaxation/recreation in small doses...excess idle time brings me misery. It's a great big world and life's too short to explore everything that intrigues me.
And yeah, we're capable of self-deception (being a dying individual in a dying world in a dying solar system in a dying galaxy in a dying universe would be difficult without some amount of self-deception), but we're also capable of getting a more grounded sense of self by analyzing the assertions of others alongside any imperial evidence we can find. I'm not going to argue that much further as self-deception is a trap argument. ("You're deceiving yourself." [Two answers] A:"No I'm not. Prove it." B: "No I'm not, cause I know I'm not...err wait." -- irresolvable)
Speaking of things I'm bad at, properly proofreading my posts. ;) The key thing that really set me off was when you said "They're doing poorly but they don't know it." The "but they don't know it" part is key to the code phrase. I've been excessively fatigued and very, very drunk enough times (and um other...yeah, public forum ;) ) to know when I'm doing poorly. If that's egotistical of me to assert, then I'm egotistical. But I know myself at least that well.
I don't think I'm magical and I don't think I'm superman. But to paint a broad brush the way you did is just fallacious. Some people gain muscle without even trying. Some people can last twice as long underwater with the same build/weight/height and the same capacity in their scuba tanks. Some people have far more reliable memories than others. Some people can weave logic better/faster than others. (they make great programmers, btw) Some people can function with 4 hours of sleep while others feel lethargic with a mere 7. Some people fly off the handle with the smallest trigger, while others keep their cool as if all their food is laced with pot. Some people can function well without coffee, others can't -- you've seen them around the office. Some people panic more easily than others. The list goes on.
It annoys the hell out of me when someone makes the basis of their 40 hour week argument the following: "No one's inherently more capable than others to handle overtime." With all the variability across humanity? Bullshit. It's really just code for the following: "I don't want to live in a meritocracy where someone who's more capable of working overtime can get ahead of me career-wise." Deal with it. The free market rewards "good with overtime" person just as it rewards the person who keeps their cool, someone who gains muscle without even trying, the commercial diver with a good SAC, etc. We are not all equal, but most of us have advantages over others. Find them, embrace them, and make money with them. But don't whine because you don't have certain advantages.
I have to disagree. Anyone who makes such broad statements does not understand how widely people can vary. I could personally handle an 80 hour work week if I had enough passion for what I do, too. That is the mindset that allows small business to flourish.
I'm not being generous. I'm just saying: people will do what they need to do. It's kind of a social engineering thing. Better that they drive around uninsured instead of mugging someone or turn tricks in a dark alley.
I'm basically asserting the importance of having a car, and giving these people the benefit of the doubt -- assuming that they're driving uninsured or their registration isn't up to date because they have to make cuts somewhere. They already run the risk of getting stopped, I'd imagine. Clamping down on this issue automagically and squeezing the poor this way can only lead to more desperate forms of crime.
So about $550. That's admittedly much better than I had in California. (I was happy enough with my $400 single room, rented from a homeowner) I'm really in no position to debate the financial burdens of a UK citizen who's starting out their adult life, as I know nothing about the situation. (minimum wage, unemployment%, taxes, etc.) It would be interesting to see how long those 4% of uninsured motorists stay that uninsured, what their motivations are, etc...
Surely the UK has less densely populated areas than the major cities. Even then, from a US perspective, I couldn't afford to live in any city when I was dirt poor. Is it different in the UK? Just from a college-age perspective, I had to juggle with finding sufficiently low rents, time constraints, and distance between schooling and whatever job I could get. (I was in no position to be picky) A car was _not_ optional -- mass transit doesn't cover everything.
The more the UK implemens things like this, the more pressure will be put on them to fix whatever social problems they may have. I don't live in the UK but I know what it's like to be poor. I know that car is just not optional if anything resembling success, or getting out of the miserable rut you're in, is important to you. So yeah, from my own experiences I do have sympathy for those who break the rules. If the system is broken, people have to do what they need to make it in soiety. If the UK keeps making it more and more difficult to commit minor infractions and don't deal with the underlying issues, they will only see a rise in more desperate activiy...and it will serve them right. Glad I'm not poor anymore. Heh. (Sorry for speling, sent on a slow phone browser)
That, combined with the college/student loan bubble. S&E students tend to be, well, intelligent. The combination of outsourcing concerns, college costs vastly exceeding inflation (which any intelligent middle/high schooler witnessed during those years), college costs more or less exceeding what one could realistically pull in with employment, and the fact that there's no way out of student loans that didn't produce return on investment would scare away plenty of people with the natural talent needed for S&E. These people may seek out other fields that can be entered through different means, finding other means to make it.
Those who simply equate college=more money and don't THINK, often go into unprofitable majors, don't work part of it off and leave their four year with five figures of debt, or worse. Incidentally, their burden on the demand is responsible for scaring away those who would otherwise get into profitable S&E fields.
At the risk of getting too political, we have deep inlaid problems that will take years if not decades for the masses to finally pick up on...
You know, this inspires me to another possible workaround: talking slowly. Ttthhheee dddiiifffeeerrreeennnccceee aaattt ttthhhiiisss rrraaattteee might not be mentally jarring enough to trigger the effect.
I bet something similar (albeit with reduced range) could be put together with off-the-internet parts. Seems more like a great way to be a pain in the arse than for [insert your least favorite politician here] to take over the world.
Plan B is always rushing the gun owner, grabbing it out of their hand, smashing it, and then yelling at them. She'll probably figure that out pretty quickly.
I read TFA and there seems to be a really easy workaround, and politicians making speeches can easily utilize it.
The speaker can simply block their ears. The gun works by sending the speaker's audio back to them with a delay.
More megapixels + multitouch interface = win
Reason: It makes digital zoom less of a gimmick
Imagine this: You take a shot, then do the pinch gesture to zoom in on a certain spot. You also use a single finger to get exactly what you want from the shot to appear on screen. You keep on pinching/dragging until you have the exact final image you want. You've ultimately zoomed 3x and focused on a bird flying by (or something else) and you click "save". You have an effortlessly taken image of a bird flying by, not needing any editing software to get it exactly how you want, with the same quality as current phone digital cameras -- but essentially an impossible shot since you'd have to be flying with other phones to take it.
With the right software and interface, even a gigapixel camera would be worth my $$.
While this can be a concern, you have to put it into perspective. You download some game and now Google knows you play that game because it has AdMob. So what? Apple already has insane amount of your usage statistics that would make Google foam at the mouth. In the end, though, for all these tech giants know about me, they only want to use it to sell me stuff.
The only exception to this rule has been Facebook, which is why I quarantine my Facebook account in a browser I don't normally use. They have a track record of publishing unapproved information to a user's friends, and my philosophy is once a scumbag, always a scumbag. I'm finding it too hard to completely boycott them, so I've just metaphorically stuffed them into a box.
But Google and Apple (the latter of which I'm a certified hater of) are mature companies who just want to be able to charge more for impressions and click-throughs, so I just don't care. I can easily quarantine searches that I don't want even them being aware of. As for the makers of the game you downloaded, they just want statistics across their entire portfolio for making smarter business decisions in the future. None of these parties want to harass you.
I know that there is a considerable off-grid contingent on /., but I don't get why people use getting unique device identifier (UDID) as an example of stealing user data. It isn't hacking or anything -- it's a public API usable by any app writer. If it weren't acceptable to use, Apple wouldn't allow apps which access the UDID onto their store.
There are a large number of practical applications for the UDID, ranging from the more user friendly uses such as automatic backup of app-specific data (i.e. game save), to mutually beneficial things like incentivization schemes, to features less popular to the user but necessary to make free content financially viable, i.e. targeted advertising.
Whenever I rail against Apple around here, people always bring up the concept that most people just want their device to be an applicance, and don't want to care about the internals. This comes with said blissful ignorance. But those 20% of apps passing data back home aren't stealing anything -- they're just using another tool to profit in the modern mobile space. More than 99% of that 20% is sending no more than the UDID and data specific to the application itself. Stealing would be to somehow get the user's underlying iTunes account info and buying stuff with it. (though what Path was doing is a bit of a mess, heh...)