Yeah, because "Peace" and "Literature" are both much more scientific than Economics. It also doesn't seem to bother the judges from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, who choose the winners in the fields of Chemistry, Physics, and.. err.. Economics.
You're confusing the purpose (and selection) of the prize with the motivations of the contestants.
But even I'm getting sick of the hysterical anti MS reaction every single time some exploit appears for some or other program.
Since this one appears to be an actual nasty bug, why not save your indignation for a lesser announcement? Microsoft seems to have earned the wrath this time.
I agree that the GP does agree with Dyson, but you missed a ball here:
does anonymity, which we all agree is essential, also have unfortunate negative side-effects?
Which also raises the question, "Does a lack of anonymity have negative side-effects?" The answer to both questions is "yes," but leaves you in the same place: what to do about it. Should anything be done about it, should there be an opinion at all, if your stance on anonymity comes down to religious taste? Not organized religion, but the comparison between the relative amounts of side-effects will come down to a person's personal values and ethics. Then the question remains, "should one person's idea (or a minority of the population's, or a majority's for that matter) about the value of anonymity be codified into law or practice?
you would think people would realize when these policing agencies are crossing the line.
Unfortunately, your enthusiasm will fall flat when you learn that the policy still remains in effect and it's just this one case that has been corruptly allowed to remain. This is how they get their cake, eat it, and have the IWF legitimized. I imagine the meeting went something like "OK, if we give them this one, their complaints about the general policy will lose force."
Beyond that, I think it's more problematic that she apparently refuses to comply with university policies once notified about them. Her position basically is "I intend to continue sending out poorly thought out, ineffectual bulk messages to all faculty whenever I see fit." In that context, maybe it does become spam...
Paging sorehands...Sorehands, please pick up the white courtesy telephone...Paging sorehands...
I'm not the poster you're replying to, but I have a guess at how this works.
First off, the blind person can't see, right? So the chances of them viewing source for a random page (or every form page they encounter) is probably pretty miniscule. At least I'll say it's comparable to the rate that sighted people view source as a matter of course in their browsing sessions.
So OK, they aren't just reading the source, finding a hidden form field and wondering why this hasn't been presented to them by their screen reader. They've just been checking news, blogs, posting a comment or two here and there, but nowhere in their Internet Travels have they had to contend with this curious case of a hidden "Subject:" field. What to do?
It turns out the answer is quite simple. That the blind person, much like their sighted counterpart, does not submit a given form with hidden fields filled in pegs them as a curious person indeed. Since the only submissions without the Subject field filled in will be from people who read the source and (for some reason) decided not to fill in the subject line, or people who just don't know about it. Quite the conundrum! Thankfully from the grandparent post, we know that posts with this hidden Subject: field are disposed of, deleted. Wacky, eh? So it seems, and I'm just speculating here, that filling in hidden fields is actually a way...hold on now...to determine that the submitter is not a person. Beyond that, and really
I have no idea how he does this, blind people are not treated any differently in this regard. I know, right? It took me awhile to figure it out, but I think I at least have the gist of it.
To me, the falsification of information seems irrelevant.
Doesn't the age and gender falsification mean they were trying to avoid being detected? Even agewise, a random female persona would have been able to strike up a friendship all the same, but they chose a teenaged boy in order to get closer to her than they would be able to otherwise.
"Girl" is not the only thing you're in training for, apparently. What are the ethical aspects of making scattershot assertions without citations or even replies to people who point out weaknesses in your argument?
The telco did an analysis and determined that the project could not be done profitably. Governments are in the unique position of not having to turn a profit.
If there's something that the people want but cannot be done successfully for a profit, then it's entirely reasonable for the government to be the one who does provide it. Market failures arent always due to a lack of demand, sometimes it's a failure to sell. A for-profit company is not going to take on a non-profit enterprise.
Another way to look at it is through the lens of anonymity. In online gaming there is no way to tell if your opponents and team members are disabled, deaf, a different race, gender, or anything. This means that racial, sexual, gender and all the other base insults lose a lot of their effectiveness. This doesn't mean that a gay person who happens to be called a fag online wouldn't be offended by that, but they would (hopefully) realize that absent specific knowledge there's no way the person who calls someone a fag online would know that the person they're attacking is in fact gay, or black, or whatever. So while the receiver can be offended, it's important to note that it's unlikely that the attacker meant it personally.
Then again, as an anecdotal counterexample, when I used to play UT a lot there was little tolerance for Asian and Engrish epithets, so perhaps the effectiveness of verbal attacks are affected by demographics.
So how do you deal with the 3-chord knockoffs being published these days? There's a very low wheat/chaff ratio.
This has always been the case. What did they do in the 80s? The 50s? The 1780s? Same as now: some people like it, some don't, and most acts fall off the map and are forgotten. It's a hallmark of old-timer's syndrome to think that things are particularly worse now than they were years ago, but that doesn't hold up to examination. "Same as it ever was" is closer to the mark.
I am going to buy ".ing" and ".est" and make a fortune! You're thinking small. If you want to know where this "buy your own TLD" thing is going, try thinking not in terms of three-letter domains, but in namespace and branding. How valuable do you think ".disney" would be? This is basically a death-knell for corporations and TLDs. They'll just get their own and eventually, years from now (or not).com will be seen as downmarket.
It's implied by the following statement: "...they alone get to dictate how the world handles their pet delusion." My point involves the fact that "their pet delusion" is shared by religious people the world over, and that this content restriction derives from the Koran makes no difference since fundamentalists commonly attempt to hold the secular world to the teachings of their chosen text, regardless of affiliation.
I can imagine this: Some eBay hotshot comes up and says: "we only use 50% of our servers, we've got to do better here". So: 1) They don't buy new servers. Workload increases, better utilization, no analytics involved. 2) Or, someone got clever, and added an idling process to each idle server. Presto, we've improved our PE -- and we've got a nice yearly bonus as well.
I'm guessing their improvement figure of 50% -> 80% doesn't include the machines and processing overhead necessary to run the datawarehouse and status checks. In other words, rearranging deck chairs, hiding the salami.
1st Paragraph: Paraphrase of Foreword. 2nd Paragraph: What the initial chapter(s) is (are) about. 3rd Paragraph: What the next chapter is about. 4th Paragraph: What the chapter after that is about. 5th Paragraph: What the last chapter(s) is(are) about. 6th Paragraph: Pithy criticisms for balance. 7th Paragraph: Conclusion with the required, "This book is useful if you are like me" statement, as in, "Overall, this is a great book for anyone using Nagios as more than a casual user, and is still very informative for the casual user."
If this is the only way you're telling your kid they aren't trusted, then you're a bad parent. Think about it this way, it will be compatible with the receiving teenager's thinking if the teenager already knows they aren't trusted.
I can also see this as a way to (partially) idiot-proof a car that belongs to an elderly person.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because "Peace" and "Literature" are both much more scientific than Economics. It also doesn't seem to bother the judges from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, who choose the winners in the fields of Chemistry, Physics, and.. err.. Economics.
You're confusing the purpose (and selection) of the prize with the motivations of the contestants.
But even I'm getting sick of the hysterical anti MS reaction every single time some exploit appears for some or other program.
Since this one appears to be an actual nasty bug, why not save your indignation for a lesser announcement? Microsoft seems to have earned the wrath this time.
If USB really started disappearing, you would go get your USB drives and copy the stuff off of them
Absolutely. The OP doesn't account for time itself being a transfer mechanism.
This is a classic example of why people hate *nix. Here is a guy who is trying to help the cause, but instead has shown how clueless the cause is.
Then maybe it's the kid who's being paid off by Microsoft!
I agree that the GP does agree with Dyson, but you missed a ball here:
does anonymity, which we all agree is essential, also have unfortunate negative side-effects?
Which also raises the question, "Does a lack of anonymity have negative side-effects?" The answer to both questions is "yes," but leaves you in the same place: what to do about it. Should anything be done about it, should there be an opinion at all, if your stance on anonymity comes down to religious taste? Not organized religion, but the comparison between the relative amounts of side-effects will come down to a person's personal values and ethics. Then the question remains, "should one person's idea (or a minority of the population's, or a majority's for that matter) about the value of anonymity be codified into law or practice?
If you're running the kind of business where you *need* a lawyer to "determine if every step is legal," maybe you should rethink your approach, eh?
you would think people would realize when these policing agencies are crossing the line.
Unfortunately, your enthusiasm will fall flat when you learn that the policy still remains in effect and it's just this one case that has been corruptly allowed to remain. This is how they get their cake, eat it, and have the IWF legitimized. I imagine the meeting went something like "OK, if we give them this one, their complaints about the general policy will lose force."
Beyond that, I think it's more problematic that she apparently refuses to comply with university policies once notified about them. Her position basically is "I intend to continue sending out poorly thought out, ineffectual bulk messages to all faculty whenever I see fit." In that context, maybe it does become spam...
Paging sorehands...Sorehands, please pick up the white courtesy telephone...Paging sorehands...
Stupid... or BRILLIANT!!?!?!?!
Ah, you've flummoxed me with your crafty inquiries!
And for your blind users...?
I'm not the poster you're replying to, but I have a guess at how this works.
First off, the blind person can't see, right? So the chances of them viewing source for a random page (or every form page they encounter) is probably pretty miniscule. At least I'll say it's comparable to the rate that sighted people view source as a matter of course in their browsing sessions.
So OK, they aren't just reading the source, finding a hidden form field and wondering why this hasn't been presented to them by their screen reader. They've just been checking news, blogs, posting a comment or two here and there, but nowhere in their Internet Travels have they had to contend with this curious case of a hidden "Subject:" field. What to do?
It turns out the answer is quite simple. That the blind person, much like their sighted counterpart, does not submit a given form with hidden fields filled in pegs them as a curious person indeed. Since the only submissions without the Subject field filled in will be from people who read the source and (for some reason) decided not to fill in the subject line, or people who just don't know about it. Quite the conundrum! Thankfully from the grandparent post, we know that posts with this hidden Subject: field are disposed of, deleted. Wacky, eh? So it seems, and I'm just speculating here, that filling in hidden fields is actually a way...hold on now...to determine that the submitter is not a person. Beyond that, and really
I have no idea how he does this, blind people are not treated any differently in this regard.
I know, right? It took me awhile to figure it out, but I think I at least have the gist of it.
As if millions of cellphone users cried out "bullshit!" and were suddenly silenced.
Look, it's not difficult to understand: the talk-powered phone does not require batteries. However, the thing you use to charge it with does.
I didn't say it was right; I said they had the right.
Since you bring up the CIA, how do you square this statement with Executive Order 12333?
To me, the falsification of information seems irrelevant.
Doesn't the age and gender falsification mean they were trying to avoid being detected? Even agewise, a random female persona would have been able to strike up a friendship all the same, but they chose a teenaged boy in order to get closer to her than they would be able to otherwise.
"Girl" is not the only thing you're in training for, apparently. What are the ethical aspects of making scattershot assertions without citations or even replies to people who point out weaknesses in your argument?
The telco did an analysis and determined that the project could not be done profitably. Governments are in the unique position of not having to turn a profit.
If there's something that the people want but cannot be done successfully for a profit, then it's entirely reasonable for the government to be the one who does provide it. Market failures arent always due to a lack of demand, sometimes it's a failure to sell. A for-profit company is not going to take on a non-profit enterprise.
I definitely want Minority Report-like hand controls for porno.
Yeah man, remember the controls for zooming? Wakka wakka!
I've noticed racism is a real biggie for gamers.
Another way to look at it is through the lens of anonymity. In online gaming there is no way to tell if your opponents and team members are disabled, deaf, a different race, gender, or anything. This means that racial, sexual, gender and all the other base insults lose a lot of their effectiveness. This doesn't mean that a gay person who happens to be called a fag online wouldn't be offended by that, but they would (hopefully) realize that absent specific knowledge there's no way the person who calls someone a fag online would know that the person they're attacking is in fact gay, or black, or whatever. So while the receiver can be offended, it's important to note that it's unlikely that the attacker meant it personally.
Then again, as an anecdotal counterexample, when I used to play UT a lot there was little tolerance for Asian and Engrish epithets, so perhaps the effectiveness of verbal attacks are affected by demographics.
.NET is back...in Pog form.
So how do you deal with the 3-chord knockoffs being published these days? There's a very low wheat/chaff ratio.
This has always been the case. What did they do in the 80s? The 50s? The 1780s? Same as now: some people like it, some don't, and most acts fall off the map and are forgotten. It's a hallmark of old-timer's syndrome to think that things are particularly worse now than they were years ago, but that doesn't hold up to examination. "Same as it ever was" is closer to the mark.
I am going to buy ".ing" and ".est" and make a fortune! .com will be seen as downmarket.
You're thinking small. If you want to know where this "buy your own TLD" thing is going, try thinking not in terms of three-letter domains, but in namespace and branding. How valuable do you think ".disney" would be? This is basically a death-knell for corporations and TLDs. They'll just get their own and eventually, years from now (or not)
Did anyone say they never did?
It's implied by the following statement: "...they alone get to dictate how the world handles their pet delusion." My point involves the fact that "their pet delusion" is shared by religious people the world over, and that this content restriction derives from the Koran makes no difference since fundamentalists commonly attempt to hold the secular world to the teachings of their chosen text, regardless of affiliation.
I can imagine this: Some eBay hotshot comes up and says: "we only use 50% of our servers, we've got to do better here". So:
1) They don't buy new servers. Workload increases, better utilization, no analytics involved.
2) Or, someone got clever, and added an idling process to each idle server. Presto, we've improved our PE -- and we've got a nice yearly bonus as well.
I'm guessing their improvement figure of 50% -> 80% doesn't include the machines and processing overhead necessary to run the datawarehouse and status checks. In other words, rearranging deck chairs, hiding the salami.
the radicals and the terrorists win acceptance of the idea that they alone get to dictate how the world handles their pet delusion.
Right, because Western religions never quibble with the content of videogames.
1st Paragraph: Paraphrase of Foreword.
2nd Paragraph: What the initial chapter(s) is (are) about.
3rd Paragraph: What the next chapter is about.
4th Paragraph: What the chapter after that is about.
5th Paragraph: What the last chapter(s) is(are) about.
6th Paragraph: Pithy criticisms for balance.
7th Paragraph: Conclusion with the required, "This book is useful if you are like me" statement, as in, "Overall, this is a great book for anyone using Nagios as more than a casual user, and is still very informative for the casual user."
If this is the only way you're telling your kid they aren't trusted, then you're a bad parent. Think about it this way, it will be compatible with the receiving teenager's thinking if the teenager already knows they aren't trusted.
I can also see this as a way to (partially) idiot-proof a car that belongs to an elderly person.