I guess in that case the memory would be accessible normally anyway. The bug is not being able to access memory you are allowed to access, but accessing memory you shouldn't be able to.
Red States and they residents are BIG BELIEVERS in those with money not providing subsidies to those without money. To walk the walk they should refuse the subsidies. It's much easier to just talk the talk...
If they learn to communicate via digital devices instead of directly, they miss essential things like non-verbal communication. This will seriously affect them if you ask me.
Today learning to communicate not directly is just as essential as learning to communicate directly. Not learning both forms of communication properly will definitely affect them.
I, respectfully, disagree with Cory Doctrow here that there is a fair use claim. If the kid's mother is to be believed (that she didn't give consent) then the kid was running the game in violation of the EULA and using false accounts in violation of TOS, meaning the game footage was illegitimate. He was also running cheats on the game, making the videos unauthorized derivative works. This is something very different from a 'Let's Play' video.
I do agree the kid violated the EULA and the TOS, but this doesn't mean his Youtube video was in violation of Epic Games' copyrights.
You seem to imply that to invoke fair use you need to have a proper copyright license first. Fair use is meant to allow in specific cases to re-use a copyrighted work or parts of it *without* a proper license. Even assuming the kid had no license at all, fair use is still possible.
So, you're saying they don't want people reading terrorist websites because then people might find out that the terrorists are actually good guys?
What people might find out is not that terrorists are good guys, but that bad guys once in a while might have a point too. Furthermore they might realise the actual good guys might not have always been worthy of praise...
Basically, they are afraid people might realise the gross oversimplifications your comment exemplifies are not a good way to reason about issues.
You can't learn about terrorism without reading about it. Not reading about it leaves you ignorant. Being ignorant removes the tools for combating it.
This is just a dumb, knee-jerk reaction idea from the start.
Authorities likely don't want you to educate yourself about terrorism: doing that might give you the unacceptable idea that it's not all dark their side and not all shiny yours.
How it works is that the authorities tell you these terrorists are bad and you are expected to accept this as the truth, no questions, no need for you to investigate further.
So the idea is bad, but likely not a dumb, knee-jerk reaction at all.
Not to mention gender price disparities. As example ladies’ night are effectively a form of gender-based price discrimination and depending on local regulation can be perfectly legal.
There is no need for such deals: reviews can include video and for many products they can be found on youtube, including unpackaging and usage giving a lot of insight on the product. Furthermore a good return policy like the EU mandatory 14 days return no-questions-asked for online purchases means you can actually try most products and return them if you figure out it was a bad purchase.
The basis is the concept of hierarchy of laws. Laws operate on different hierarchies and a superior law takes always precedence over an inferior one. A contract is goverend by private law, but in most countries most rights are granted at a higher level, so contracts cannot touch them no matter what the parties agree.
You cannot give up what is not in your prerogative to give up and in most countries you cannot give up most rights through private contracts since private contracts are governed by private law which is hyerarchically inferior to the laws granting these rights, making them untouchable no matter what your will is.
What he's saying is that Google will be likely accused of victim-blaming and perpetuating gender stereotypes no matter which kind of arguments they will use to defend themselves, even if those arguments are actually correct and show no pay discrimination took place.
I find the keyboard itself very nice and have no issues typing: my issues (keys repeating and being unresponsive) were confirmed by Apple service to be hardware problems and the top case got replaced twice free of charge under warranty.
The keyboard is nice imho, but so far the hardware has simply been unreliable.
This. I got the top case replaced twice in less than a year due to the keyboard having issues: repeated keys the first time and unresponsive keys the second...
The guys at the service center claimed it's a relatively common issue with the new 2016 keyboard.
If you have these issues ask for a repair: they will replace the whole top case which includes keyboard, touchpad and battery. In my case in the second repair they installed the 2017 version, which hopefully has some fixes to the keyboard's reliability.
Defintely not impressed given the price range of the laptop though.
You mean, the science has been *bought* by big pharma a long time ago.
You don't need much science to accept the validity of vaccination: everyone knows that once you get measles you become immune to it, assuming your immune system is functional and you survive it. There is no way to accept that and discredit vaccination since they operate on exactly the same principle.
If 100 of the vaccinated died because of an outbreak of something they were supposed to be vaccinated against -- does this really support your argument that vaccination protects?
Sure: not providing 100% protection doesn't mean not providing protection at all. Claiming the opposite would be ridiculous and we all don't apply such a standard in other cases, so why applying it to vaccines?
As example, using seat belts definitely do *not* save 100% of those who have a car accident, but we consider them an effective protection still.
Actually no, not all of them might have had that choice available depending on their condition. This is the reason herd protection is so important and the reason *everyone* able to get vaccinated should do so: to protect those who cannot on top of themselves and their family and friends.
And who says that "erring on the side of caution" means *not* vaccinating them? For that to be true would mean that the risk of vaccination is greater than the risk of contracting the disease the vaccination protects from. Since the risk of vaccination is statistially very well known and *very* small, erring on the side of caution means going with the vaccination "just in case".
How is saying "women are on average me neurotic" not perpetuating negative stereotypes? It's the sort of thing that leads to men being dismissed as thinking with their dicks.
It's not, at least if you know what the words actually mean.
First of all, "neurotic" in the context used in the memo doesn't mean "affect by neurosis", which most critics wrongly assume, it refers to one of the 5 personality traits, and that women on average score higher on this trait than men is recognized in scentific studies cited in the same article.
Furthermore, a stereotype is not stating that some trait appears more on average in a specific group, a stereotype is generalizing upon such average and treating all members of that group as if the trait is a given. The trait, even if more prominent, is not necessarily ubiquitous.
Back to neuroticism as example: if I state that women on average score more on neuroticism, I'm not creating any stereotype. If from that I generalize and state that all women must score more, or start to assume that all women I encounter must score more on neuroticism, then I'm creating a stereotype.
Note that the memo explicitly stated individuals need to be evaluated as individuals and not according to the tendencies of their groups, which means it's not creating nor promoting any stereotype. The opposite, the memo explicitly warns against drawing generalizations and creating stereotypes from these statistics.
If you consider the memo a "screed" or a temper tantrum it means you likely didn't read any of it. Even if you disagree with it, it's clearly written rationally and well articulated, with citations to boot. Every critic assessing the content instead of the cover basically agrees with that, even those who argue against it.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is not having some money set aside for emergencies is going to get you into trouble soon or later.
I guess in that case the memory would be accessible normally anyway. The bug is not being able to access memory you are allowed to access, but accessing memory you shouldn't be able to.
Red States and they residents are BIG BELIEVERS in those with money not providing subsidies to those without money. To walk the walk they should refuse the subsidies. It's much easier to just talk the talk...
No, it's not good enough. A smartphone is a cellphone but not all cellphones are smartphones.
If they learn to communicate via digital devices instead of directly, they miss essential things like non-verbal communication. This will seriously affect them if you ask me.
Today learning to communicate not directly is just as essential as learning to communicate directly. Not learning both forms of communication properly will definitely affect them.
I, respectfully, disagree with Cory Doctrow here that there is a fair use claim. If the kid's mother is to be believed (that she didn't give consent) then the kid was running the game in violation of the EULA and using false accounts in violation of TOS, meaning the game footage was illegitimate. He was also running cheats on the game, making the videos unauthorized derivative works. This is something very different from a 'Let's Play' video.
I do agree the kid violated the EULA and the TOS, but this doesn't mean his Youtube video was in violation of Epic Games' copyrights.
You seem to imply that to invoke fair use you need to have a proper copyright license first. Fair use is meant to allow in specific cases to re-use a copyrighted work or parts of it *without* a proper license. Even assuming the kid had no license at all, fair use is still possible.
Being stupid no, but being negligent could very well be.
So, you're saying they don't want people reading terrorist websites because then people might find out that the terrorists are actually good guys?
What people might find out is not that terrorists are good guys, but that bad guys once in a while might have a point too. Furthermore they might realise the actual good guys might not have always been worthy of praise...
Basically, they are afraid people might realise the gross oversimplifications your comment exemplifies are not a good way to reason about issues.
You can't learn about terrorism without reading about it. Not reading about it leaves you ignorant. Being ignorant removes the tools for combating it.
This is just a dumb, knee-jerk reaction idea from the start.
Authorities likely don't want you to educate yourself about terrorism: doing that might give you the unacceptable idea that it's not all dark their side and not all shiny yours.
How it works is that the authorities tell you these terrorists are bad and you are expected to accept this as the truth, no questions, no need for you to investigate further.
So the idea is bad, but likely not a dumb, knee-jerk reaction at all.
Senior discounts are illegal?
Not to mention gender price disparities. As example ladies’ night are effectively a form of gender-based price discrimination and depending on local regulation can be perfectly legal.
There is no need for such deals: reviews can include video and for many products they can be found on youtube, including unpackaging and usage giving a lot of insight on the product. Furthermore a good return policy like the EU mandatory 14 days return no-questions-asked for online purchases means you can actually try most products and return them if you figure out it was a bad purchase.
The basis is the concept of hierarchy of laws. Laws operate on different hierarchies and a superior law takes always precedence over an inferior one. A contract is goverend by private law, but in most countries most rights are granted at a higher level, so contracts cannot touch them no matter what the parties agree.
You cannot give up what is not in your prerogative to give up and in most countries you cannot give up most rights through private contracts since private contracts are governed by private law which is hyerarchically inferior to the laws granting these rights, making them untouchable no matter what your will is.
What he's saying is that Google will be likely accused of victim-blaming and perpetuating gender stereotypes no matter which kind of arguments they will use to defend themselves, even if those arguments are actually correct and show no pay discrimination took place.
I find the keyboard itself very nice and have no issues typing: my issues (keys repeating and being unresponsive) were confirmed by Apple service to be hardware problems and the top case got replaced twice free of charge under warranty.
The keyboard is nice imho, but so far the hardware has simply been unreliable.
This. I got the top case replaced twice in less than a year due to the keyboard having issues: repeated keys the first time and unresponsive keys the second...
The guys at the service center claimed it's a relatively common issue with the new 2016 keyboard.
If you have these issues ask for a repair: they will replace the whole top case which includes keyboard, touchpad and battery. In my case in the second repair they installed the 2017 version, which hopefully has some fixes to the keyboard's reliability.
Defintely not impressed given the price range of the laptop though.
Welcome to my world, where every day it's a war to try and find solutions to the incompetence of software developers.
Welcome to mine, where every day it's a war to try and find solutions to the incompetence of software users.
It doesn't matter if the brains work differently as long as they work comparably well.
If two people can solve the same set of problems using different strategies, they are both competent at those tasks.
That was not the point of the memo, which didn't argue about competence.
The question the memo poses is not: "Can men and women solve this problem comparably well?".
The question actually is: "Are men and women equally attracted to solving this kind of problem?".
So basically the memo actually did foster a interesting, civil and educated debate on the matter as originally intended. Only not at Google...
You mean, the science has been *bought* by big pharma a long time ago.
You don't need much science to accept the validity of vaccination: everyone knows that once you get measles you become immune to it, assuming your immune system is functional and you survive it. There is no way to accept that and discredit vaccination since they operate on exactly the same principle.
If 100 of the vaccinated died because of an outbreak of something they were supposed to be vaccinated against -- does this really support your argument that vaccination protects?
Sure: not providing 100% protection doesn't mean not providing protection at all. Claiming the opposite would be ridiculous and we all don't apply such a standard in other cases, so why applying it to vaccines?
As example, using seat belts definitely do *not* save 100% of those who have a car accident, but we consider them an effective protection still.
Actually no, not all of them might have had that choice available depending on their condition. This is the reason herd protection is so important and the reason *everyone* able to get vaccinated should do so: to protect those who cannot on top of themselves and their family and friends.
And who says that "erring on the side of caution" means *not* vaccinating them? For that to be true would mean that the risk of vaccination is greater than the risk of contracting the disease the vaccination protects from. Since the risk of vaccination is statistially very well known and *very* small, erring on the side of caution means going with the vaccination "just in case".
How is saying "women are on average me neurotic" not perpetuating negative stereotypes? It's the sort of thing that leads to men being dismissed as thinking with their dicks.
It's not, at least if you know what the words actually mean.
First of all, "neurotic" in the context used in the memo doesn't mean "affect by neurosis", which most critics wrongly assume, it refers to one of the 5 personality traits, and that women on average score higher on this trait than men is recognized in scentific studies cited in the same article.
Furthermore, a stereotype is not stating that some trait appears more on average in a specific group, a stereotype is generalizing upon such average and treating all members of that group as if the trait is a given. The trait, even if more prominent, is not necessarily ubiquitous.
Back to neuroticism as example: if I state that women on average score more on neuroticism, I'm not creating any stereotype. If from that I generalize and state that all women must score more, or start to assume that all women I encounter must score more on neuroticism, then I'm creating a stereotype.
Note that the memo explicitly stated individuals need to be evaluated as individuals and not according to the tendencies of their groups, which means it's not creating nor promoting any stereotype. The opposite, the memo explicitly warns against drawing generalizations and creating stereotypes from these statistics.
If you consider the memo a "screed" or a temper tantrum it means you likely didn't read any of it. Even if you disagree with it, it's clearly written rationally and well articulated, with citations to boot. Every critic assessing the content instead of the cover basically agrees with that, even those who argue against it.