Gmail chat supports video on the desktop via a browser plug-in, even in Linux. If you have some aversion to using your browser as a client, Pidgin nominally supports video calls over Google Talk, although it causes a crash in my admittedly outdated version of Pidgin.
& only prints as ". It still works the same. I did get an error about a bad function name with the classic fork bomb, so I had to change it to f(){ f|f & };f
He says he wants to see his conservative friends' point of view, but then he never clicks on anything they post. You may have a self-image that says you're a cosmopolitan intellectual open to all points of view, but Facebook and Google have raw data about who you really are. You can complain about what they show you, but it's like complaining that the mirror insists on showing some ugly twit.
They allowed the robots to share food, but they did not tell the robots to share food. If you define your simulation such that as soon as a robot acquires food, it is consumed, sharing is simply not possible. The researchers changed the simulation to make sharing possible, but it was still up to the robots to "discover" that they could now share food. If sharing wasn't evolutionary advantageous, they would have kept on being selfish, despite the change in the simulation.
This site is only using WiFi access points, not the cell tower locations. Regardless, there are lots of places online that have databases of cell tower locations.
Having an IPv6-only connection would probably pose more problems for end users than ISP-level NAT, particularly in the near term. For example, Skype is famous for working even behind NAT, yet they don't support IPv6.
The risk with iPhone is that anyone who gets a hold of your phone can see where you've been -- jealous ex-husbands and whatnot. It is useful to have a cache of recent locations, but storing them for months and years is not necessary or wise. Even if you do return to a place you visited a year ago that is still in your cache, I'm sure the iPhone will requery the service in case the information is stale.
Android only keeps recent locations. The iPhone keeps them in perpetuity. One is obviously more effective when it comes to forensic tracking than the other.
I take it you haven't heard of Google Latitude? It does pretty much what you're talking about, only intentionally, and with the consent of the user. I find it's actually quite useful.
Faith, as my comment tag line also says, is a willingness to accept something w/o total regular proof and act on it. From that perspective, every self-motivated action starts with faith.
I think this makes your definition quite unrealistic or at least of very limited utility. We don't have "total regular proof" for anything apart from maybe a few conclusions in logic and mathematics. It's an unreasonable standard for everyday life. Rather, there is something quite different that happens when a religious person says "I believe in God because I have faith" and when everyone else decides to get out of bed in the morning. We need a word that distinguishes between the two.
Therefore, the definition of faith that I often prefer is a method of knowing, apart from reason or evidence, that comes from a supernatural connection with God. The last bit is important. I doubt very much that believers would be satisfied with a naturalistic explanation of faith that does not come from God -- which is necessarily what must be meant if you think science is also based on faith, since science is explicitly naturalistic.
Theories start from faith w/o proof--but then experimentation leads to the reformation or abandonment of that theory until repeatable experiments validate or falsify the theory.
As is often pointed out, the world theory has a different meaning in science than in common usage. Theories are overarching explanations of complex systems. The Theory of Relativity, for example, is not just "I think the universe might be relativistic", it's a complex mathematical model that makes verifiable predictions about the world.
A hypothesis is closer to what you mean, but even then, you can generate a hypothesis without actually believing in it. A scientist might believe in a hypothesis before it's been tested, but a good scientist will only be so confident in that belief in proportion to the plausibility of the hypothesis given the available evidence. Without evidence, it would not be appropriate to express much confidence at all.
I see where the confusion comes from. You're including trojans that merely claim to be pirated software as pirated software, as well as sites that claim to provide such software.
That's one way of looking at the situation, and it's not wrong per se, but it is a little counter intuitive for some. It also has the effect that you'd have to consider anti-virus software to be a major malware distribution channel as well, since a lot of malware masquerades as such.
I took him to mean that he'd be willing to forgo certain "high end" features, invest time looking for a good deal (no one said "free" but you), and put in effort making up for any shortcomings. A millionaire might not be willing to make those trade-offs.
Anyways, capitalists are usually the ones who say ethics doesn't apply to commerce. The "fair" price is whatever the market will bear, by definition.
Ambassador David C. Mulford — the man who sent many of the secret U.S. embassy cables accessed by The Hindu through WikiLeaks — put to rest any doubts on the veracity of their contents on Friday, stating that “certainly the reports from the U.S. embassy [in New Delhi] in general are accurate reports.”
If WikiLeaks faked a single cable, especially one as easily checked as you say this one is, they would eventually be found out. That would give anyone looking to dismiss the rest of the cables just the excuse they need.
Did you mean to suggest Microsoft is a hardware company?
Regardless of the rest of your post, you should know that Microsoft does have a hardware division. There's also the Zune of course. Software is the biggest part of their business, but if you got rid of it, there would still be a fairly sizeable hardware company left over.
Keep in mind we're discussing advice for the person being trolled, not the troll or anyone else watching. If someone is only looking to make a spectacle of you in front of others rather than have a real conversation, it's not in your interest to keep talking to them.
Now stop and think about that for a minute. If your idea of people-in-space is NASA astronauts then I hope you find this suggestion as distasteful as I do. In our modern world governments should not be sending anyone anywhere with orders to reproduce - it just seems a little totalitarian doesn't it?
Uh, what? Astronauts volunteer willingly. If there are no astronauts who want to go, I'm sure NASA would cancel the mission, but astronauts are usually more eager to push the envelope than NASA is.
but the government acting out is just an act of defiance to accept their accountability in this....and that only leads to more....so US gov. please accept that you did some wrong, and should maybe pull back
There's approximately a 0% chance that will happen. No, the government operates pretty much along the same lines that you described: screw with us, you get burned. Retaliation leads to more retaliation. The situation will escalate until the government makes participating in raids uncomfortably risky or the teenagers get bored.
I suspect many people here and on Wikipedia value unrestricted free speech as an intrinsic moral principle more than they value diversity as a goal or even more than they value having a good encyclopedia as a goal. If the consequence of allowing everyone people to participate as much as they want is that there are more men than women or that the encyclopedia isn't quite as good as it could be, then that's just the way things have to be, unfortunately.
Then scroll down to the big ugly modern cargo ropeways/conveyor belts in the bottom of the article and you can see they're ugly as fuck and can be seen for many miles around.
Well, we do have power transmission lines crisscrossing the country. They're big eyesores too. In fact, you could conceivably operate both systems right next to each other in the same footprint, though certainly it would have safety implications.
Also there's very little flexibility, with trucks or trains you can run more or less and even sell parts of it if things are slow. With this you have almost only fixed costs and if you hit the capacity limit it's a very hard limit.
Why couldn't you run a tramway at half capacity or sell parts of it? Isn't there a hard capacity limit for railways too? Fundamentally, the idea doesn't seem that different from a railroad except the track is in the air rather than on the ground.
Still, I tend to agree with your overall conclusion. Transportation companies wouldn't be in business long if they ignored opportunities to save money and run their businesses more efficiently. While cases of inefficient markets are notorious, you wouldn't just assume that's the case by default. The fact that tramways are used, but only for special purposes where they have advantages, would be a sign that the market has considered them and found them lacking for broader adoption.
What? You might as well call her the IP Reichsführer for all the sense it makes. She's a minor administration official. Her real title is appropriately mundane and bureaucratic, as is suitable to her actual role.
Victoria Espinel's actual title is Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. It's a mouthful, I know, but the "czar" title is a ridiculous media creation.
Slashdot Mirror
Gmail chat supports video on the desktop via a browser plug-in, even in Linux. If you have some aversion to using your browser as a client, Pidgin nominally supports video calls over Google Talk, although it causes a crash in my admittedly outdated version of Pidgin.
& only prints as ". It still works the same. I did get an error about a bad function name with the classic fork bomb, so I had to change it to f(){ f|f & };f
He says he wants to see his conservative friends' point of view, but then he never clicks on anything they post. You may have a self-image that says you're a cosmopolitan intellectual open to all points of view, but Facebook and Google have raw data about who you really are. You can complain about what they show you, but it's like complaining that the mirror insists on showing some ugly twit.
They allowed the robots to share food, but they did not tell the robots to share food. If you define your simulation such that as soon as a robot acquires food, it is consumed, sharing is simply not possible. The researchers changed the simulation to make sharing possible, but it was still up to the robots to "discover" that they could now share food. If sharing wasn't evolutionary advantageous, they would have kept on being selfish, despite the change in the simulation.
This site is only using WiFi access points, not the cell tower locations. Regardless, there are lots of places online that have databases of cell tower locations.
Having an IPv6-only connection would probably pose more problems for end users than ISP-level NAT, particularly in the near term. For example, Skype is famous for working even behind NAT, yet they don't support IPv6.
Google assigns you a unique device ID (rather than the "Unique Device ID") to use the location services, but "this number is in no way associated with the device’s IMEI, the user’s name, or other information."
The risk with iPhone is that anyone who gets a hold of your phone can see where you've been -- jealous ex-husbands and whatnot. It is useful to have a cache of recent locations, but storing them for months and years is not necessary or wise. Even if you do return to a place you visited a year ago that is still in your cache, I'm sure the iPhone will requery the service in case the information is stale.
Android only keeps recent locations. The iPhone keeps them in perpetuity. One is obviously more effective when it comes to forensic tracking than the other.
I take it you haven't heard of Google Latitude? It does pretty much what you're talking about, only intentionally, and with the consent of the user. I find it's actually quite useful.
Faith, as my comment tag line also says, is a willingness to accept something w/o total regular proof and act on it. From that perspective, every self-motivated action starts with faith.
I think this makes your definition quite unrealistic or at least of very limited utility. We don't have "total regular proof" for anything apart from maybe a few conclusions in logic and mathematics. It's an unreasonable standard for everyday life. Rather, there is something quite different that happens when a religious person says "I believe in God because I have faith" and when everyone else decides to get out of bed in the morning. We need a word that distinguishes between the two.
Therefore, the definition of faith that I often prefer is a method of knowing, apart from reason or evidence, that comes from a supernatural connection with God. The last bit is important. I doubt very much that believers would be satisfied with a naturalistic explanation of faith that does not come from God -- which is necessarily what must be meant if you think science is also based on faith, since science is explicitly naturalistic.
Theories start from faith w/o proof--but then experimentation leads to the reformation or abandonment of that theory until repeatable experiments validate or falsify the theory.
As is often pointed out, the world theory has a different meaning in science than in common usage. Theories are overarching explanations of complex systems. The Theory of Relativity, for example, is not just "I think the universe might be relativistic", it's a complex mathematical model that makes verifiable predictions about the world.
A hypothesis is closer to what you mean, but even then, you can generate a hypothesis without actually believing in it. A scientist might believe in a hypothesis before it's been tested, but a good scientist will only be so confident in that belief in proportion to the plausibility of the hypothesis given the available evidence. Without evidence, it would not be appropriate to express much confidence at all.
I see where the confusion comes from. You're including trojans that merely claim to be pirated software as pirated software, as well as sites that claim to provide such software.
That's one way of looking at the situation, and it's not wrong per se, but it is a little counter intuitive for some. It also has the effect that you'd have to consider anti-virus software to be a major malware distribution channel as well, since a lot of malware masquerades as such.
Most people have no problem with the product in adult hands
Here, "most people" excludes India, the second most populous country on the planet, and presumably China, the most populous country.
I took him to mean that he'd be willing to forgo certain "high end" features, invest time looking for a good deal (no one said "free" but you), and put in effort making up for any shortcomings. A millionaire might not be willing to make those trade-offs.
Anyways, capitalists are usually the ones who say ethics doesn't apply to commerce. The "fair" price is whatever the market will bear, by definition.
Ambassador David C. Mulford — the man who sent many of the secret U.S. embassy cables accessed by The Hindu through WikiLeaks — put to rest any doubts on the veracity of their contents on Friday, stating that “certainly the reports from the U.S. embassy [in New Delhi] in general are accurate reports.”
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article1551181.ece
If WikiLeaks faked a single cable, especially one as easily checked as you say this one is, they would eventually be found out. That would give anyone looking to dismiss the rest of the cables just the excuse they need.
Did you mean to suggest Microsoft is a hardware company?
Regardless of the rest of your post, you should know that Microsoft does have a hardware division. There's also the Zune of course. Software is the biggest part of their business, but if you got rid of it, there would still be a fairly sizeable hardware company left over.
And as we know, nothing bad ever happens in prison because of the constant surveillance.
Keep in mind we're discussing advice for the person being trolled, not the troll or anyone else watching. If someone is only looking to make a spectacle of you in front of others rather than have a real conversation, it's not in your interest to keep talking to them.
Now stop and think about that for a minute. If your idea of people-in-space is NASA astronauts then I hope you find this suggestion as distasteful as I do. In our modern world governments should not be sending anyone anywhere with orders to reproduce - it just seems a little totalitarian doesn't it?
Uh, what? Astronauts volunteer willingly. If there are no astronauts who want to go, I'm sure NASA would cancel the mission, but astronauts are usually more eager to push the envelope than NASA is.
but the government acting out is just an act of defiance to accept their ....so US gov. please accept that you did some wrong, and should maybe pull back
accountability in this....and that only leads to more
There's approximately a 0% chance that will happen. No, the government operates pretty much along the same lines that you described: screw with us, you get burned. Retaliation leads to more retaliation. The situation will escalate until the government makes participating in raids uncomfortably risky or the teenagers get bored.
I'm sure they're cooperating with the FBI now. The attack is a crime in itself and will doubtlessly be investigated.
I suspect many people here and on Wikipedia value unrestricted free speech as an intrinsic moral principle more than they value diversity as a goal or even more than they value having a good encyclopedia as a goal. If the consequence of allowing everyone people to participate as much as they want is that there are more men than women or that the encyclopedia isn't quite as good as it could be, then that's just the way things have to be, unfortunately.
Then scroll down to the big ugly modern cargo ropeways/conveyor belts in the bottom of the article and you can see they're ugly as fuck and can be seen for many miles around.
Well, we do have power transmission lines crisscrossing the country. They're big eyesores too. In fact, you could conceivably operate both systems right next to each other in the same footprint, though certainly it would have safety implications.
Also there's very little flexibility, with trucks or trains you can run more or less and even sell parts of it if things are slow. With this you have almost only fixed costs and if you hit the capacity limit it's a very hard limit.
Why couldn't you run a tramway at half capacity or sell parts of it? Isn't there a hard capacity limit for railways too? Fundamentally, the idea doesn't seem that different from a railroad except the track is in the air rather than on the ground.
Still, I tend to agree with your overall conclusion. Transportation companies wouldn't be in business long if they ignored opportunities to save money and run their businesses more efficiently. While cases of inefficient markets are notorious, you wouldn't just assume that's the case by default. The fact that tramways are used, but only for special purposes where they have advantages, would be a sign that the market has considered them and found them lacking for broader adoption.
In fiction you can make your ideas sound like the greatest thing ever.
What? You might as well call her the IP Reichsführer for all the sense it makes. She's a minor administration official. Her real title is appropriately mundane and bureaucratic, as is suitable to her actual role.
Victoria Espinel's actual title is Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. It's a mouthful, I know, but the "czar" title is a ridiculous media creation.