OK. But does that give you the right to aggregate those photos, organize them by location, creating a photo map of the entire planet?
That would be the reason I would want to shoo away the Google car.
On the one hand: Location based services are increasingly being incorporated into photographic devices. It's only a matter of time before the planet is completely photo-mapped with location information. Attempts to prevent this are only by scaremongers who have an idealistic view of privacy.
Take for example Flickr (which I am using). Even though one can look for photos based on location data it is far from giving you the same possibility as street few gives. It doesn't give you a systematic overview of the surrounding which gives you the information as you would get when walking there.
I doubt that any site which allows you to share photo will ever get a service similar efective to Google Street View. And if they attempt... well, I guess the public will have a say (at least in Germany).
John Best can take as many photos as he likes, geotag them and upload them to Picasa. However, as I have declined Google the right to store or publish images of my house or car for the use of street view. It doesn't matter, if you can take as many such pictures as a private person and upload them, Google is not allowed to include them along the street view service (here in Germany that is).
So it really doesn't matter whether John Best wants to behave like a small tiny upset boy. Soon we will have forgotten about him again;-)
1) I am not an English native speaker 2) I have Dyslexia (not anymore as bad as in my childhood but still)
Considering these two handicaps I would not consider myself doing so bad. Especially, compared to most of the UK undergraduate students I teach here: there are so many native speakers which cannot even formulate a proper English sentence, it is horrifying!
well, as I just posted a few minutes later (see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1753446&cid=33239814) I made a technical mistake while posting. Slashdot did discard the "<=>" signs as it thought it were non-allowed HTML tags.
What I have meant to post was
"4+3+2=x+2 <=> 4+3+2-2=x <=> 4+3=x <=> 7=x"
which is not the same as "4+3+2=x+2; 4+3+2-2=x; 4+3=x; 7=x".
In case x statisfies the equation "4+3+2=x+2" then x must be equal to 7.
But your statement does not state: 7 is a solution to the equation "4+3+2=x+2"; in symbols this statement would be: x=7 => 4+3+2=x+2
This is why the equivalence signs "<=>" are essential. Without them you do not make the statement that 7 is a solution and is the only solution to the equation.
Even more, it is actually the "<=" direction which is the most important one. If you are only asked to find SOME solution to the equation, then it is enough to show that "x=7 => 4+3+2=x+2". So in your answer you have actually left out the essential answer of the task.
Sometimes when I try to tell this to my students they seem not willing to try to understand this. Well, it might be picky, but then as soon as it comes to more complicated mathematical proofs it becomes very important in which direction the implication signs go and the argument "you should just put in the implication signs such that it is right and give me at least some points" doesn't work anymore.
Which then means: x=7 IS a possible solution of the equation "4+3+2=x+2" and actually it is the ONLY possible solution to this equation.
Whereas "4+3+2=x+2; 4+3+2-2=x; 4+3=x; 7=x" is a lose collection of statements of which each is true if and only if x=7 is true.
When I teach maths students here at my university it seems sometimes nearly impossible to teach them that a collection of lose statements does not consist a proper proof.
SEC was explicitly alarmed by H. Markopolos on November 7th, 2005, that the world’s largest hedge fund is a fraud. The original 19 pages paper can for example be seen here:
This paper tells straight that Bernie Madoff was committing fraud. Crowd sourcing would never have helped here as SEC was just refused to accept the evident proof of Madoff's wrongdoing.
"Five years from now on the web for free you'll be able to find the best lectures in the world."
Well, so far the best lectures I have enjoyed had been old classic style chalk and blackboard lectures. Presented by excellent lecturers/professors. There is and never will be any hightech web replacement for this!
Ok, I didn't get through any of the posts here (I'm far to drunk at the moment and I am sure someone else said it already; and this does NOT justify a "+1 insightfull") but just encrypt your records wit GPG or any similar product and a private key only you know... and soon as you die NOBODY else will have access to it.
The photo you are refering to is a different photo which I am refering to:
1) You are refering to the FIRST photo which BP got caught altering (and there they substatial changed the content).
2) I was refering in my post to the SECOND photo which BP got caught altering and there they did only a cosmetic change. I even linked to the americablog.com article which described the photo I was refering to. And TFA (Washington Post) is NOT about this photo.
As far as I can see, the photoshop edit made to the other faked photo is only of cosmetic nature: the computer presentation has been made darker in order to reduce contrast and make the content better visible. So I don't see a big deal here.
Wait, so they suggest customers to get new credit cards? Well, one thing I do not understand is this: the credit card information is with Apple, but I thought only Apple has access to this stored information. There should be no way for the bad guys to obtain my credit card information from there. If they have the credentials to my apple account they can make Apple charge my credit card without my authorisation. But in this case Apple would have to give me back this money as I did not authorise it etc. And as soon as I have changed my password... the problem should stop (as long as they don't get my new password somehow)...
I do not share any sympathy with people or organisations which sell (!) copyrighted material. So what ever the RIAA/MPAA does against this organised distribution channels is fine with me.
However: I do not feel pity for the RIAA/MPAA. Their rude, unthoughtful... nearly criminal way of treating people makes it impossible for me to feel any sympathy for them. So MAFIAA, enjoy your fight against the real Mafia, I guess there you found a proper opponent!
Just in case this rediculous idea would make it against all odds into a proper law: I predict already now that there will be an exception for politicans!;-)
But the owner of the access point who configures the DHCP server is a person who can grant access or not. And I consider a positive answer from the DHCP server that the owner of the access point grants me access to his network.
How otherwise should one distinguish between open access points which one is allowed to access and ones which one isn't allow to access?
Slashdot Mirror
But let me ask you: where would you place The Center, if not Here?
Where the centre of the mass is. And this is definitely not here.
I think the technology is out there, it's called zero-energy buildings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_building
OK. But does that give you the right to aggregate those photos, organize them by location, creating a photo map of the entire planet?
That would be the reason I would want to shoo away the Google car.
On the one hand: Location based services are increasingly being incorporated into photographic devices. It's only a matter of time before the planet is completely photo-mapped with location information. Attempts to prevent this are only by scaremongers who have an idealistic view of privacy.
Take for example Flickr (which I am using). Even though one can look for photos based on location data it is far from giving you the same possibility as street few gives. It doesn't give you a systematic overview of the surrounding which gives you the information as you would get when walking there.
I doubt that any site which allows you to share photo will ever get a service similar efective to Google Street View. And if they attempt ... well, I guess the public will have a say (at least in Germany).
John Best can take as many photos as he likes, geotag them and upload them to Picasa.
;-)
However, as I have declined Google the right to store or publish images of my house or car for the use of street view. It doesn't matter, if you can take as many such pictures as a private person and upload them, Google is not allowed to include them along the street view service (here in Germany that is).
So it really doesn't matter whether John Best wants to behave like a small tiny upset boy. Soon we will have forgotten about him again
SCO didn't die in a day, either. Neither was Rome build in a day...
Well...
1) I am not an English native speaker
2) I have Dyslexia (not anymore as bad as in my childhood but still)
Considering these two handicaps I would not consider myself doing so bad. Especially, compared to most of the UK undergraduate students I teach here: there are so many native speakers which cannot even formulate a proper English sentence, it is horrifying!
well, as I just posted a few minutes later (see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1753446&cid=33239814) I made a technical mistake while posting. Slashdot did discard the "<=>" signs as it thought it were non-allowed HTML tags.
What I have meant to post was
"4+3+2=x+2 <=> 4+3+2-2=x <=> 4+3=x <=> 7=x"
which is not the same as "4+3+2=x+2; 4+3+2-2=x; 4+3=x; 7=x".
Well, your statement is the following:
In case x statisfies the equation "4+3+2=x+2" then x must be equal to 7.
But your statement does not state: 7 is a solution to the equation "4+3+2=x+2"; in symbols this statement would be: x=7 => 4+3+2=x+2
This is why the equivalence signs "<=>" are essential. Without them you do not make the statement that 7 is a solution and is the only solution to the equation.
Even more, it is actually the "<=" direction which is the most important one. If you are only asked to find SOME solution to the equation, then it is enough to show that "x=7 => 4+3+2=x+2". So in your answer you have actually left out the essential answer of the task.
Sometimes when I try to tell this to my students they seem not willing to try to understand this. Well, it might be picky, but then as soon as it comes to more complicated mathematical proofs it becomes very important in which direction the implication signs go and the argument "you should just put in the implication signs such that it is right and give me at least some points" doesn't work anymore.
In the above post it should have displayed:
"4+3+2=x+2 <=> 4+3+2-2=x <=> 4+3=x <=> 7=x"
The if-and-only-if signs "<=>" got "eaten up bu accident. Mea culpa.
Well, it should actually be:
4+3+2=x+2 4+3+2-2=x 4+3=x 7=x.
Which then means: x=7 IS a possible solution of the equation "4+3+2=x+2" and actually it is the ONLY possible solution to this equation.
Whereas "4+3+2=x+2; 4+3+2-2=x; 4+3=x; 7=x" is a lose collection of statements of which each is true if and only if x=7 is true.
When I teach maths students here at my university it seems sometimes nearly impossible to teach them that a collection of lose statements does not consist a proper proof.
SEC was explicitly alarmed by H. Markopolos on November 7th, 2005, that the world’s largest hedge fund is a fraud. The original 19 pages paper can for example be seen here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9189285/Markopolos-Madoff-Complaint
This paper tells straight that Bernie Madoff was committing fraud. Crowd sourcing would never have helped here as SEC was just refused to accept the evident proof of Madoff's wrongdoing.
I heard the first time about this paper in a talk given by Prof. Paul Embrecht. His very interesting talk notes can be found here: http://www.actuaries.org/ASTIN/Colloquia/Helsinki/Presentations/Embrechts.pdf
There are hot and lonely singles in my area that I wasn't even aware of
Well ... maybe you need to get new glasses before you enter a university next time? ;-)
Watching someone lecture always leaves me feeling that I could be getting many times the knowledge using a more efficient delivery mechanism.
Like getting a better professor?
"Five years from now on the web for free you'll be able to find the best lectures in the world."
Well, so far the best lectures I have enjoyed had been old classic style chalk and blackboard lectures. Presented by excellent lecturers/professors. There is and never will be any hightech web replacement for this!
Ok, I didn't get through any of the posts here (I'm far to drunk at the moment and I am sure someone else said it already; and this does NOT justify a "+1 insightfull") but just encrypt your records wit GPG or any similar product and a private key only you know ... and soon as you die NOBODY else will have access to it.
Simple as that...
There is no sense in demanding "tech" to be included for what ever reason! Just because "tech" is used does not make a lecture better.
The photo you are refering to is a different photo which I am refering to:
1) You are refering to the FIRST photo which BP got caught altering (and there they substatial changed the content).
2) I was refering in my post to the SECOND photo which BP got caught altering and there they did only a cosmetic change. I even linked to the americablog.com article which described the photo I was refering to. And TFA (Washington Post) is NOT about this photo.
As far as I can see, the photoshop edit made to the other faked photo is only of cosmetic nature: the computer presentation has been made darker in order to reduce contrast and make the content better visible. So I don't see a big deal here.
The Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III is from around 2007 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1Ds_Mark_III). So if this info is correct then 2001-03-06 is wrong.
Well, of course if this is the case it makes sense...
Just wondering: So if harm is done with apps approved by Apple ... isn't Apple then also liable for the fraud done by them?
Wait, so they suggest customers to get new credit cards? Well, one thing I do not understand is this: the credit card information is with Apple, but I thought only Apple has access to this stored information. There should be no way for the bad guys to obtain my credit card information from there. If they have the credentials to my apple account they can make Apple charge my credit card without my authorisation. But in this case Apple would have to give me back this money as I did not authorise it etc. And as soon as I have changed my password ... the problem should stop (as long as they don't get my new password somehow)...
Or what am I missing here?
I do not share any sympathy with people or organisations which sell (!) copyrighted material. So what ever the RIAA/MPAA does against this organised distribution channels is fine with me.
However: I do not feel pity for the RIAA/MPAA. Their rude, unthoughtful ... nearly criminal way of treating people makes it impossible for me to feel any sympathy for them. So MAFIAA, enjoy your fight against the real Mafia, I guess there you found a proper opponent!
Where is the popcorn?! ;-)
Just in case this rediculous idea would make it against all odds into a proper law: I predict already now that there will be an exception for politicans! ;-)
But the owner of the access point who configures the DHCP server is a person who can grant access or not. And I consider a positive answer from the DHCP server that the owner of the access point grants me access to his network.
How otherwise should one distinguish between open access points which one is allowed to access and ones which one isn't allow to access?