As I can summarize an "Ask Slashdot" I submitted a few years ago, "caveat emptor". End I can translate that as "you should have looked up the specific specifications(sic) before considering purchasing whatever it is you purchased, retroactively. And given that he specifications were not available, nor clear in any way, it is entirely your fault."
On behalf of HP, I can honestly say, go fuck yourself with an "adult" prosthesis and/or artificial appendage of your choice which would cause you very little pain in the wallet, and at the same time the greatest amount of pain in the arse.
Yes, but you sound intelligent. That is not the target market for companies like Circuit City and Best Buy. You walk around there, maybe, and walk out without doing more than using their powder room.
The 450 people I worked amongst for several years go to those places to purchase something immediately, and bring it home.
No matter how many close, there will always be a market for the "buy it and take it home today" crowd. Not until Amazon goes beyond their replacement for PO boxes and has it at your doorstep in an hour or two. That's why Netflix is beating the shit out of cable, and why RedBox is beating the shit out of Blockbuster, if you discount the part where Blockbuster is copying Redbox 100% plus.
I, the generalized customer, want what I see now. I, the individual, shop around and am willing to wait. But I am not the majority. Or even a significant portion of the minority. I guess it's just me and you, and the people we speak with. And a subset of that, because people are not readily convinced that they are the minority as far as intelligence goes.
It is your duty to let people know when they are below average intelligence, and help them if it is at all possible. Your donation of time will benefit us all. In the form of retailers who do not treat us as retards.
And by retards, I mean those who are retarded, also known as people who are behind the curve. Not as an insult. The same as "tardy" means late, and "retarded" means developmentally behind one's peers.
She's no Linda Eder but she's relatively hot and probably got a lot of money from Weber. And as a non-fan I couldn't be happier for his loss. Phantom is the worst insult to music since someone farted Happy Birthday. Which may have gotten better reviews if it had been repeatable.
Last time I transposed, that was a high F#, but if I got it wrong worst case it's an E.
Either way, Russians will take the money and run. Let Congress explain how a Diva can out-bid the fucking "National Aeronautics and Space Administration".
Seriously, ask your congresscritter what the hell happened here.
Right, so thumbs up is a universal sign, and "the finger" is just as universal? It's not in TFA, just in the submission from moon_unit2 who, it seems, is functionally retarded.
Alternatively, a standardized interface will define how one interacts with the user interface.
I would think that "ASL", being American Sign Language, would be insufficient to handle anything other than the majority of people. The people who don't sign English, or the dialect known as American, may have trouble translating before signing. Maybe they are bisingual, for lack of a better word.
In other words, translating hand gestures to a language is interesting. But it requires a common hand language. It seems "30,000 potential hand and finger configurations" would be a superset of ASL, So I should think it would recognise the ASL subset. Depending on the application.
And that's where it sits, really, the application. One could such an application, and apply ASL to this interface. It might be useful, at least to the deaf community who also understands American English.
That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
"Correlation doesn't PROVE causation" is how argStyopa started out. That was never contested. Whether it implies is the subject.
in regular life correlation does in fact usually imply causation.
Citation? Or anecdote?
"causation" is direct causation. That's what it means. I push a door, it closes, I caused the door to close. You're probably thinking of some Goldbergian situation involving wind, in which each step can be clearly demonstrated, as a counter-example. Read the previous sentence again, and try again. I push a domino, it pushes other dominos, and eventually either the last one falls or I misplaced one or more of them.
Now you feel like having pizza. Is that because you read "Domino's" and are hungry at the same time? And have a local pizza place named "Domino's"? What if there is no "Domino's" franchise where you live? Am I wrong? Do you not eat pizza?
Holy crap, there are variables involved. Lots of them. Piles, actually.
Lazy people probably watch a lot of TV. But people who exercise while watching TV also watch a lot of TV, depending on how you define TV. There are people who watch hours of P90X. Is that TV? Is that an exercise DVD excluded from moving images of another type on the same device?
What about the people who watch healthy cooking shows on Tivo, and cook accordingly?
Bottom line, watching a lot of healthy cooking shows would be the opposite of correlated with obesity. I'm guessing this, but people who consistently do this would either be conscious of their eating habits, would tend to order less fattening foods.
Correlation may imply very indirect causation, but you've taken it out of context. People use "correlation = causation" arguments all the time. The standard reply is the opposite, implying that you need more to prove whatever it is you want to prove. What you suggest is that things are kinda related in some way. The missing link is defining in which way they are related. "Caused by the same thing" is a very specific way in which they are related.
How many people at tattoo parlors would be the kind of person to read safety notices? Both are risky behaviours, and safety is the opposite of risk. If they read it, they most likely will disregard it, or deface it.
I concluded this by correlating the behaviours you described.
Correlation is reason for a hypothesis. Causation is the result of a lot of experimentation. You can get a clue which leads you somewhere, or nowhere, or in circles.
The key is in what you do with the relationship. It may or may not mean anything, which in science lingo means it tells you nothing. Do some tests and come up with some conclusions, then you have a direction to investigate.
Could you simply not see the "Edit post" button on your own stuff so you don't have to double-post like that, karma whore? And btw nice try slipping in a reference to "OMG PONIES" to lend yourself some cred.
Rule of thumb: once the news media pick up a thing, it is no longer that thing. They don't understand it, and the misinformation spreads like wildfire. People tweeting and re-tweeting so that something that should have been an ephemeral thought gains persistence and lives on long after you corrected it. Kinda like your first post (which you can't edit now that you have replied), and probably like this guy Leo. If he had just stayed away from tweeting, he would have been fine, but he had to type stuff into the internet like he was famous or something. Who wants to read what you're typing? That's the problem with writing - everyone can do it.
No this is terrible. When you are making a movie or TV show, you have to illuminate things so the folks at home can see them. Since you don't have much light in the vacuum of interstellar space, you have to provide your own. You can't light every surface because you don't have a portable sun, so you do the best you can. So you get the occasional shadow.
The shadow is maintained in more modern movies, when it can be fixed digitally, because it provides atmosphere (the literary kind, not the physical kind). If you broke with tradition people would go nuts on you, call you Michael Bay, and make a song about how much your movie sucked. Like taking out the whip-smack sound effect from martial arts movies - if it doesn't sound like it hurt, it wasn't kung fu.
And, just because you don't see the light source doesn't mean there isn't one. They could be right next to a dwarf star, or close enough to a solar system. It just isn't in frame.
And finally, anyone familiar with "in space they can't hear you scream" is unlikely to have a brain fart long enough to replace sound with light in their model of how fake science works. So go lrn2intrnet moar.
Look at any dictionary. Definitions are listed in the approximate order in which their usage first became known. Each mild variant of meaning came into being in the same way. Technology is no different.
Words get thrown out there, people use them in various ways, and the meanings change over time. Then people settle on a usage, the "vulgar" definition. Which in itself is an interesting read. The Damascus Latin Bible was "vulgar" for a thousand years.
I try to keep people to the real meaning of things. But people were taught in school how to determine meaning from context. When they find a word or phrase they don't completely understand, they use it they way it makes sense to them. So you have "for all intensive purposes" and "begs the question" in common usage. You can correct it, but you can't win unless you personally intervene with everyone, individually, and repeatedly.
Good for you for wanting to be specific and clear when communicating. When groups of people do that and agree on the meaning, it is "jargon". No one cares.
This happens to be the kind of "trolling" where you have a specific victim in mind. It is not clear that Leo was the only victim - he could very well be the only one willing or able to find his troll. If you have any fringe awareness of the concept of "4chan", you should be aware that targeted trolling is no different from anonymous random trolling. Except for the heightened satisfaction it gives when you know you have "won" again.
As I understand the story, this kid targeted the facade of a neighbor, the online presence who is not a person but a bunch of text and pictures inside the little box. And he kept dragging his line, and got a kick out of every time Leo bit. The only way to make it more fun was ramp it up a notch. The only difference here is the kid's inability to see a neighbor as a person. Counseling was appropriate. Although if your neighbor had some sort of fame or notoriety outside of being a neighbor, such as being popular on Twitter, it could be possible to associate the neighbor with the person you met, and the persona with the digital world.
Your ignorance requires a response. Islam is, and you can find the definition yourself wherever you see fit other than Fox News, submission to Allah. Allah is the same deity as the God of Abraham, the same deity as the Christian "Father". Islam is worshipping the same deity under the guidelines of Muhammed.
This is no different from following Martin Luther (Lutheran denomination) or Calvinism (John Calvin). Or Joseph Smith, Jr. (Mormonism). Or Christian (multiple authors, canonicized indirectly in the Councils of Carthage).
One of the duties is Jihad. Wikipedia has as good of a definition as I've seen or heard,
"A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad... enjoined especially for the purpose of advancing Islam and repelling evil from Muslims"
Muslims are therefore required by their faith to actively repel anything which does the opposite of advancing Islam. Any insult to Muhammed or Islam would be required by the faith to be opposed.
So in your example, you are correct in that you do not have to riot in the streets. You would, however, have a responsibility to fight in whatever manner you see fit according to the Koran, any such opposition to Islam. If rioting in the streets is the best you can do, this is what you have to offer.
Christians do not have a duty to protect the faith. There has been a title "Defender of the Faith" since 1521, but that hardly qualifies as relevant. Henry VIII was anointed as such, but his break with Catholicism and as opposition to Lutherian opposition led Catholics to dismiss the title. Protestants may retain the title, but only defend the Protestant branch of the faith, and do not represent Eastern Orthodox nor obviously Catholic teachings.
There is no such duty in the Christian world, so your example again is correct. Christians have no such obligation as a result of their faith. They may talk to someone who makes fun of Jesus, or become angry and kill the person in a vat of HCl, but that is not an obligation.
Islam is complete and unconditional surrender to God as brought to us by the prophet Muhanned. Christianity is something you accept (via Baptism as a conditional shortly after birth and by Confirmation when you are old enough to decide for yourself). And there are no statements to submit to God unconditionally as a result, nor defend your religion.
I have no intention to return to this topic, please ask local authorities in the respective religion if you have further questions. Or at least read some more. Comparative Religion would be a good place to start.
Well-deserved moderation points were undone in the creation of this post.
It seems no patch has been adequate. Either the FFMpeg architecture cannot deal with it, or people who patch don't understand FFMpeg enough to submit a clean patch. Sample:
They refuse to apply terrible patches. Another question is why don't they work on it themselves, to fix an obvious deficiency? I don't have an answer to that.
The summary has nothing to do with the actual report.
The data gathered includes mayorships, tips, dones and the home city the user entered, all available from their public API. I'd say using the person's entered hometown is a much better predictor of where they live, especially since 99% of the people entered valid geographical data. Not necessarily correct, but valid in that Yahoo! geolocation could resolve it unambiguously (given exceptions like "Springfield" which is a common enough city name that they ignored it). Of course, that is not on the user's profile page, so right off the bat this is a purely academic exercise.
To evaluate the effectiveness of each model, we take the information provided in the user's home city attribute as ground truth.
First, they are trusting the user. Second, the purpose of the study is to evaluate models, not to actually find where users live. Again, academic exercise.
Methodology - The key assumption behind this work is that users tend to have mayorships, tips and dones in venues at the same lo-cation (e.g., city) where they live.
The methodology cannot be the same as the conclusion to qualify as proper research. I could call this team idiots, but it is more likely to again reiterate they are taking an assumption and comparing various models to find out how accurete they are, given the assumptions.
For instance, the Mayorship model can only be applied to 1,814,184 users, whereas the All model is applicable to 2,823,404. Thus, considering the actual number of users for which each model was able to correctly predict the home city, we found that the best model was All (1,504,262 correct inferences) followed by Mayorship+Tip (1,339,152 correct inferences)
In fact, each model maxed out at 60% accuracy for home city, and it's only by using the best model for each person that they can have a meta-model to identify a location.
And now for the blurb that produced the summary and article:
To better understand the modelsâ(TM) errors, we computed for each incorrect inference the distance between the inferred city given by the All model and the declared user home city. Figure 7 shows the distribution of these distances. We found that around 46% of the distances are under 50 kilometers, which is a reasonable distance between neighboring (twin) cities. Thus, combining these results with the correct inferences produced by our model, we find that we can correctly infer the city of around 78% of the users within 50 kilometers
46% of the results were under 50 km away from the user's reported city, and thus probably correct, especially for the most populous cities which tend to be larger. That means 54% were 50 km or more away. The margin of error is not directional, it is a scalar value not a vector. You could be 50km north or 50km south. I don't believe this results in 50 km^2, this sounds like 100km^2. If it puts you right between two cities 100km apart, there is no way to know which city you call home.
Now, note that they are not finding the user's city, but a city within 50 km of where you actually live. And if you take it as scalar, 100 km^2 of where you actually live.
So the end result of the study is that user-supplied information matches user-supplied information to within 100km^2 78% of the time. Which is piss-poor.
In our evaluation, we group users into three classes. Class 0 consists of users who have a single activity, either a mayor-ship, a tip or a done. In this case, the unique choice is to set the userâ(TM)s home location equal to that of her activity. Class 1 consists of users who have multiple activities with a pre-dominant location across them. For these users, the inferred location matches the most often location of their activities. Class 2, in turn, consists of users with multiple activities in which ther
You should. Because what they are asking for is for you to design the use cases, wireframes, features, and functions.
Given access to a working install, and a 2-hour meeting, I could probably do this inside a week plus the API learning curve. But that's not what they want. They want you to assume requirements, design around those requirements, and present your work and hope it gets selected.
If you are selected, they will then use the stack of proposals to alter your proposal, since you
may be subject to additional obligations, including without limitation, working with the SLC to establish a project plan with specific milestones for gathering additional state and district feedback, progress review, first code check, testing, delivery of the application to SLC, and releasing the newly-developed applications.
The feedback will undoubtedly combine great ideas from every one of the un-paid proposals, and you will be stuck with the due date they gave.
You will either work yourself to death, fail to deliver, or deliver and be disqualified. Unless you are already the pre-selected vendor, for which the requirements were written.
I can't figure out how you got +5 interesting when the replies amount to "WTF are you talking about?"
As far as I can tell, this is the issue. Bug 368255 which was opened early 2007, and still has comments as of March of 2012.
I don't know for sure that's what slow turtle was talking about, and I can't tell from the bug discussion exactly what it means.
I don't know how to set the cookie to 0, or to set it to something random to make Google's data any more fishy than I already am making it (by searching for random terms from a safe dictionary at set intervals via a cron job and some scripting). And by safe I mean not likely to be on any watch list anywhere.
I have looked through enough of the Firefox codebase while bug-hunting for ReactOS that I am unwilling to investigate this further. It was a nightmare, and while I assume it has been cleaned up a bit, I fear going back there again.
And that is the way it should be. Guilty until proven innocent. In the U.S. you cannot file a lawsuit unless you have standing, which means you are able to show (not prove) that you were harmed or suffered loss.
Until someone actually suffers due to this law, and takes it as a lawsuit, this is the correct ruling. There is nothing in the law which suggests people will be harmed. We know abuse of power happens, and we know that when it does it won't be reported immediately. That sucks. But we also know that there are kidnappers raping their hostages in their basements, and police can't just go wandering about looking in basements in case someone is being held against their will.
The difference is, the basis of the Constitution was spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, which specified abuses of power which were not to be tolerated. Not hypothetical abuses, but actual ones. Search and seizure without formal due process is not allowed because it was abused.
Voter tracking is allowed because it has not been shown to be abused. Yes, we know from union voting that this can be abused. And we can assume from various cases of voter fraud by politicians that it will be abused.
But as it stands, it is allowable and valid. The only problem is that we can't prove it will be abused. The first case will find a single guilty person. The second may find a conspiracy. Not until the fourth or fifth such case will anyone be able to show a systemic pattern of abuse big enough to shut the whole thing down.
AKA we are stuck with it until someone with the balls to fight back repeatedly does so.
If you're going for Devil's Advocate, you should understand that it means taking a position you don't necessarily agree with. I'm pretty sure you meant something else, so keep looking.
And the better way to be the whatever it was you hoped to be, is the normal nerdly way. We don't even have a published scientific report, and it's hardly peer reviewed. At best we have a "finding" which has yet to be validated and verified. It is not proof, nor does it pretend to be. As with most of the science that hits any news paper/aggregator/site.
Oh, I know what you were being. A troll. Cute and Cuddly Troll. Or person who spouts conspiracy theories for no real purpose. Cute and Cuddly and irrelevant. Either way, the answer to both is "no" and your post serves no purpose.
It is currently voluntary. A lot of people are pushing for it to be mandatory, which would practically chop Google's business plan off at the hips. Right now they read your mail (not the employees, but the servers), they track your searches, and if you have Android they know a lot more about you than you think. Do not track being mandatory would turn off a lot of their data gathering. And they are an advertising sales company, no matter what other products they bring to consumers. Just as with FaceBook, you are the product and your eyeballs are being sold to advertisers.
Microsoft intends to turn DNT on by default for IE 10, and even if you don't go with Windows 8 you might get some updates for Win7, if not actually IE 10, that set DNT accordingly. Now a huge browser market, including most people people who don't know what DNT is, nor do they care, will have it disabled by default. This pits Microsoft against Google in a huge way.
Aside from all of the other fallout that will happen by making it not just a standard, but a fine-inducing requirement, it will be essentially unenforceable in that it will be hard to prove tracking versus proper context-based targeted adverts. Pointless unenforceable laws/regulations that depend on politicians pretending to support their constituents on the small things so they can screw voters on the big things are not the way to a better internet. But that's what we're going to get when politicians get involved.
The fuss isn't about right now, it's about looking down the road and seeing oncoming traffic. A smart person would at least pull over, and assess whether a U-turn is in order, or getting off the road, or if maybe staying the course is in fact appropriate.
I worked with a guy who did a lot of VBA and a little ASP code. He usually got about 90% right, and then mental blocked on some syntax.
I'd give him a few hints, and eventually he would solve it. But the next time it came up, he just couldn't grasp it.
I'm not saying he can't become a successful programmer. But without some very careful guidance, study, and experience, he won't. And because he won't take the time, he can't become a programmer.
He needs to understand things like where a function is. Is it in a static class? Is it a global function? Is it a class method? And why does it work one way but not another? Given time, he could learn these things.
He also can't spell worth a damn and knows it. With a language with as many broken rules as English, you have to develop some sort of intuition about which letters go together in this context, and with programming you need the same kind of intuition, Maybe they are related, maybe not. But hopefully it made more sense than a car analogy. If you don't understand why the parts don't fit together the way you think they should, you can't make progress.
So regardless of whether people have the logic skills and abstract thinking, you can have the skills but not the tools to use them. I'll leave the flamewar about people who completely lack the skills to somewhere else.
See, this is where the uninformed take off on a tangent. Travel is not a right, it's a privilege, and you are free to drive to any state you wish. If you wish to take a flight for convenience, you are invited to be conveniently fondled.
I am worried about VIPR teams and forced exposure to harmful emanences. But you started out with something which is completely out of scope to the discussion. If airline security were in the hands of the airlines, they would be free to implement such measures as they thought were necessary, and you have the right to refrain from flying, so there's no difference between private screeners and federal ones doing this.
To put it another way, you don't have the right to enter my house. If you accept my invitation, I could require a full pat-down, either by my assistant or if you are an attractive female by myself, for security reasons. You can opt in or out, but you still don't have the right to enter without the pat-down. You have the right to refuse both the pat-down and entry onto private property (government subsidized or not).
That's the entire point. Outlawing anything, or developing newspeak for it, does not accomplish anything. It allows the creators of the law, and the supporters, the ability to wash their hands of it and say they did their best to eliminate it.
What is lost on them is that there is more that could be done, and far more productively. That, as much as I've gathered, seems to be the point of Rickard Falkvinge's document. Allowing possession when reporting a crime should be a no-brainer, but sane people would probably just delete it before telling any authority figure "I clicked on something, downloaded something I did not expect, and think you should go find these people."
In at least one court case posted here, someone testified that they were in that exact situation and decided to just remove the evidence. It is possible the person enjoyed the content and removed it to be able to claim it was removed. It is also possible the testimony was true. Intent being hard to prove, this makes no difference. Since the person *downloaded* the content, the suspect would not be accused of creating content (and therefore being a criminal). Depending on the download method and/or source, the person is likely not supporting the actual criminal either. So why is the person criminalized?
Because some people want anything that they are not comfortable with to be hidden, instead of dealt with. I personally would like no punishment of downloading when there is zero monetary or other support given, including ad revenue, especially when the content is reported to someone who can track down the source.
A person who gives no support, and instead helps track down the real criminal should not be punished. But it is not possible to operate this way. Purely due to people burying their heads in the sand, which as you say is ineffective. The real problem is people who vote for the head-burying party.
Prostitution, drugs, molestation, abortion, and for a brief period alcohol usage, were on the list of head-burying topics for hundreds if not thousands of years. We have solve one of these by allowing personal consumption in the USA, with laws to catch people who cause damage by using it while operating machinery, and referral to detox programs for offenders instead of jail time.
To fight the problem, we have to acknowledge its existence, just like the Vatican had to do, and just like Prohibitionists had to do.
The "article" is most likely the summary, which is deduced from the given articles out of pure idiocy.
If you read the summary, and not the articles, then tragedy (27079) makes perfect sense. If, on the other hand, you bypass normal slashdot protocol and read something longer than a paragraph (unless you vehemently disagree and wish to personally insult the poster), none of the articles could possibly have been edited to read as they do given the context in which they were presented.
"First time accepted submitter planetzuda writes..." pure unadulterated nonsense. For Google rankings.
First post if you click on the user's name, which I expected to be the slashdot profile:
Update: this article has been updated since people donâ(TM)t understand that the use of a URL was the only hack I proposed, but that doesnâ(TM)t mean it is the only type of hack possible. I could propose a ton of different hacks, but I am to busy. Any good security system should deny any URL or binary code that is invalid, but there are very few security systems that are good.
In other words, physical materials are easily modified, therefore INSTANT HAXX0R ON ANYTHING.
hosts file: add localhost redirect to: rcm.amazon.com www.tqlkg.com
and more importantly anything this user ever does.
And those photos are a lot closer in color to the un-enhanced spots on the Daily Mail shots. No doubt it was orange, but not the bright pumpkin orange from the daily mail shots (not that the DM necessarily touched them up, they obviously belong to a Chinese outfit).
I read your post this way: Wikipedia is a wiki for things no one really cares about, but for current news and important concerns it's pretty much a blog for whomever has the clout to control it.
I didn't read "encyclopedia" at all. And cleaning up obvious vandalism is hardly a great example - someone would have to be a supreme idiot to revert that, or ask you for a source that supports your removal.
And ultimately, yes those things do happen, because there are very powerful idiots in the wikimedia empire. You're arguing that it is context-sensitive, and I'm agreeing, only that the bad stuff is worse when it's more important.
Slashdot Mirror
As I can summarize an "Ask Slashdot" I submitted a few years ago, "caveat emptor". End I can translate that as "you should have looked up the specific specifications(sic) before considering purchasing whatever it is you purchased, retroactively. And given that he specifications were not available, nor clear in any way, it is entirely your fault."
On behalf of HP, I can honestly say, go fuck yourself with an "adult" prosthesis and/or artificial appendage of your choice which would cause you very little pain in the wallet, and at the same time the greatest amount of pain in the arse.
Yes, but you sound intelligent. That is not the target market for companies like Circuit City and Best Buy. You walk around there, maybe, and walk out without doing more than using their powder room.
The 450 people I worked amongst for several years go to those places to purchase something immediately, and bring it home.
No matter how many close, there will always be a market for the "buy it and take it home today" crowd. Not until Amazon goes beyond their replacement for PO boxes and has it at your doorstep in an hour or two. That's why Netflix is beating the shit out of cable, and why RedBox is beating the shit out of Blockbuster, if you discount the part where Blockbuster is copying Redbox 100% plus.
I, the generalized customer, want what I see now. I, the individual, shop around and am willing to wait. But I am not the majority. Or even a significant portion of the minority. I guess it's just me and you, and the people we speak with. And a subset of that, because people are not readily convinced that they are the minority as far as intelligence goes.
It is your duty to let people know when they are below average intelligence, and help them if it is at all possible. Your donation of time will benefit us all. In the form of retailers who do not treat us as retards.
And by retards, I mean those who are retarded, also known as people who are behind the curve. Not as an insult. The same as "tardy" means late, and "retarded" means developmentally behind one's peers.
She's no Linda Eder but she's relatively hot and probably got a lot of money from Weber. And as a non-fan I couldn't be happier for his loss. Phantom is the worst insult to music since someone farted Happy Birthday. Which may have gotten better reviews if it had been repeatable.
Last time I transposed, that was a high F#, but if I got it wrong worst case it's an E.
Either way, Russians will take the money and run. Let Congress explain how a Diva can out-bid the fucking "National Aeronautics and Space Administration".
Seriously, ask your congresscritter what the hell happened here.
Right, so thumbs up is a universal sign, and "the finger" is just as universal? It's not in TFA, just in the submission from moon_unit2 who, it seems, is functionally retarded.
Alternatively, a standardized interface will define how one interacts with the user interface.
I would think that "ASL", being American Sign Language, would be insufficient to handle anything other than the majority of people. The people who don't sign English, or the dialect known as American, may have trouble translating before signing. Maybe they are bisingual, for lack of a better word.
In other words, translating hand gestures to a language is interesting. But it requires a common hand language. It seems "30,000 potential hand and finger configurations" would be a superset of ASL, So I should think it would recognise the ASL subset. Depending on the application.
And that's where it sits, really, the application. One could such an application, and apply ASL to this interface. It might be useful, at least to the deaf community who also understands American English.
That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
"Correlation doesn't PROVE causation" is how argStyopa started out. That was never contested. Whether it implies is the subject.
Citation? Or anecdote?
"causation" is direct causation. That's what it means. I push a door, it closes, I caused the door to close. You're probably thinking of some Goldbergian situation involving wind, in which each step can be clearly demonstrated, as a counter-example. Read the previous sentence again, and try again. I push a domino, it pushes other dominos, and eventually either the last one falls or I misplaced one or more of them.
Now you feel like having pizza. Is that because you read "Domino's" and are hungry at the same time? And have a local pizza place named "Domino's"? What if there is no "Domino's" franchise where you live? Am I wrong? Do you not eat pizza?
Holy crap, there are variables involved. Lots of them. Piles, actually.
Lazy people probably watch a lot of TV. But people who exercise while watching TV also watch a lot of TV, depending on how you define TV. There are people who watch hours of P90X. Is that TV? Is that an exercise DVD excluded from moving images of another type on the same device?
What about the people who watch healthy cooking shows on Tivo, and cook accordingly?
Bottom line, watching a lot of healthy cooking shows would be the opposite of correlated with obesity. I'm guessing this, but people who consistently do this would either be conscious of their eating habits, would tend to order less fattening foods.
Correlation may imply very indirect causation, but you've taken it out of context. People use "correlation = causation" arguments all the time. The standard reply is the opposite, implying that you need more to prove whatever it is you want to prove. What you suggest is that things are kinda related in some way. The missing link is defining in which way they are related. "Caused by the same thing" is a very specific way in which they are related.
Not correlated, not caused, just related.
How many people at tattoo parlors would be the kind of person to read safety notices? Both are risky behaviours, and safety is the opposite of risk. If they read it, they most likely will disregard it, or deface it.
I concluded this by correlating the behaviours you described.
Correlation is reason for a hypothesis. Causation is the result of a lot of experimentation. You can get a clue which leads you somewhere, or nowhere, or in circles.
The key is in what you do with the relationship. It may or may not mean anything, which in science lingo means it tells you nothing. Do some tests and come up with some conclusions, then you have a direction to investigate.
No, it's German. "The SchroedingerZ, the!"
Could you simply not see the "Edit post" button on your own stuff so you don't have to double-post like that, karma whore? And btw nice try slipping in a reference to "OMG PONIES" to lend yourself some cred.
Rule of thumb: once the news media pick up a thing, it is no longer that thing. They don't understand it, and the misinformation spreads like wildfire. People tweeting and re-tweeting so that something that should have been an ephemeral thought gains persistence and lives on long after you corrected it. Kinda like your first post (which you can't edit now that you have replied), and probably like this guy Leo. If he had just stayed away from tweeting, he would have been fine, but he had to type stuff into the internet like he was famous or something. Who wants to read what you're typing? That's the problem with writing - everyone can do it.
No this is terrible. When you are making a movie or TV show, you have to illuminate things so the folks at home can see them. Since you don't have much light in the vacuum of interstellar space, you have to provide your own. You can't light every surface because you don't have a portable sun, so you do the best you can. So you get the occasional shadow.
The shadow is maintained in more modern movies, when it can be fixed digitally, because it provides atmosphere (the literary kind, not the physical kind). If you broke with tradition people would go nuts on you, call you Michael Bay, and make a song about how much your movie sucked. Like taking out the whip-smack sound effect from martial arts movies - if it doesn't sound like it hurt, it wasn't kung fu.
And, just because you don't see the light source doesn't mean there isn't one. They could be right next to a dwarf star, or close enough to a solar system. It just isn't in frame.
And finally, anyone familiar with "in space they can't hear you scream" is unlikely to have a brain fart long enough to replace sound with light in their model of how fake science works. So go lrn2intrnet moar.
Look at any dictionary. Definitions are listed in the approximate order in which their usage first became known. Each mild variant of meaning came into being in the same way. Technology is no different.
Words get thrown out there, people use them in various ways, and the meanings change over time. Then people settle on a usage, the "vulgar" definition. Which in itself is an interesting read. The Damascus Latin Bible was "vulgar" for a thousand years.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vulgar
I try to keep people to the real meaning of things. But people were taught in school how to determine meaning from context. When they find a word or phrase they don't completely understand, they use it they way it makes sense to them. So you have "for all intensive purposes" and "begs the question" in common usage. You can correct it, but you can't win unless you personally intervene with everyone, individually, and repeatedly.
Good for you for wanting to be specific and clear when communicating. When groups of people do that and agree on the meaning, it is "jargon". No one cares.
This happens to be the kind of "trolling" where you have a specific victim in mind. It is not clear that Leo was the only victim - he could very well be the only one willing or able to find his troll. If you have any fringe awareness of the concept of "4chan", you should be aware that targeted trolling is no different from anonymous random trolling. Except for the heightened satisfaction it gives when you know you have "won" again.
As I understand the story, this kid targeted the facade of a neighbor, the online presence who is not a person but a bunch of text and pictures inside the little box. And he kept dragging his line, and got a kick out of every time Leo bit. The only way to make it more fun was ramp it up a notch. The only difference here is the kid's inability to see a neighbor as a person. Counseling was appropriate. Although if your neighbor had some sort of fame or notoriety outside of being a neighbor, such as being popular on Twitter, it could be possible to associate the neighbor with the person you met, and the persona with the digital world.
Your ignorance requires a response. Islam is, and you can find the definition yourself wherever you see fit other than Fox News, submission to Allah. Allah is the same deity as the God of Abraham, the same deity as the Christian "Father". Islam is worshipping the same deity under the guidelines of Muhammed.
This is no different from following Martin Luther (Lutheran denomination) or Calvinism (John Calvin). Or Joseph Smith, Jr. (Mormonism). Or Christian (multiple authors, canonicized indirectly in the Councils of Carthage).
One of the duties is Jihad. Wikipedia has as good of a definition as I've seen or heard,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
Muslims are therefore required by their faith to actively repel anything which does the opposite of advancing Islam. Any insult to Muhammed or Islam would be required by the faith to be opposed.
So in your example, you are correct in that you do not have to riot in the streets. You would, however, have a responsibility to fight in whatever manner you see fit according to the Koran, any such opposition to Islam. If rioting in the streets is the best you can do, this is what you have to offer.
Christians do not have a duty to protect the faith. There has been a title "Defender of the Faith" since 1521, but that hardly qualifies as relevant. Henry VIII was anointed as such, but his break with Catholicism and as opposition to Lutherian opposition led Catholics to dismiss the title. Protestants may retain the title, but only defend the Protestant branch of the faith, and do not represent Eastern Orthodox nor obviously Catholic teachings.
There is no such duty in the Christian world, so your example again is correct. Christians have no such obligation as a result of their faith. They may talk to someone who makes fun of Jesus, or become angry and kill the person in a vat of HCl, but that is not an obligation.
Islam is complete and unconditional surrender to God as brought to us by the prophet Muhanned. Christianity is something you accept (via Baptism as a conditional shortly after birth and by Confirmation when you are old enough to decide for yourself). And there are no statements to submit to God unconditionally as a result, nor defend your religion.
I have no intention to return to this topic, please ask local authorities in the respective religion if you have further questions. Or at least read some more. Comparative Religion would be a good place to start.
Well-deserved moderation points were undone in the creation of this post.
It seems no patch has been adequate. Either the FFMpeg architecture cannot deal with it, or people who patch don't understand FFMpeg enough to submit a clean patch. Sample:
http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2008-August/041721.html
They refuse to apply terrible patches. Another question is why don't they work on it themselves, to fix an obvious deficiency? I don't have an answer to that.
The summary has nothing to do with the actual report.
The data gathered includes mayorships, tips, dones and the home city the user entered, all available from their public API. I'd say using the person's entered hometown is a much better predictor of where they live, especially since 99% of the people entered valid geographical data. Not necessarily correct, but valid in that Yahoo! geolocation could resolve it unambiguously (given exceptions like "Springfield" which is a common enough city name that they ignored it). Of course, that is not on the user's profile page, so right off the bat this is a purely academic exercise.
First, they are trusting the user. Second, the purpose of the study is to evaluate models, not to actually find where users live. Again, academic exercise.
The methodology cannot be the same as the conclusion to qualify as proper research. I could call this team idiots, but it is more likely to again reiterate they are taking an assumption and comparing various models to find out how accurete they are, given the assumptions.
In fact, each model maxed out at 60% accuracy for home city, and it's only by using the best model for each person that they can have a meta-model to identify a location.
And now for the blurb that produced the summary and article:
46% of the results were under 50 km away from the user's reported city, and thus probably correct, especially for the most populous cities which tend to be larger. That means 54% were 50 km or more away. The margin of error is not directional, it is a scalar value not a vector. You could be 50km north or 50km south. I don't believe this results in 50 km^2, this sounds like 100km^2. If it puts you right between two cities 100km apart, there is no way to know which city you call home.
Now, note that they are not finding the user's city, but a city within 50 km of where you actually live. And if you take it as scalar, 100 km^2 of where you actually live.
So the end result of the study is that user-supplied information matches user-supplied information to within 100km^2 78% of the time. Which is piss-poor.
You should. Because what they are asking for is for you to design the use cases, wireframes, features, and functions.
Given access to a working install, and a 2-hour meeting, I could probably do this inside a week plus the API learning curve. But that's not what they want. They want you to assume requirements, design around those requirements, and present your work and hope it gets selected.
If you are selected, they will then use the stack of proposals to alter your proposal, since you
The feedback will undoubtedly combine great ideas from every one of the un-paid proposals, and you will be stuck with the due date they gave.
You will either work yourself to death, fail to deliver, or deliver and be disqualified. Unless you are already the pre-selected vendor, for which the requirements were written.
I can't figure out how you got +5 interesting when the replies amount to "WTF are you talking about?"
As far as I can tell, this is the issue. Bug 368255 which was opened early 2007, and still has comments as of March of 2012.
I don't know for sure that's what slow turtle was talking about, and I can't tell from the bug discussion exactly what it means.
I don't know how to set the cookie to 0, or to set it to something random to make Google's data any more fishy than I already am making it (by searching for random terms from a safe dictionary at set intervals via a cron job and some scripting). And by safe I mean not likely to be on any watch list anywhere.
I have looked through enough of the Firefox codebase while bug-hunting for ReactOS that I am unwilling to investigate this further. It was a nightmare, and while I assume it has been cleaned up a bit, I fear going back there again.
And that is the way it should be. Guilty until proven innocent. In the U.S. you cannot file a lawsuit unless you have standing, which means you are able to show (not prove) that you were harmed or suffered loss.
Until someone actually suffers due to this law, and takes it as a lawsuit, this is the correct ruling. There is nothing in the law which suggests people will be harmed. We know abuse of power happens, and we know that when it does it won't be reported immediately. That sucks. But we also know that there are kidnappers raping their hostages in their basements, and police can't just go wandering about looking in basements in case someone is being held against their will.
The difference is, the basis of the Constitution was spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, which specified abuses of power which were not to be tolerated. Not hypothetical abuses, but actual ones. Search and seizure without formal due process is not allowed because it was abused.
Voter tracking is allowed because it has not been shown to be abused. Yes, we know from union voting that this can be abused. And we can assume from various cases of voter fraud by politicians that it will be abused.
But as it stands, it is allowable and valid. The only problem is that we can't prove it will be abused. The first case will find a single guilty person. The second may find a conspiracy. Not until the fourth or fifth such case will anyone be able to show a systemic pattern of abuse big enough to shut the whole thing down.
AKA we are stuck with it until someone with the balls to fight back repeatedly does so.
If you're going for Devil's Advocate, you should understand that it means taking a position you don't necessarily agree with. I'm pretty sure you meant something else, so keep looking.
And the better way to be the whatever it was you hoped to be, is the normal nerdly way. We don't even have a published scientific report, and it's hardly peer reviewed. At best we have a "finding" which has yet to be validated and verified. It is not proof, nor does it pretend to be. As with most of the science that hits any news paper/aggregator/site.
Oh, I know what you were being. A troll. Cute and Cuddly Troll. Or person who spouts conspiracy theories for no real purpose. Cute and Cuddly and irrelevant. Either way, the answer to both is "no" and your post serves no purpose.
It is currently voluntary. A lot of people are pushing for it to be mandatory, which would practically chop Google's business plan off at the hips. Right now they read your mail (not the employees, but the servers), they track your searches, and if you have Android they know a lot more about you than you think. Do not track being mandatory would turn off a lot of their data gathering. And they are an advertising sales company, no matter what other products they bring to consumers. Just as with FaceBook, you are the product and your eyeballs are being sold to advertisers.
Microsoft intends to turn DNT on by default for IE 10, and even if you don't go with Windows 8 you might get some updates for Win7, if not actually IE 10, that set DNT accordingly. Now a huge browser market, including most people people who don't know what DNT is, nor do they care, will have it disabled by default. This pits Microsoft against Google in a huge way.
Aside from all of the other fallout that will happen by making it not just a standard, but a fine-inducing requirement, it will be essentially unenforceable in that it will be hard to prove tracking versus proper context-based targeted adverts. Pointless unenforceable laws/regulations that depend on politicians pretending to support their constituents on the small things so they can screw voters on the big things are not the way to a better internet. But that's what we're going to get when politicians get involved.
The fuss isn't about right now, it's about looking down the road and seeing oncoming traffic. A smart person would at least pull over, and assess whether a U-turn is in order, or getting off the road, or if maybe staying the course is in fact appropriate.
I worked with a guy who did a lot of VBA and a little ASP code. He usually got about 90% right, and then mental blocked on some syntax.
I'd give him a few hints, and eventually he would solve it. But the next time it came up, he just couldn't grasp it.
I'm not saying he can't become a successful programmer. But without some very careful guidance, study, and experience, he won't. And because he won't take the time, he can't become a programmer.
He needs to understand things like where a function is. Is it in a static class? Is it a global function? Is it a class method? And why does it work one way but not another? Given time, he could learn these things.
He also can't spell worth a damn and knows it. With a language with as many broken rules as English, you have to develop some sort of intuition about which letters go together in this context, and with programming you need the same kind of intuition, Maybe they are related, maybe not. But hopefully it made more sense than a car analogy. If you don't understand why the parts don't fit together the way you think they should, you can't make progress.
So regardless of whether people have the logic skills and abstract thinking, you can have the skills but not the tools to use them. I'll leave the flamewar about people who completely lack the skills to somewhere else.
See, this is where the uninformed take off on a tangent. Travel is not a right, it's a privilege, and you are free to drive to any state you wish. If you wish to take a flight for convenience, you are invited to be conveniently fondled.
I am worried about VIPR teams and forced exposure to harmful emanences. But you started out with something which is completely out of scope to the discussion. If airline security were in the hands of the airlines, they would be free to implement such measures as they thought were necessary, and you have the right to refrain from flying, so there's no difference between private screeners and federal ones doing this.
To put it another way, you don't have the right to enter my house. If you accept my invitation, I could require a full pat-down, either by my assistant or if you are an attractive female by myself, for security reasons. You can opt in or out, but you still don't have the right to enter without the pat-down. You have the right to refuse both the pat-down and entry onto private property (government subsidized or not).
That's the entire point. Outlawing anything, or developing newspeak for it, does not accomplish anything. It allows the creators of the law, and the supporters, the ability to wash their hands of it and say they did their best to eliminate it.
What is lost on them is that there is more that could be done, and far more productively. That, as much as I've gathered, seems to be the point of Rickard Falkvinge's document. Allowing possession when reporting a crime should be a no-brainer, but sane people would probably just delete it before telling any authority figure "I clicked on something, downloaded something I did not expect, and think you should go find these people."
In at least one court case posted here, someone testified that they were in that exact situation and decided to just remove the evidence. It is possible the person enjoyed the content and removed it to be able to claim it was removed. It is also possible the testimony was true. Intent being hard to prove, this makes no difference. Since the person *downloaded* the content, the suspect would not be accused of creating content (and therefore being a criminal). Depending on the download method and/or source, the person is likely not supporting the actual criminal either. So why is the person criminalized?
Because some people want anything that they are not comfortable with to be hidden, instead of dealt with. I personally would like no punishment of downloading when there is zero monetary or other support given, including ad revenue, especially when the content is reported to someone who can track down the source.
A person who gives no support, and instead helps track down the real criminal should not be punished. But it is not possible to operate this way. Purely due to people burying their heads in the sand, which as you say is ineffective. The real problem is people who vote for the head-burying party.
Prostitution, drugs, molestation, abortion, and for a brief period alcohol usage, were on the list of head-burying topics for hundreds if not thousands of years. We have solve one of these by allowing personal consumption in the USA, with laws to catch people who cause damage by using it while operating machinery, and referral to detox programs for offenders instead of jail time.
To fight the problem, we have to acknowledge its existence, just like the Vatican had to do, and just like Prohibitionists had to do.
The "article" is most likely the summary, which is deduced from the given articles out of pure idiocy.
If you read the summary, and not the articles, then tragedy (27079) makes perfect sense. If, on the other hand, you bypass normal slashdot protocol and read something longer than a paragraph (unless you vehemently disagree and wish to personally insult the poster), none of the articles could possibly have been edited to read as they do given the context in which they were presented.
"First time accepted submitter planetzuda writes..." pure unadulterated nonsense. For Google rankings.
First post if you click on the user's name, which I expected to be the slashdot profile:
http://planetzuda.com/news/2012/09/12/anti-forgery-qr-money/
DO NOT CLICK ON THAT!
It starts thusly:
In other words, physical materials are easily modified, therefore INSTANT HAXX0R ON ANYTHING.
hosts file: add localhost redirect to:
rcm.amazon.com
www.tqlkg.com
and more importantly anything this user ever does.
It may be shrinking, but $230 Billion in new orders sounds quite large for July.
http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/m3/index.html
Do you have any backup for what you're saying, or did you just repeat something you heard?
And those photos are a lot closer in color to the un-enhanced spots on the Daily Mail shots. No doubt it was orange, but not the bright pumpkin orange from the daily mail shots (not that the DM necessarily touched them up, they obviously belong to a Chinese outfit).
I read your post this way: Wikipedia is a wiki for things no one really cares about, but for current news and important concerns it's pretty much a blog for whomever has the clout to control it.
I didn't read "encyclopedia" at all. And cleaning up obvious vandalism is hardly a great example - someone would have to be a supreme idiot to revert that, or ask you for a source that supports your removal.
And ultimately, yes those things do happen, because there are very powerful idiots in the wikimedia empire. You're arguing that it is context-sensitive, and I'm agreeing, only that the bad stuff is worse when it's more important.