Having suffered depression in my youth, I find the comment above quite accurate, but at the same time, find it a little strange that someone with depression is actually going out to places like chippendales? Going out in public, especially to places where there were lots of happy smiling joyful people was the LAST thing that I wanted to do.
Personally - I really don't care what kind of dodgy information they could gleen from a smart meter. I only really care about the fact that power could (or will here in Oz) cost more.
Actually, I wouldn't have ANY problem at all paying a little extra for these meters (also here in Aus) if they used the data gathered to make a more efficient energy grid and this in turn helped us reduce emissions and made us more environmentally friendly. I would have very big problems with this if it was used to simply line the pockets of companies while not changing or improving in any other way.
But even THAT would not work when local newspapers and TV stations put news on line, because Google would simply index those remaining free providers, which often provide a more complete story anyway.
The problem is more about COMPETITION that is promoted by places like Google indexing sites. You see, if a gatherer of news links to five different articles on a similar subject, you can likely quickly see who is doing the better job of journalism. If you on the other hand have paid services and only see one version of an article, then you aren't drawn away from it (and the advertising around it). The reason the web is so good at providing stories that are well written is that it makes it so easy to search through twenty articles on one subject till you find the quality one. You can't pick up a newspaper (or single site for that matter) and find twenty articles about the same story written by different people. If you could, chances are you would find one that's better than the others. This is effectively what the web allows you to do, and what Murdoch is shitscared of.
The internet makes it possible for him to be compared, on a level playing field and in bright lights to his competition.
Actually, you would be surprised at how certain things go. Personally, I don't think it is WHAT you say, so much as the DELIVERY of the statement.
I will qualify and say that I hang out in a lot of rave/techno clubs, but let me tell you this little story. One night me and a mate were working back late, and to pass the time, we were coming up with the lamest, corniest and all round worst pickup lines we could think of. One of the ones Dave said made me laugh so much, I decided to get it printed on a t-shirt. I wore this t-shirt out clubbing, and on the first night out was utterly AMAZED at how many girls saw it, laughed, then came up and struck up a conversation. The worst line delivered correctly can still be an awesome icebreaker.
He was innocent of what he was accused of. Being charged with a crime that the police and prosecutors know you did not commit is being charged with a crime that you are innocent of.
No, if he did in reality go there with the intention of stealing the $20 CD, in that state it would in fact be "Felony Commercial Burglary (Burglary being defined in California Penal Code as entering a premises with the intent to commit larceny)". The police simply dropped it to a smaller petty theft (at the same time making it stick without a costly court case) as it was indeed a $20 CD.
I am probably in a minority here, but I think the police acted in the right way, the person got what they should have gotten. The punishment for petty theft for committing petty theft.
I wonder what the agenda here is. It's surely not something as simple as finding how many people jump in their cars and go driving.
The possible things come to mind:
Gather intelligence on how quickly people are able to come together to form a working group, and what the structure of the group is likely to be.
Find new and interesting ways for this sort of huge area recon. Can a geek use roadway cameras effectively? Are there other ways of gathering this sort of information?
Test some software that they have written to trawl the web searching for specific words among the randomness of the intertubez.
Part of the problem though however is that while a lot of people will enjoy a trashy Lucas "epic" prequel trilogy, the older (outnumbered) original fan base likely won't. Yes, they are rather different things, books and movies. LOTR wasn't amazingly true to the books, but in all honesty, chances are that three 3-4 hour movies of people really just walking about wouldn't be that amazingly intensive. You see, the problem is that in a book, you can take a five minute important dialogue and put it onto two pages. Those two pages out of a thousand in LOTR makes for a very small part, yet when you take a five minute dialogue in a movie, it takes five minutes out of a much more limited bucket. When you start adding up all those important sections of dialogue, plot generation and otherwise, you start to really lose time for the other lovely bits in books. The extended versions of LOTR are at least somewhat more accurate and involved. It's a very fine line that directors walk.
I have learned to enjoy a book for what it is, and the movie from the book as an (often) extended action sequence of the action bits of the movie.
There is a lot of stuff that I will never see in a movie (Otherland tetralogy for example) although I loved the books.
The zombies represent conformist society, the masses of joneses shambling around the mall with their lattes and their SUV-size strollers. Conformists outnumber individualists a thousand to one, and whenever they encounter an individual, they try to convince him to conform. Zombies bite you and make YOU a shambling, conformist zombie.
That's actually a rather interesting take and look on the topic. Having just recently watched Zombie Nation (rather funny and cheesy and quite cute film really) it's an interesting take on it.
For me there have always been two types of zombies. One, the slow shambling type that seems either interested in eating you or doing the brains thing. This sort of zombie is normally associated with comedy (Shaun of the Dead for example) where the zombies seem to be rather undangerous unless they are in huge numbers. These movies have very little fear factor for me however.
Secondly, there is the fast, agile killer zombie type. These seem to be less focused with comedy, but much more in horror and suspense films (Dawn of the Dead, I am Legend etc). This second type of zombie also seems to be much more loosely based on the undead thing, but rather is more often based on some science based coverstory. 28 Days Later is a virus, I am Legend is another virus based from a cure to disease gone awry, lastly some don't even quite define them as zombies such as Doomsday which could certainly be classified as a zombie flick to start with, though it's simply a virus.
For me, it's the second type of zombie here that will make for a scary movie. Given hordes of shambling zombies? I could probably survive easily enough. Given attacks of fully functioning and (apparently) pain invulnerable creatures bent on nothing but killing and eating, yikes, even in my quick thinking and reasonably fit state, I could be in deep doody.
Getting back to your analogy of the zombies, I would find it's often more the comedy style of zombie that makes the bigger connection to "stop being a conformist zombie consumer" rather than the second type. Shaun of the Dead had the zombies actually going back to work in check outs and collecting trolleys at the end for example.
I moved from IT to the business of the same organization. I still deal (in a much smaller aspect) with the IT department, but do so working as a business analyst. From a HR point of view, it's great because I am able to REALLY talk to the business about what they want and whether it is plausible, and I am able to make excellent requirements that the IT folks can follow and not cock up because they are too vague to really know what is wanted.
Oh, also, within a year of moving over, my salary was around 25% higher than it was when I was on the IT side of the fence.
Some of the lyrics of "Because I got high" seem amazingly appropriate to the way these folks are acting:
I was gonna go to work but then I got high
I just got a new promotion but I got high
now i'm selling dope and i know why
why man -cause I was high [repeat 3x]
Now i'ma stop singing this song because i'm high
i'm singing the whole thing wrong cause i'm high
and if i don't sell one copy i'll know why
-cause i was high [repeat 3x]
When will these idiots at the studios work out that their bull market is done and dusted? Maybe someone needs to put it into a newspaper for them to finally get it, because word anywhere else seems to be making amazing WHOOOSSSHHHH noises but little more.
You might think that you hold it high and mighty over techies, but there does seem to be a lot that you don't understand in my post. For a start.
Sometimes 'good enough' really is the best option for the business as a whole. Techies and engineers often have a hard time accepting this until they've actually run a department, but it's true.
Totally agree.
If we have $10m today, we might benefit more by doing 10 $1m projects 'pretty well' than by doing 7 $1.4m projects 'perfectly', for a number of reasons.
Yes and no. It's not that simple. If doing 10 $1M projects doesn't raise support costs drastically, then yes, it's great. My problem is when you run 10 $1M projects which then cost a half million each to get to an acceptable level. As a business that means $5M less next year to spend, it might mean having to hire more support staff, or it might mean that the development budget is smaller next time round due to a tighter overall number. You are so close to my point actually, it's almost funny. If you did say do the 7 $1.4M projects and didn't have to spend the huge increase in support, yes you would be three projects down on the possible, but you would be $5M up, which at your same estimate of $1.4M is around 3.5 projects. That's a net gain. This is my point and why I often argue with the program office.
It could get something to market faster... it could be that the marketplace cares deeply about some features, but doesn't care quite so much about initial quality, it could be that it's just better to run 10 experiments and see which pan out well enough to put extra money in them later... it could just be that nobody is happy, but there's simply not enough cash to do what's really wanted.... so it's do it 'good enough' now, or not doing it at all.
I mean... there are shitloads of valid business reasons to purposefully do things a bit half-assed. Especially in very competitive markets, where there just isn't enough margin to pay for doing things "perfectly", or in markets that aren't meaningfully differentiated on quality.
I work for a multinational retailer, and the projects I am involved in are mainly system tweaking dealing with improved measurement of stock, forecasts, reporting and analysis of our data. Yes, it's important to be able to get to new opportunities quickly and take advantage of new information, I actually sit within the business side, so I totally understand this, but not if it comes at the cost of other failures of other systems which are unintentional or unexpected. I am surrounded by business users (who are funding these projects for the most part) and while they *understandably* want to have cheap and efficient projects but they don't want to lose functionality of current systems or have projects so poorly implemented that the gains are far below project expectations.
I spend my life fighting with people like you... people who think I don't understand, or I'm shortsighted, or I'm just a robot. But here's the thing: I think *YOU* are the idiot.
The funny thing is that I don't think you are shortsighted. Yes, I don't think you always see the implications of poor implementation, which in some people's eyes will term you short-sighted. However, I look at all the projects that come within our area with a fresh set of eyes. If the project is sound, then great, roll with it, if it's going to be a headache for everyone from the business through to IT support, then no, re-budget and look at it, or keep the business informed of the shortfalls within the project plan manage expectations to the point where the business is well aware that it will be a rough ride. You thinking I am an idiot honestly doesn't help anyone - especially if you are actually trying to be productive for the company you work for. If you are not as technical as people giving advice and explaining things, it's not a bad thing, it's a different set of s
any money spent "doing things properly" is money spent now, not in six months or two years or longer, so the calculate that a project finished early that just needs "tweaking" in a future date is better and cheaper than a project done the way it is supposed to be done (but taking longer)
Yup, that's exactly what I am talking about, and I find it very frustrating. The time between project end and the final "tweaking" implementation where the project deliverable finally works as it is supposed to is both frustrating for the users, has a high support cost from a systems point and the "tweaks" normally end up adding much more to the cost itself than just doing it properly the first time.
I am reasonably lucky that these days I am involved in the early stages of some of the projects that I work on, and I start on the offensive for the most part, and ask for detailed analysis from project managers that I work with on the cost of the "cheap" and "proper" solutions over the space of a year or two if the project looks like it is trying to cut too many corners - and take that analysis to the program office - it's coming out of their pockets after all or on occasion directly to the business that is footing the bill for the project. While it works for the majority of the time, it's still amazingly frustrating to have to fight the same damned fight each time so that things are done properly. In my eye's it's up to the project managers to be ensuring that their projects are done properly and not end up as massive drains on support/systems.
Sadly, few of them see it that way. It's all about being cheap and cost cutting and meeting budget KPI's rather than arguing that the budgets are set too low.
Wouldn't be the first time, except maybe for AT&T.
I don't think that it's limited to just AT&T - I am in Australia, so have never even had to deal with them, but I am finding that in the vast majority of Australian companies as well, simple back to basics work quality is plummeting. Everything seems to be about making everything as cheap as possible - whether or not it even functions the way it is supposed to. That also goes for the majority of customer service dealings as well.
It seems that the "Do it once but do it properly" mentality is limited to very few people and businesses. I work as a business analyst and the amount of arguing I have to do with each project to get extra money spent to do things properly (the majority of the time it saves money in the long run anyhow for other projects - I am not even taking into account the maintenance and support savings into that equation) yet I seem to always have to fight the same battles over and over.
Anyone who things "cyberterror" is not a credible threat is naiive, or completely clueless. Yes, terrorists use the Internet, and know how to get around being traced.
Everything that you described in your post is criminal action, not terrorist action.
Yeah, totally agree. I can't say that I was amazingly impressed by this at all. Okay, so it's a ball that moves by making bits hard and bits soft. The movement on the thing seemed so incredibly "strugglesome" and getting that thing through a crack? Yeah, right.
Cool, yes, fairly, but lets not have the summary overhype the actual story. It's not a robot. It's a sack of gritty air. Also, there is a ponytail sized bunch of wires hanging out of it. Also, it sort of rolls semi randomly. Also, it was shown moving over a perfectly flat tabletop. Not quite the images of terror I was expecting. Call it how it is.
But it seems we're heading in to this "everyone, and every machine, knows where you are" every day. Thank god I'm already old and not born in to this shit.
It's okay, just make friends with your new laptopian overlord and you two should get on just fine.
If Toyota wants to argue that the fine print spelled it out and it's her fault she didn't read it carefully enough, maybe they can win the case through legalistic hairsplitting. But if they buried it in fine print and incomprehensible language, they're jerks no matter what.
If I give someone my email address and at the same time click a checkbox that says subscribe to correspondence, then it's as informed as you get. Result: I get emails. Maybe the fineprint deep in there somewhere states what will and what won't be sent, but as far as I am concerned, anything is fair game. "Here's my email address, send me stuff." If I end up with too much crap that's rubbish, I click the unsubscribe bit and be done with it. That's it. No silly $10 million dollar goldmine.
Personally, I want to know a) how I always get sucked (yes, pun intended) into reading these stories and b) why the comments always lower themselves to be puerile almost facebook-like comments on science articles on slashdot of late.
Will it make every PC that uses windows ME self-destruct?
Not likely, PC's running Windows ME probably don't have the power to do more than to self fizzle at most. I would personally be impressed if they let out the smallest little puff of smoke. I think the reality would be that they just refuse to power up due to shame.
Slashdot Mirror
Having suffered depression in my youth, I find the comment above quite accurate, but at the same time, find it a little strange that someone with depression is actually going out to places like chippendales? Going out in public, especially to places where there were lots of happy smiling joyful people was the LAST thing that I wanted to do.
Personally - I really don't care what kind of dodgy information they could gleen from a smart meter. I only really care about the fact that power could (or will here in Oz) cost more.
Actually, I wouldn't have ANY problem at all paying a little extra for these meters (also here in Aus) if they used the data gathered to make a more efficient energy grid and this in turn helped us reduce emissions and made us more environmentally friendly. I would have very big problems with this if it was used to simply line the pockets of companies while not changing or improving in any other way.
But even THAT would not work when local newspapers and TV stations put news on line, because Google would simply index those remaining free providers, which often provide a more complete story anyway.
The problem is more about COMPETITION that is promoted by places like Google indexing sites. You see, if a gatherer of news links to five different articles on a similar subject, you can likely quickly see who is doing the better job of journalism. If you on the other hand have paid services and only see one version of an article, then you aren't drawn away from it (and the advertising around it). The reason the web is so good at providing stories that are well written is that it makes it so easy to search through twenty articles on one subject till you find the quality one. You can't pick up a newspaper (or single site for that matter) and find twenty articles about the same story written by different people. If you could, chances are you would find one that's better than the others. This is effectively what the web allows you to do, and what Murdoch is shitscared of.
The internet makes it possible for him to be compared, on a level playing field and in bright lights to his competition.
Unsecure infrastructure networks vulnerable to internet based attack.
Movie at 10.
Actually, you would be surprised at how certain things go. Personally, I don't think it is WHAT you say, so much as the DELIVERY of the statement.
I will qualify and say that I hang out in a lot of rave/techno clubs, but let me tell you this little story. One night me and a mate were working back late, and to pass the time, we were coming up with the lamest, corniest and all round worst pickup lines we could think of. One of the ones Dave said made me laugh so much, I decided to get it printed on a t-shirt. I wore this t-shirt out clubbing, and on the first night out was utterly AMAZED at how many girls saw it, laughed, then came up and struck up a conversation. The worst line delivered correctly can still be an awesome icebreaker.
Oh, the shirt slogan you ask?
Nice shoes...
Wanna fuck?
He was innocent of what he was accused of. Being charged with a crime that the police and prosecutors know you did not commit is being charged with a crime that you are innocent of.
No, if he did in reality go there with the intention of stealing the $20 CD, in that state it would in fact be "Felony Commercial Burglary (Burglary being defined in California Penal Code as entering a premises with the intent to commit larceny)". The police simply dropped it to a smaller petty theft (at the same time making it stick without a costly court case) as it was indeed a $20 CD.
I am probably in a minority here, but I think the police acted in the right way, the person got what they should have gotten. The punishment for petty theft for committing petty theft.
I wonder what the agenda here is. It's surely not something as simple as finding how many people jump in their cars and go driving.
The possible things come to mind:
Gather intelligence on how quickly people are able to come together to form a working group, and what the structure of the group is likely to be.
Find new and interesting ways for this sort of huge area recon. Can a geek use roadway cameras effectively? Are there other ways of gathering this sort of information?
Test some software that they have written to trawl the web searching for specific words among the randomness of the intertubez.
Any other ideas come floating to mind?
Part of the problem though however is that while a lot of people will enjoy a trashy Lucas "epic" prequel trilogy, the older (outnumbered) original fan base likely won't. Yes, they are rather different things, books and movies. LOTR wasn't amazingly true to the books, but in all honesty, chances are that three 3-4 hour movies of people really just walking about wouldn't be that amazingly intensive. You see, the problem is that in a book, you can take a five minute important dialogue and put it onto two pages. Those two pages out of a thousand in LOTR makes for a very small part, yet when you take a five minute dialogue in a movie, it takes five minutes out of a much more limited bucket. When you start adding up all those important sections of dialogue, plot generation and otherwise, you start to really lose time for the other lovely bits in books. The extended versions of LOTR are at least somewhat more accurate and involved. It's a very fine line that directors walk.
I have learned to enjoy a book for what it is, and the movie from the book as an (often) extended action sequence of the action bits of the movie.
There is a lot of stuff that I will never see in a movie (Otherland tetralogy for example) although I loved the books.
The zombies represent conformist society, the masses of joneses shambling around the mall with their lattes and their SUV-size strollers. Conformists outnumber individualists a thousand to one, and whenever they encounter an individual, they try to convince him to conform. Zombies bite you and make YOU a shambling, conformist zombie.
That's actually a rather interesting take and look on the topic. Having just recently watched Zombie Nation (rather funny and cheesy and quite cute film really) it's an interesting take on it.
For me there have always been two types of zombies. One, the slow shambling type that seems either interested in eating you or doing the brains thing. This sort of zombie is normally associated with comedy (Shaun of the Dead for example) where the zombies seem to be rather undangerous unless they are in huge numbers. These movies have very little fear factor for me however.
Secondly, there is the fast, agile killer zombie type. These seem to be less focused with comedy, but much more in horror and suspense films (Dawn of the Dead, I am Legend etc). This second type of zombie also seems to be much more loosely based on the undead thing, but rather is more often based on some science based coverstory. 28 Days Later is a virus, I am Legend is another virus based from a cure to disease gone awry, lastly some don't even quite define them as zombies such as Doomsday which could certainly be classified as a zombie flick to start with, though it's simply a virus.
For me, it's the second type of zombie here that will make for a scary movie. Given hordes of shambling zombies? I could probably survive easily enough. Given attacks of fully functioning and (apparently) pain invulnerable creatures bent on nothing but killing and eating, yikes, even in my quick thinking and reasonably fit state, I could be in deep doody.
Getting back to your analogy of the zombies, I would find it's often more the comedy style of zombie that makes the bigger connection to "stop being a conformist zombie consumer" rather than the second type. Shaun of the Dead had the zombies actually going back to work in check outs and collecting trolleys at the end for example.
I moved from IT to the business of the same organization. I still deal (in a much smaller aspect) with the IT department, but do so working as a business analyst. From a HR point of view, it's great because I am able to REALLY talk to the business about what they want and whether it is plausible, and I am able to make excellent requirements that the IT folks can follow and not cock up because they are too vague to really know what is wanted.
Oh, also, within a year of moving over, my salary was around 25% higher than it was when I was on the IT side of the fence.
Can I get some more information? I am curious.
I was gonna go to work but then I got high
I just got a new promotion but I got high
now i'm selling dope and i know why
why man -cause I was high [repeat 3x]
Now i'ma stop singing this song because i'm high
i'm singing the whole thing wrong cause i'm high
and if i don't sell one copy i'll know why
-cause i was high [repeat 3x]
When will these idiots at the studios work out that their bull market is done and dusted? Maybe someone needs to put it into a newspaper for them to finally get it, because word anywhere else seems to be making amazing WHOOOSSSHHHH noises but little more.
You might think that you hold it high and mighty over techies, but there does seem to be a lot that you don't understand in my post. For a start.
Sometimes 'good enough' really is the best option for the business as a whole. Techies and engineers often have a hard time accepting this until they've actually run a department, but it's true.
Totally agree.
If we have $10m today, we might benefit more by doing 10 $1m projects 'pretty well' than by doing 7 $1.4m projects 'perfectly', for a number of reasons.
Yes and no. It's not that simple. If doing 10 $1M projects doesn't raise support costs drastically, then yes, it's great. My problem is when you run 10 $1M projects which then cost a half million each to get to an acceptable level. As a business that means $5M less next year to spend, it might mean having to hire more support staff, or it might mean that the development budget is smaller next time round due to a tighter overall number. You are so close to my point actually, it's almost funny. If you did say do the 7 $1.4M projects and didn't have to spend the huge increase in support, yes you would be three projects down on the possible, but you would be $5M up, which at your same estimate of $1.4M is around 3.5 projects. That's a net gain. This is my point and why I often argue with the program office.
It could get something to market faster... it could be that the marketplace cares deeply about some features, but doesn't care quite so much about initial quality, it could be that it's just better to run 10 experiments and see which pan out well enough to put extra money in them later... it could just be that nobody is happy, but there's simply not enough cash to do what's really wanted.... so it's do it 'good enough' now, or not doing it at all.
I mean... there are shitloads of valid business reasons to purposefully do things a bit half-assed. Especially in very competitive markets, where there just isn't enough margin to pay for doing things "perfectly", or in markets that aren't meaningfully differentiated on quality.
I work for a multinational retailer, and the projects I am involved in are mainly system tweaking dealing with improved measurement of stock, forecasts, reporting and analysis of our data. Yes, it's important to be able to get to new opportunities quickly and take advantage of new information, I actually sit within the business side, so I totally understand this, but not if it comes at the cost of other failures of other systems which are unintentional or unexpected. I am surrounded by business users (who are funding these projects for the most part) and while they *understandably* want to have cheap and efficient projects but they don't want to lose functionality of current systems or have projects so poorly implemented that the gains are far below project expectations.
I spend my life fighting with people like you... people who think I don't understand, or I'm shortsighted, or I'm just a robot. But here's the thing: I think *YOU* are the idiot.
The funny thing is that I don't think you are shortsighted. Yes, I don't think you always see the implications of poor implementation, which in some people's eyes will term you short-sighted. However, I look at all the projects that come within our area with a fresh set of eyes. If the project is sound, then great, roll with it, if it's going to be a headache for everyone from the business through to IT support, then no, re-budget and look at it, or keep the business informed of the shortfalls within the project plan manage expectations to the point where the business is well aware that it will be a rough ride. You thinking I am an idiot honestly doesn't help anyone - especially if you are actually trying to be productive for the company you work for. If you are not as technical as people giving advice and explaining things, it's not a bad thing, it's a different set of s
any money spent "doing things properly" is money spent now, not in six months or two years or longer, so the calculate that a project finished early that just needs "tweaking" in a future date is better and cheaper than a project done the way it is supposed to be done (but taking longer)
Yup, that's exactly what I am talking about, and I find it very frustrating. The time between project end and the final "tweaking" implementation where the project deliverable finally works as it is supposed to is both frustrating for the users, has a high support cost from a systems point and the "tweaks" normally end up adding much more to the cost itself than just doing it properly the first time.
I am reasonably lucky that these days I am involved in the early stages of some of the projects that I work on, and I start on the offensive for the most part, and ask for detailed analysis from project managers that I work with on the cost of the "cheap" and "proper" solutions over the space of a year or two if the project looks like it is trying to cut too many corners - and take that analysis to the program office - it's coming out of their pockets after all or on occasion directly to the business that is footing the bill for the project. While it works for the majority of the time, it's still amazingly frustrating to have to fight the same damned fight each time so that things are done properly. In my eye's it's up to the project managers to be ensuring that their projects are done properly and not end up as massive drains on support/systems.
Sadly, few of them see it that way. It's all about being cheap and cost cutting and meeting budget KPI's rather than arguing that the budgets are set too low.
Wouldn't be the first time, except maybe for AT&T.
I don't think that it's limited to just AT&T - I am in Australia, so have never even had to deal with them, but I am finding that in the vast majority of Australian companies as well, simple back to basics work quality is plummeting. Everything seems to be about making everything as cheap as possible - whether or not it even functions the way it is supposed to. That also goes for the majority of customer service dealings as well.
It seems that the "Do it once but do it properly" mentality is limited to very few people and businesses. I work as a business analyst and the amount of arguing I have to do with each project to get extra money spent to do things properly (the majority of the time it saves money in the long run anyhow for other projects - I am not even taking into account the maintenance and support savings into that equation) yet I seem to always have to fight the same battles over and over.
Anyone who things "cyberterror" is not a credible threat is naiive, or completely clueless. Yes, terrorists use the Internet, and know how to get around being traced.
Everything that you described in your post is criminal action, not terrorist action.
Yeah, totally agree. I can't say that I was amazingly impressed by this at all. Okay, so it's a ball that moves by making bits hard and bits soft. The movement on the thing seemed so incredibly "strugglesome" and getting that thing through a crack? Yeah, right.
Cool, yes, fairly, but lets not have the summary overhype the actual story. It's not a robot. It's a sack of gritty air. Also, there is a ponytail sized bunch of wires hanging out of it. Also, it sort of rolls semi randomly. Also, it was shown moving over a perfectly flat tabletop. Not quite the images of terror I was expecting. Call it how it is.
But it seems we're heading in to this "everyone, and every machine, knows where you are" every day. Thank god I'm already old and not born in to this shit.
It's okay, just make friends with your new laptopian overlord and you two should get on just fine.
If Toyota wants to argue that the fine print spelled it out and it's her fault she didn't read it carefully enough, maybe they can win the case through legalistic hairsplitting. But if they buried it in fine print and incomprehensible language, they're jerks no matter what.
If I give someone my email address and at the same time click a checkbox that says subscribe to correspondence, then it's as informed as you get. Result: I get emails. Maybe the fineprint deep in there somewhere states what will and what won't be sent, but as far as I am concerned, anything is fair game. "Here's my email address, send me stuff." If I end up with too much crap that's rubbish, I click the unsubscribe bit and be done with it. That's it. No silly $10 million dollar goldmine.
Personally, I want to know a) how I always get sucked (yes, pun intended) into reading these stories and b) why the comments always lower themselves to be puerile almost facebook-like comments on science articles on slashdot of late.
Hmmm, I post when the parent article is at 0 score, it's modded up to 5 insightful, then I get modded down to -1 redundant. Meh.
^^ Mod parent up ^^
Will it make every PC that uses windows ME self-destruct?
Not likely, PC's running Windows ME probably don't have the power to do more than to self fizzle at most. I would personally be impressed if they let out the smallest little puff of smoke. I think the reality would be that they just refuse to power up due to shame.
so maybe win2k is already dead and I missed the boat
so maybe win2k is already dead and I missed the decade
There, fixed that for you.
How do people forget a password in three days?
Because people are stupid. A person is smart, but people are stupid.
One of the most strangely insightful comments in Men in Black from memory.