Actually, Moore agrees with you. The film was different from the graphic novel:
I've read the screenplay, so I know exactly what they're doing with it, and I'm not going to be going to see it. When I wrote "V," politics were taking a serious turn for the worse over here. We'd had [Conservative Party Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher in for two or three years, we'd had anti-Thatcher riots, we'd got the National Front and the right wing making serious advances. "V for Vendetta" was specifically about things like fascism and anarchy.
Those words, "fascism" and "anarchy," occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you've got a sinister group of right-wing figures â" not fascists, but you know that they're bad guys â" and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It's a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives â" which is not what "V for Vendetta" was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn't it have been more direct to do what I'd done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today?
They're collecting the data to mine it and assign keywords to your profile based on your interests, when then they use to show ads that were assigned to those same keywords. Selling that data would undermine their whole business model, because advertisers would stop having to pay again and again to show ads to people.
Yes, the information Google has about people is potentially dangerous, and there's plenty of reasons to avoid giving it to them. But that doesn't mean that making up lies about them is OK.
Arguing for efficiency is fine, but that's not what GP was doing.
And we are improving the efficiency. Smartphones that run circles around desktops that used 100x more energy, LED lamps that use way less energy than incandescents, better insolation materials while reducing heat that needs to be produced, etc.
But that doesn't mean that we won't still need more energy. Hell, developing countries alone will need it to reach anywhere near what we have right now.
A: The extra money will be put back into the game and documentary. This could result in anything from increased VO and music budgets to additional release platforms for the game.
your real self will be exposed to Google I'm sure employers and marketing ages will be anteing up lots of money to see your real self - what websites you view, what you've searched, what kind of videos you browsed. A veritable gold mine.
Please tell me how can I as an hypothetical employer access that information about a person without her or his consent.
Google is fucking scary in how much they know about you, but lets not throw lies with it. They offer no way to access that information unless you're law enforcement. Which, again, is bad enough, but not so bad as you're claiming.
A digital signature or digital signature scheme is a mathematical scheme for demonstrating the authenticity of a digital message or document. A valid digital signature gives a recipient reason to believe that the message was created by a known sender, and that it was not altered in transit. Digital signatures are commonly used for software distribution, financial transactions, and in other cases where it is important to detect forgery or tampering. (...)
Actually, since electrons have mass, you could make such a calculation.
Nope. You could calculate the mass of a particular representation of the MP3, but not of the MP3 itself, since different storage mediums have different weights.
Your solution is similar to calculating my mass by counting the number of bytes on my/. profile.
Not if you zero out the file as you're copying it, I suppose. Well, there will still be multiple copies of a chunk of the file (at least in memory and in transit), but I assume those are fair use.
Depends on what MP3 files they accept. I believe some online stores watermark theirs with a specific ID for each user, so they could easily detect repeated sales of the same file.
Spotify pays royalties to the copyright holders for each song that's played. Parent's suggestion was that you could buy a song on e.g. iTunes for $1 and then "sell, wait for the song to play and buy it back" to each user without paying any royalties.
People will still pay for stuff. Hell, the MPAA had record profits each year from 2006 to 2010.
Movies provide an actual valuable service, that some guy in his home connection can't replace for free: huge screens to appreciate those expensive special effects and pretty photography.
A criminal is someone who has committed a crime. Only a court may identify those criminals, but that doesn't mean that when a bank is robbed there are no criminals. Of course there are, we just don't know who they are until the court convicts them.
Therefore, since the cops can't identify the criminals, the only way to block them is to block everyone.
My brother and I play a lot of PES and emulated stuff with two PS gamepads plugged in to the PC. I could see myself buying some PC games with local MP support.
I'm not defending Android. I don't have an Android (I like my S60 Nokia, thank-you-very-much), nor have I even used one, and for all I know the fragmentation problem is real and will kill the platform. I don't really know, or care.
What I'm replying to is how one cannot hear about Android without someone mentioning it, every damn time, like fucking clockwork.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Moore agrees with you. The film was different from the graphic novel:
I've read the screenplay, so I know exactly what they're doing with it, and I'm not going to be going to see it. When I wrote "V," politics were taking a serious turn for the worse over here. We'd had [Conservative Party Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher in for two or three years, we'd had anti-Thatcher riots, we'd got the National Front and the right wing making serious advances. "V for Vendetta" was specifically about things like fascism and anarchy.
Those words, "fascism" and "anarchy," occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you've got a sinister group of right-wing figures â" not fascists, but you know that they're bad guys â" and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It's a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives â" which is not what "V for Vendetta" was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn't it have been more direct to do what I'd done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today?
(Emphasis mine)
http://www.mtv.com/shared/movies/interviews/m/moore_alan_060315/
http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Using%20the%20spell%20checker
That's just their public version of the software, to convince you they're more flawed than they are! /tinfoil-hat
Don't worry, you're learn the past tense soon, or just ask your mommy.
They're collecting the data to mine it and assign keywords to your profile based on your interests, when then they use to show ads that were assigned to those same keywords.
Selling that data would undermine their whole business model, because advertisers would stop having to pay again and again to show ads to people.
Yes, the information Google has about people is potentially dangerous, and there's plenty of reasons to avoid giving it to them. But that doesn't mean that making up lies about them is OK.
What does the extension do that Chrome doesn't do by default?
Actually send your browser history to Google.
Even if they don't admit it, I'm pretty sure Google already has this if you're searching while logged in.
Uh, of course they do, and they do admit it; it's very clearly listed on their Privacy FAQ.
What they're asking here is the list of all the websites you visit, coming from their search engines or not. That's why they need a browser extension.
Arguing for efficiency is fine, but that's not what GP was doing.
And we are improving the efficiency. Smartphones that run circles around desktops that used 100x more energy, LED lamps that use way less energy than incandescents, better insolation materials while reducing heat that needs to be produced, etc.
But that doesn't mean that we won't still need more energy. Hell, developing countries alone will need it to reach anywhere near what we have right now.
There's still a possibility:
Q: What happens if you go over the goal?
A: The extra money will be put back into the game and documentary. This could result in anything from increased VO and music budgets to additional release platforms for the game.
So you're blaming Google for an hypothetical future where they have such a a feature.
Should I judge you too based on things I can imagine you might do in the future?
Use encfs instead. Each file is encrypted separately.
your real self will be exposed to Google I'm sure employers and marketing ages will be anteing up lots of money to see your real self - what websites you view, what you've searched, what kind of videos you browsed. A veritable gold mine.
Please tell me how can I as an hypothetical employer access that information about a person without her or his consent.
Google is fucking scary in how much they know about you, but lets not throw lies with it. They offer no way to access that information unless you're law enforcement. Which, again, is bad enough, but not so bad as you're claiming.
Digital Signature
A digital signature or digital signature scheme is a mathematical scheme for demonstrating the authenticity of a digital message or document. A valid digital signature gives a recipient reason to believe that the message was created by a known sender, and that it was not altered in transit. Digital signatures are commonly used for software distribution, financial transactions, and in other cases where it is important to detect forgery or tampering. (...)
I was thinking more in the ballpark of storing an MP3 in a bunch of QRCodes ;)
Actually, since electrons have mass, you could make such a calculation.
Nope. You could calculate the mass of a particular representation of the MP3, but not of the MP3 itself, since different storage mediums have different weights.
Your solution is similar to calculating my mass by counting the number of bytes on my /. profile.
Not if you zero out the file as you're copying it, I suppose. Well, there will still be multiple copies of a chunk of the file (at least in memory and in transit), but I assume those are fair use.
Depends on what MP3 files they accept. I believe some online stores watermark theirs with a specific ID for each user, so they could easily detect repeated sales of the same file.
Spotify pays royalties to the copyright holders for each song that's played. Parent's suggestion was that you could buy a song on e.g. iTunes for $1 and then "sell, wait for the song to play and buy it back" to each user without paying any royalties.
Berners-Lee, one of the guys who actually invented the internet
Return your geek card. This is /., not Digg.
People will still pay for stuff. Hell, the MPAA had record profits each year from 2006 to 2010.
Movies provide an actual valuable service, that some guy in his home connection can't replace for free: huge screens to appreciate those expensive special effects and pretty photography.
Even most newspapers aren't neutral and you demand neutrality from a site based on user submissions?
Who says parent doesn't complain about newspapers too?
If you don't care about the opinion of others why come to /. in the first place, you could just read the sites where the articles come from.
Kinda strawman-ish, no? One might like the opinion part as long as it's kept below the summary.
But "we" weren't doing anything.
A criminal is someone who has committed a crime. Only a court may identify those criminals, but that doesn't mean that when a bank is robbed there are no criminals. Of course there are, we just don't know who they are until the court convicts them.
Therefore, since the cops can't identify the criminals, the only way to block them is to block everyone.
My brother and I play a lot of PES and emulated stuff with two PS gamepads plugged in to the PC. I could see myself buying some PC games with local MP support.
I'm not defending Android. I don't have an Android (I like my S60 Nokia, thank-you-very-much), nor have I even used one, and for all I know the fragmentation problem is real and will kill the platform. I don't really know, or care.
What I'm replying to is how one cannot hear about Android without someone mentioning it, every damn time, like fucking clockwork.