Google doesn't actually want your phone number for security. Google wants your phone number so that they can link the account in their database to other information that contains your phone number.
Spying on Americans, sure. Spying on foreign citizens is their actual job. There's nothing wrong with it (as long as they don't trade information with their foreign counterparts, giving each other what amounts to domestic information.)
It just gets a lot of publicity because foreign governments have lots of resources and media access, so they can manufacture outrage over it (while not bothering to mention to the same media that they themselves spy domestically.)
...which leads one to ask why that isn't also happening?
Trump is an outsider. He's a Republican, but not part of the Republican establishment. The RNC wasn't on his side until the absolute last minute when they had to accept him as a candidate. So there isn't going to be any dirt about things the RNC did behind the scenes to help Trump.
Pale moon constabntly gives me problems with not loading everything on a page, typically some CSS is missing. Of course it happens ibntermittently in such a way that I can't submit a test case. It supposedly was fixed already, but it keeps happening.
Imagine that you have four people each trading exactly the same amount with each other. Now imagine drawing a line around one of the people and calling him a country, with no change in what he trades. You'll find that the one person exports 100% of his GDP while everyone else exports 25% of their GDP.
All you've done is made an argument about any tariffs anywhere, for any purpose. It' naturally falls out from the way small and large countries work; it has nothing to do specifically with the UK and Europe.
Sounds like you ascribed a lack of value to it based on the delivery medium and thus didn't even click the link. Congratulations, you just applied a dark pattern to yourself as described in TFS,
This is nonsense.
1) It isn't a dark pattern unless someone is trying to trick him into not viewing the article.
2) The delivery medium actually makes the article lower in value. Taking 30 minutes to watch something that can be read in 2 minutes is a waste of time, and having to waste your time to get it reduces its value.
The guy was nuts. He had a documented history of being nuts. His friends thought he was nuts. His family thought he was nuts. And yet, he could still get plenty of ammo and guns.
If the government can take away someone's rights by declaring him nuts, without due process and a hearing at which he can present evidence in his defense, that means nobody will have any rights at all. This will be a bigger problem. Yes, even a bigger problem than shootings.
Maybe you should check with someone who doesn't have malaria, but otherwise would.
Maybe you should check in with someone who dies because he can't afford medication, because Bill Gates conditioned his aid on IP protections for drugs.
It's not as if there are people dying on only one side of the comparison here. The negative aspects of Gates' donations result in people dying who are every bit as real as the people with malaria.
Source code has to be vetted first before it's released by a big company. And vetting costs money. What if the source code contains third party code that they are not permitted to release to others? What if it contains comments that are libellous?
And what if they sell the source code and then the recipient doesn't know how to compile it? The recipient won't buy "source code with no guarantee you can compile it" but if there *is* a guarantee that they compile it, that means that the company has committed itself to supporting something they want to stop supporting.
Whether something sells out depends partly on how many you made in the first place. In other words, the fact that this "sold out" is not useful information, and is an advertising trick. It's just that in this case the advertising trick is selling politics as well as dolls.
But the average rate of drug use among those recipients has been far below the national average -- around 1% overall, compared with 9.4% in the general population -- meaning there's been little cost savings from the drug testing program.
Anyone who takes drugs and is remotely sane will either not apply for a program which has drug testing, or will stop taking drugs so they can apply for the program. So it's not surprising that recipients of the program don't use drugs--all the drug users either didn't apply or stopped using. Nobody's going to take drugs, apply, and get caught. The fact that it's even as high as 1% only happens because some people are stupid.
Being below the national average is what you would expect if the drug testing program works.
And my tenants sign a 'crime-free addendum' the local police recommend, legally permitting me to evict them with 3 days' notice if the police respond to criminal complaints, or anyone is arrested on the premises, or the police inform me that known convicts are found on the premises during an investigation.
This is terrible. It leads to victims of domestic violence being evicted because of their partner committing a crime against them.
So if he decides he doesn't like you, he can sue the crap out of you on multiple fronts, without his own name getting dragged into it? You're fine with trying to fight off all those lawsuits, where you'll go bankrupt even if you win?
This lawsuit wasn't mainly trouble for Gawker because they would go bankrupt even if they won. It was trouble for Gawker because Gawker committed the unethical behavior described in the lawsuit and had to pay for it. There's a big difference between suing innocent people to make them pay for defense, and suing guilty people to make them pay for their crimes.
Also, gas stations don't charge you more if you're a repeat customer or if you are wearing expensive clothing that shows you're a richer person than the customer who comes in in two minutes. Amazon does the electronic equivalent. Amazon takes advantage of computers to wring every cent out of customers by violating our expectations of how stores normally sell things; what's so bad about violating their expectations in response? Especially if we're just violating their expectations by actually claiming the price that they say we're entitled to claim.
You are confusing a private corporation and the government. Governments are immune to pressure from not buying. The government that imposes the TSA isn't going to care whether the airlines lose money, so has no reason to stop--and they're certainly not going to let anyone open a competing airline that skips the TSA, as would happen if you were boycotting a company over something that companies had control of.
User interface problems are real things. I'm tired of Slashdot posters saying "the user should have known he told the machine to do X, so it's his fault if X causes damage". If the user interface is set up so that it's easy for the user to do something very damaging, that's the manufacturer's fault regardless of whether the user could have done something different had he noticed. It's true here, it's true for Apple deleting people's music files, and it's true in tons of other cases where Slashdot posters think there is no such thing as a user interface problem.
That winning team includes three Asian names, and a head coach and assistant coach each with an Asian name. I don't think that the team is winning because educational standards went up.
The amount of calories you burn depends on your current weight. If you eat half an apple more per day you will reach a new equilibrium where you weigh just enough more that you burn thst much more per day. Your weight won't increase indefinitely.
At any rate, if I invite you into my home and say you can have some food from the refrigerator, I don't expect that you will fill a couple of boxes with the entire contents and toss it all in your car to take home, even if I didn't explicitly say "unless it isn't reasonable". There's always an assumed "it isn't reasonable".
I'm not sure this goes under geek social fallacies or geek linguistic fallacies, but the idea that people communicate only by literal worlds and that there is no such thing as context, implication, and assumptions is a geek fallacy I constantly see on the Internet. No, when they say "any name" they do *not* mean literally any name any more than I mean you can literally have every bit of food from my refrigerator, and it's upon you to realize that. You're not being clever by saying "see, I followed your literal words!", you're just being autistic or imitating the autistic.
A usee in this case are the people shot at, or actually shot. I think, correct my logic if I'm wrong, that since some users shoot more than one person, there are more usees than users.
You're wrong. Most users shoot nobody, for the same reason that most fire insurance policies don't result in fire insurance payments.
Also, when the person being shot is a criminal being shot in self-defense, I don't care to give them a say.
Slashdot Mirror
Google doesn't actually want your phone number for security. Google wants your phone number so that they can link the account in their database to other information that contains your phone number.
Spying on Americans, sure. Spying on foreign citizens is their actual job. There's nothing wrong with it (as long as they don't trade information with their foreign counterparts, giving each other what amounts to domestic information.)
It just gets a lot of publicity because foreign governments have lots of resources and media access, so they can manufacture outrage over it (while not bothering to mention to the same media that they themselves spy domestically.)
Trump is an outsider. He's a Republican, but not part of the Republican establishment. The RNC wasn't on his side until the absolute last minute when they had to accept him as a candidate. So there isn't going to be any dirt about things the RNC did behind the scenes to help Trump.
Pale moon constabntly gives me problems with not loading everything on a page, typically some CSS is missing. Of course it happens ibntermittently in such a way that I can't submit a test case. It supposedly was fixed already, but it keeps happening.
Imagine that you have four people each trading exactly the same amount with each other. Now imagine drawing a line around one of the people and calling him a country, with no change in what he trades. You'll find that the one person exports 100% of his GDP while everyone else exports 25% of their GDP.
All you've done is made an argument about any tariffs anywhere, for any purpose. It' naturally falls out from the way small and large countries work; it has nothing to do specifically with the UK and Europe.
This is nonsense.
1) It isn't a dark pattern unless someone is trying to trick him into not viewing the article.
2) The delivery medium actually makes the article lower in value. Taking 30 minutes to watch something that can be read in 2 minutes is a waste of time, and having to waste your time to get it reduces its value.
I am pretty sure there are plenty of products that have been sold for a lot longer than 11 years without changing their specs or design.
Terrorism is doing those things for political purposes. If their motive is money, it isn't terrorism.
Holding someone hostage during a bank robbery poses the threat of their death, but we don't call it terrorism.
If the government can take away someone's rights by declaring him nuts, without due process and a hearing at which he can present evidence in his defense, that means nobody will have any rights at all. This will be a bigger problem. Yes, even a bigger problem than shootings.
Maybe you should check in with someone who dies because he can't afford medication, because Bill Gates conditioned his aid on IP protections for drugs.
It's not as if there are people dying on only one side of the comparison here. The negative aspects of Gates' donations result in people dying who are every bit as real as the people with malaria.
Source code has to be vetted first before it's released by a big company. And vetting costs money. What if the source code contains third party code that they are not permitted to release to others? What if it contains comments that are libellous?
And what if they sell the source code and then the recipient doesn't know how to compile it? The recipient won't buy "source code with no guarantee you can compile it" but if there *is* a guarantee that they compile it, that means that the company has committed itself to supporting something they want to stop supporting.
Whether something sells out depends partly on how many you made in the first place. In other words, the fact that this "sold out" is not useful information, and is an advertising trick. It's just that in this case the advertising trick is selling politics as well as dolls.
All machines since 2008-2009 are "you can't disable it in the BIOS".
Anyone who takes drugs and is remotely sane will either not apply for a program which has drug testing, or will stop taking drugs so they can apply for the program. So it's not surprising that recipients of the program don't use drugs--all the drug users either didn't apply or stopped using. Nobody's going to take drugs, apply, and get caught. The fact that it's even as high as 1% only happens because some people are stupid.
Being below the national average is what you would expect if the drug testing program works.
This is terrible. It leads to victims of domestic violence being evicted because of their partner committing a crime against them.
This lawsuit wasn't mainly trouble for Gawker because they would go bankrupt even if they won. It was trouble for Gawker because Gawker committed the unethical behavior described in the lawsuit and had to pay for it. There's a big difference between suing innocent people to make them pay for defense, and suing guilty people to make them pay for their crimes.
Also, gas stations don't charge you more if you're a repeat customer or if you are wearing expensive clothing that shows you're a richer person than the customer who comes in in two minutes. Amazon does the electronic equivalent. Amazon takes advantage of computers to wring every cent out of customers by violating our expectations of how stores normally sell things; what's so bad about violating their expectations in response? Especially if we're just violating their expectations by actually claiming the price that they say we're entitled to claim.
You are confusing a private corporation and the government. Governments are immune to pressure from not buying. The government that imposes the TSA isn't going to care whether the airlines lose money, so has no reason to stop--and they're certainly not going to let anyone open a competing airline that skips the TSA, as would happen if you were boycotting a company over something that companies had control of.
If you show preference to something, that means you must reduce the prominence of something else in order to show preference to it.
User interface problems are real things. I'm tired of Slashdot posters saying "the user should have known he told the machine to do X, so it's his fault if X causes damage". If the user interface is set up so that it's easy for the user to do something very damaging, that's the manufacturer's fault regardless of whether the user could have done something different had he noticed. It's true here, it's true for Apple deleting people's music files, and it's true in tons of other cases where Slashdot posters think there is no such thing as a user interface problem.
That winning team includes three Asian names, and a head coach and assistant coach each with an Asian name. I don't think that the team is winning because educational standards went up.
The amount of calories you burn depends on your current weight. If you eat half an apple more per day you will reach a new equilibrium where you weigh just enough more that you burn thst much more per day. Your weight won't increase indefinitely.
At any rate, if I invite you into my home and say you can have some food from the refrigerator, I don't expect that you will fill a couple of boxes with the entire contents and toss it all in your car to take home, even if I didn't explicitly say "unless it isn't reasonable". There's always an assumed "it isn't reasonable".
I'm not sure this goes under geek social fallacies or geek linguistic fallacies, but the idea that people communicate only by literal worlds and that there is no such thing as context, implication, and assumptions is a geek fallacy I constantly see on the Internet. No, when they say "any name" they do *not* mean literally any name any more than I mean you can literally have every bit of food from my refrigerator, and it's upon you to realize that. You're not being clever by saying "see, I followed your literal words!", you're just being autistic or imitating the autistic.
You're wrong. Most users shoot nobody, for the same reason that most fire insurance policies don't result in fire insurance payments.
Also, when the person being shot is a criminal being shot in self-defense, I don't care to give them a say.
Just like sick fuckers who spin the tragedy of terrorism into a crackdown on Constitutional rights in the name of stopping terrorism.
Which of course is a real thing, and one that I hope you're opposed to.