The NSA is funded by taxes, which are extracted from us at the point of a gun, and could never have done what it did without the use of government force. AshleyMadison was funded by voluntary transactions.
Some of it is because the people digitizing the books are just clueless.
There have been several cases where I specifically looked for a high resolution scan of a book from archive.org and did not get the Project Gutenberg one, because the Project Gutenberg one either did not include illustrations or included them in very low resolution. PG could include high res illustrations--they just don't, and in fact have guidelines which tell you to digitize the images at a resolution which is ridiculously low for today's retina tablets.
I don't believe for one moment that the 3DS is only popular because of NES-era intellectual property (although it certainly helps), and the 3DS is clearly most of what's keeping them afloat.
I've never heard of an open source license that allows you to release two versions and only give away the source for one of the versions, and I don't think that satisfies any common definition of open source anyway.
Either you aren't required to release the source, in which case the free version wasn't released to satisfy the license, or you are required to release the source, and the free version still doesn't satisfy the license because you need to give the source of all the versions you release. There may be a case where you only have to release the source for the part that isn't yours, but that still wouldn't lead to a broken free version just to satisfy the license--they'd just release the source that they received without modifying it at all.
Has anyone created a list of all the things one needs to do to change Windows 10 settings towards privacy?
(I know about the Reddit thread, which is full of fail because it tells you to use group policy editor, which does not exist in Home, leaves out items that are mentioned later in the comments, and doesn't describe exactly what each step does.)
Can I go back to my previous version of Windows if I don't like Windows 10?
Yes, while we think you will love all the features of Windows 10, you will have one month after upgrading to revert back to the previous version of Windows on your device.
Re:The OEM UEFI locked with M$ keys issue.
on
Windows 10 Launches
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Microsoft created the requirement to have secure boot with Microsoft keys, knowing very well that the incentives created by that requirement would lead to companies producing motherboards that can only use that and nothing else. Microsoft would not be able to do things that create these incentives if they didn't have a monopoly.
Just because the OEMs can choose not to lock down the hardware doesn't mean that it's the OEMs' fault rather than Microsoft's; the incentives were created by Microsoft.
Remember back when Microsoft were simply creating volume license agreements that made it expensive for companies to ship computers with Linux? They could do it--it wasn't prohibited by contract, it was just more expensive. All Microsoft did was change the financial incentives. But that's enough that it should be considered Microsoft's fault.
He's not going to get a public trial because an actual public trial would involve him justifying his acts as whistleblowing. This justification would necessarily involve the content of the information he released. The government isn't going to allow that, both for bureaucratic reasons (it's still classified information even though it was released to the public, so they have to classify the trial), and for the practical reasons that 1) if they can classify it, there's much less chance that the public will hear him and sympathize with him, and 2) it makes it a lot harder for him to defend himself.
Prominent world politicians urge adoption of new changes to the C++ standard concerning private inheritance and templates.
What this is trying to do is imply that because they have technical expertise in how dangerous AI-controlled weapons are, that technical expertise makes them experts about political decisions concerning weapons. It doesn't, and there is no more reason to pay attention to them than to the average guy in the street (who understands that some weapons are dangerous, and may have opinions on their use, but certainly doesn't get a national press release about it).
I was under the impression that if you upgrade from 7 to 10, your 7 key will no longer be valid. So grabbing your free copy and saving won't work. At any rate, grabbing a free copy wouldn't work anyway because it's the activation key that you need, and burning a free copy to load later on won't mean you'll have an activation key you can use later on.
Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5? That's a fairly low bar to hit, and probably a bit unreasonable.
It's extremely unreasonable. Many of the good questions ended up with ratings of 4. That's because a common strategy to disrupt the questioning is to wait until the last minute and moderate down all the rating 5 comments you don't like so that if the questions are chosen by rating none of them will get picked (and since it's the last minute, the time frame for someone to notice and mod them up again is small).
Yes, but this is different, because the supposed copyright law was in the other direction. If there's anything that the evil geniuses behind our copyright laws would *not* do, it's to make it *easier* to copy works legally, which is what this claims is being done.
That's because when the government forces the cost on private businesses, that hides the source of the increased costs. When the government actually has to raise taxes to pay for it, people can figure out that it's too expensive. If the company raises its prices because of government mandates, people just say "greedy companies" rather than blaming the government. Making the government pay for these things directly is an important part of having checks and balances on the government because people notice taxes.
In other words, "if you make the government pay for it, people will complain about raising taxes" is a feature, not a bug. That's the point--the government should make it obvious that it is taking the money, so the public can decide whether it's really worth it. And sometimes they won't.
Google Photos is a different application than backup sync. More at 11.
Nonsense. This is a user interface problem. The whole thing is designed such that someone who runs Google Photos would reasonably believe that Google Photos is doing the uploading and that if you get rid of Google Photos, it will not upload.
User interface problems inherently lead to users not knowing how to do things. Replying "it doesn't work that way, and the user should have known that" is just trying to deny the concept of user interface problems--at some point, the fact that the user doesn't know something is the fault of the interface designer, not the user.
It's called a "hatchetman" and is an old trick for business administration. Googling the term produced a lot of dictionary definitions, but not much in the way of in-depth articles. But now that you know what it's called, you can look it up.
Fewer women click ads for such jobs for reasons unrelated to the prevalence of such ads. Women are much less inclined to work long hours for more pay in preference to being with their family. $200K jobs are likely to be the type of job which requires prioritizing work over everything else, so women won't click on such ads.
The biggest worry about people judging you because of stupid stuff on the Internet is individual private decisions, such as employers or potential dates looking you up. Public blame is not the same thing as private blame, especially in this case, where the social justice warriors are for once on the right side but their influence is limited to preventing public blame--they can't keep someone from not hiring, or dating, or renting to, a victim.
I'd also expect that the effects of the Fappening are unusually low because it is about celebrities. Nobody's going to refuse to hire Kim Kardashian because someone posted nude pictures of her.
I wouldn't want to work for a company who judged me for the stupid shit I did as a teenager or if I were a homosexual.>/blockquote>
I would like to work for a company who enables me to earn money that I can use to eat and pay rent.
It's easy to say "I wouldn't want to work for a company that wouldn't hire me" if you don't need a job. If you need a job, you would much rather be hired by a company who hates you than not be hired.
Slashdot Mirror
The NSA is funded by taxes, which are extracted from us at the point of a gun, and could never have done what it did without the use of government force. AshleyMadison was funded by voluntary transactions.
Some of it is because the people digitizing the books are just clueless.
There have been several cases where I specifically looked for a high resolution scan of a book from archive.org and did not get the Project Gutenberg one, because the Project Gutenberg one either did not include illustrations or included them in very low resolution. PG could include high res illustrations--they just don't, and in fact have guidelines which tell you to digitize the images at a resolution which is ridiculously low for today's retina tablets.
"How many people speak this as a first language" is not the same thing as "how many people speak this".
I don't believe for one moment that the 3DS is only popular because of NES-era intellectual property (although it certainly helps), and the 3DS is clearly most of what's keeping them afloat.
I've never heard of an open source license that allows you to release two versions and only give away the source for one of the versions, and I don't think that satisfies any common definition of open source anyway.
Either you aren't required to release the source, in which case the free version wasn't released to satisfy the license, or you are required to release the source, and the free version still doesn't satisfy the license because you need to give the source of all the versions you release. There may be a case where you only have to release the source for the part that isn't yours, but that still wouldn't lead to a broken free version just to satisfy the license--they'd just release the source that they received without modifying it at all.
Has anyone created a list of all the things one needs to do to change Windows 10 settings towards privacy?
(I know about the Reddit thread, which is full of fail because it tells you to use group policy editor, which does not exist in Home, leaves out items that are mentioned later in the comments, and doesn't describe exactly what each step does.)
According to https://www.microsoft.com/en-u... which is on Microsoft's site,
Microsoft created the requirement to have secure boot with Microsoft keys, knowing very well that the incentives created by that requirement would lead to companies producing motherboards that can only use that and nothing else. Microsoft would not be able to do things that create these incentives if they didn't have a monopoly.
Just because the OEMs can choose not to lock down the hardware doesn't mean that it's the OEMs' fault rather than Microsoft's; the incentives were created by Microsoft.
Remember back when Microsoft were simply creating volume license agreements that made it expensive for companies to ship computers with Linux? They could do it--it wasn't prohibited by contract, it was just more expensive. All Microsoft did was change the financial incentives. But that's enough that it should be considered Microsoft's fault.
He's not going to get a public trial because an actual public trial would involve him justifying his acts as whistleblowing. This justification would necessarily involve the content of the information he released. The government isn't going to allow that, both for bureaucratic reasons (it's still classified information even though it was released to the public, so they have to classify the trial), and for the practical reasons that 1) if they can classify it, there's much less chance that the public will hear him and sympathize with him, and 2) it makes it a lot harder for him to defend himself.
Prominent world politicians urge adoption of new changes to the C++ standard concerning private inheritance and templates.
What this is trying to do is imply that because they have technical expertise in how dangerous AI-controlled weapons are, that technical expertise makes them experts about political decisions concerning weapons. It doesn't, and there is no more reason to pay attention to them than to the average guy in the street (who understands that some weapons are dangerous, and may have opinions on their use, but certainly doesn't get a national press release about it).
I was under the impression that if you upgrade from 7 to 10, your 7 key will no longer be valid. So grabbing your free copy and saving won't work. At any rate, grabbing a free copy wouldn't work anyway because it's the activation key that you need, and burning a free copy to load later on won't mean you'll have an activation key you can use later on.
It's extremely unreasonable. Many of the good questions ended up with ratings of 4. That's because a common strategy to disrupt the questioning is to wait until the last minute and moderate down all the rating 5 comments you don't like so that if the questions are chosen by rating none of them will get picked (and since it's the last minute, the time frame for someone to notice and mod them up again is small).
Yes, but this is different, because the supposed copyright law was in the other direction. If there's anything that the evil geniuses behind our copyright laws would *not* do, it's to make it *easier* to copy works legally, which is what this claims is being done.
That's because when the government forces the cost on private businesses, that hides the source of the increased costs. When the government actually has to raise taxes to pay for it, people can figure out that it's too expensive. If the company raises its prices because of government mandates, people just say "greedy companies" rather than blaming the government. Making the government pay for these things directly is an important part of having checks and balances on the government because people notice taxes.
In other words, "if you make the government pay for it, people will complain about raising taxes" is a feature, not a bug. That's the point--the government should make it obvious that it is taking the money, so the public can decide whether it's really worth it. And sometimes they won't.
Pro will not let you stop updates, you can only delay them.
According to TFA and TFSummary, 99% of the accepted requests are privacy related and are not about crooks and swindlers.
How? Is there a guide somewhere to what things actually have to be removed?
The answer to a user interface problem is not "the misleading user interface's behavior is described in the manual".
By your reasoning, there's no such thing as a user interface problem at all, as long as the behavior is described in a manual somewhere.
Nonsense. This is a user interface problem. The whole thing is designed such that someone who runs Google Photos would reasonably believe that Google Photos is doing the uploading and that if you get rid of Google Photos, it will not upload.
User interface problems inherently lead to users not knowing how to do things. Replying "it doesn't work that way, and the user should have known that" is just trying to deny the concept of user interface problems--at some point, the fact that the user doesn't know something is the fault of the interface designer, not the user.
It's called a "hatchetman" and is an old trick for business administration. Googling the term produced a lot of dictionary definitions, but not much in the way of in-depth articles. But now that you know what it's called, you can look it up.
"High crime in Republican states" can mean high crime in Democratic-run areas within Republican states.
Fewer women click ads for such jobs for reasons unrelated to the prevalence of such ads. Women are much less inclined to work long hours for more pay in preference to being with their family. $200K jobs are likely to be the type of job which requires prioritizing work over everything else, so women won't click on such ads.
The biggest worry about people judging you because of stupid stuff on the Internet is individual private decisions, such as employers or potential dates looking you up. Public blame is not the same thing as private blame, especially in this case, where the social justice warriors are for once on the right side but their influence is limited to preventing public blame--they can't keep someone from not hiring, or dating, or renting to, a victim.
I'd also expect that the effects of the Fappening are unusually low because it is about celebrities. Nobody's going to refuse to hire Kim Kardashian because someone posted nude pictures of her.
If you raise the property tax, the tax will be passed down to the poor people in the form of rent increases.