I actually had to deal with a customer that didn't even know how to turn on his computer when you pointed out the rocker type power switch labeled on/off. And that's not the worst one. Those people really exist, and more often than not, are arrogant about their ignorance.
Think about that next time you're talking to a tech support person and they seem a little bit on edge.
If falsely re-assuring people that a disaster won't happen is actionable, then a lot of politicians and government employees are in big trouble. On top of that, did they establish that the scientists did not believe their own statements? Now, at least in Italy, you can expect any expert of any hard (or impossible) to predict field to start spouting worst case scenarios for every question just to avoid liability.
Real dumb move Italy. Just because you wanted a scapegoat, you've screwed yourself over for real issues.
I apologize for not being familiar with the current market of android security apps, and though that may be a good thing to have, I'm rather doubtful it's your current issue.
It seems you are concluding that you have been hacked because you can't connect to one home network that someone else administers, but are fine on other networks. It's probably the network, not your phone.
Some probably causes: The admin changed the security protocol to one your devices don't support. (I see that with nintendo 3ds gameboys all the time.) The admin changed the network key, and hasn't given you the new/correct one. The admin changed speed settings to something your devices don't support. (Like 802.11g when your stuff only goes to 802.11c. No idea what your gear does support, it's just an example. And there are new double letter versions out there to cause even more confusion, like 802.11ac) The admin has blocked your devices, or has set it to only allow specified devices, of which yours haven't been specified. (Usually done using MACs.)
In short, with the info you've given us, your phone is probably fine, your home admin is probably unthinking, stupid, or a dick. Try to find out which first before throwing accusations, you still have to live with them.
Correct. For instance, the Nazis actually did great things for Germany's economy and national pride. On the other hand, their methods and ideals are why the entire world reviles even the mention of their name. As Sique was saying, just because a group does one good thing, you don't have to like or agree with them. (My paraphrasing of his statement.)
PETA. Ok, now to point out, what everyone that has watched even 1 episode of Pokemon or actually played any of the Pokemon games for more than 10 minutes, it's about caring for your pokemon and building a relationship with them. As to stuffing them into balls, considering something the size of an elephant or more can fit into one of those little balls and still not weigh more than a few ounces, they aren't being "stuffed" in. It's apparently some kind of pocket dimension. On top of that, IT'S A CARTOON AND VIDEO GAME AND IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO REALITY!
Once again PETA proves that they don't get it and aren't just stupid, they are stooopid with three Os.
Monsanto has a seed 'technology' nicknamed Terminator. You can grow one crop, and the seeds from that crop are sterile. (They can't grow any more crops from it.) There was a big stink about them selling them to farmers, seems the farmers don't like crippled seeds as for the past several thousand years (since agriculture was invented) they have been holding back seeds to help plant crops the next year. If Monsanto thought that wouldn't happen with their product, they are stupid beyond measure. If any court finds in Monsantos favor, they are corrupt, stupid, and totally ignorant of agricultural standards and practices. Only an utter moron would do something this stupid. One food shortage, and the populace will riot, and someone will remind them that a stupid judge and politician let a corporation prevent them from planting crops. Guess who's going to be on the short end of a pitchfork then.
How in the hell did an anti-science cretin get a spot in the bully pulpit for science in this country? For that matter, how do we get him fired for incompetence and inability to perform the duties of the position?
It separates and concentrates the gold, it does not make it. The problem is the person that wrote the title for the Slashdot article doesn't understand that 'produce' and 'create' do not always mean the same thing, and so screwed up the meaning of the article title by changing one word.
Of course disclosing patentable, but not yet ready for patenting information is one. Another is the occasionally cutthroat race to publish first, and no, legal filings and such don't qualify, and yes, there will be unscrupulous people that will use this as a means to obtain an advantage on other researchers. How about the entire spiel of activist idiots not knowing, or caring, about what the research actually says, they are just looking for something they can misconstrue in an attempt to vilify either the researcher or their work. Currently there is a spate of 'demand for access' attacks. Yes, attacks. They are like a bureaucratic DDoS with paperwork instead of pings. It's rather easy for a group that doesn't like the subject of your research, or you, to keep bombarding you with claims, thus forcing you to waste HUGE amounts of time trying to deal with it. Don't forget the politics. Politicans, and those that want to make people do it their way, are not above cherry picking anything the researcher says, does, or writes in an attempt to bolster their agenda, even if it's totally against the results of the science. Of course, there's people that understand some of the words, but not the meaning, very simply because they don't have the specialized training and experience gained from years of college and decades of study in the field to actually understand what the stuff actually says. It's kind of like a dentist trying to declare that the nearly unanimous world population of climatologists are all wrong. Really, who's more likely to be right, a vast group comprised of all the experts on that field in the world, or some schmoe who just read some of their papers? By the way, that really happened. On top of all that, the preliminary work (as in before published/released) is piecemeal, out of context, and rarely used by non-researchers appropriately. It's like a lawyer suddenly declaring in court that you crashed your car because the lawyer ran over to the car factory and found a small bin of defective control boards. How convenient, especially when he ignores the fact those boards had failed the tests, that's why they were defective, or that the bin was labeled 'Trash' in Japanese, a language the lawyer can't read. Yet he'll still try to prevent it as proof as to why the auto manufacturer is evil, and his drunken client with a suspended license wasn't at fault for driving his car into a tree.
Yes, there are more reasons, and a lot of that overlaps because many of the people attempting to abuse the research use more than one of those simultaneously. So no, researchers should not have to deal with their incomplete research trolled through by others, nor should they have to waste their time and money dealing with it. If you want to know what the research says, just wait until it gets published in a peer reviewed journal or the like. If you can't understand what they are saying in those articles, you are literally too ignorant of the subject to attempt to judge their research.
"left tap for the app context menu, right tap for the system context menu" So just like Left Click and Right Click then. Except with a finger instead of a mouse button...
Technically they don't, only citizens of the appropriate country are allowed to vote in that countries various elections (if they have elections). That's not US, that's everyone in the world. Just try going to Spain, Germany, Russia, Japan, Australia, South Korea or any place you are not a citizen of and try to vote. If you're lucky, you'll just get turned away because some countries have distinct penalties for that kind of stuff.
Is it racist to limit voting to your own citizens? No. It is part of the basis of a country to be ruled by your own people and has been institutionalized since national voting began back in ancient history. Think about it, did the Huns ever try to vote in the Roman Empire? (Yes, the Romans had voting, just not the same way we do.)
Don't forget the ones that believe in Hollow Earth, Homeopathy, Magic, Demonic Possession, Alien Invasions, Flat Earth, Werewolves, Vampires, and so many other things. There's way too many people around these days that think reason is anathema and science is based on belief.
A few years back there was a bit of a test done where samples were submitted to several different testing companies to check if the 'suspect' matched. 75% of the companies returned positive results. Too bad the reality is they were unrelated samples. So it looks like the companies were returning false positives 3 out of 4 times if they thought it would help the police/prosecution.
It's not always like that, and it's a good reason for the defense to do tests as well, but it does bring in to question the usability of such techniques when they are so commonly and easily misused & abused.
I wouldn't say exactly that. Shoehorning in some kind of internet functionality, especially into a game where it is utterly extraneous, is extra time, complexity, bug issues, and costs. It does effect the final product, and when it's shit slapped on just because the CEO said to, it makes the final product worse, not better.
(You don't really think they allocate extra money, devs, testing, or time to a project for an unnecessary bolt-on just because the CEO wants that extra whatever now do you?)
People have been thinking about it for a long time now, and they even know the distances involved to some very accurate numbers, even though they keep changing. (The entire universe is in motion all the time.) It's not even close to unimaginable, unless you are lacking in imagination, or want to bicycle there or something equally absurd.
The politics and economics is a much greater barrier than the engineering. They have several ideas for ships that will be accelerated to speeds far far greater than anything we've launched up to now. The budget of an interstellar mission would be something that would make the Voyager budget look like a broken shoestring.
Sure, those systems they are talking about won't travel at a large percentage of C, but it would be enough to make it within a human lifetime, after all, you'd be target the nearby stars, not another galaxy. Also, there is no need to worry about Einstein or timewarps or anything else from a sci-fi movie of the week.
The math? We've had that for a long time. Besides that, an interstellar vessel would have to be able to respond to local navigational issues, so it can do course corrections. Nothing more embarrassing than sending a ship several light years only to have it crash into a previously undetected dwarf planet or asteroid because you forgot a maneuvering system. So it's not so much like throwing a dart at China as it is launching a cruise missile with a navigation upgrade.
Interstellar travel is possible, but we don't have it yet. If the investment was made, you could probably watch the launch of one with your grandchildren. As to overturning Einstein, this has nothing to do with that, unless you want a convenient FTL. Of course, science is full of overturned paradigms, and nobody is immune to having their pet theories revised, invalidated, or replaced, not even good old one-mug himself.
Of course, if someone is trying to sell you tickets for a flight to Beta Centauri, they are either delusional, or a rather unskilled con-artist.
I suspect they were talking about how long they would be able to assert copyright control over an important historical public speech. Although I think they changed it a couple years ago to 90 years after death so mickey mouse - steamboat willie wouldn't fall out of copyright.
Of course, they also rolled back the money and did some banning for some EQ potters that were making an item they could sell for a few coppers more than the cost of the components to make it. Gee, I guess a lot of games feel crafters have to lose money whenever they make something, EQ sure did.
I know the GW2 thing isn't about crafting (this time), but the point is still valid.
Back in Earth & Beyond, beginning players found a 3 point trade route in the starter system (Sol) that did an ok profit margin, about 30% if I remember correctly. Turns out it was higher than the devs intended, so they fixed it and some players started yelling it was an exploit and the ones using should have been banned. So, in a game where you were supposed to find profitable trade routes (costs varied at each location), and only one Star system you will have seen (too low level to go to another one), a reasonable trade route would get you banned? No, the devs didn't go psychotic and nuke anyone, they just adjusted the prices and went on. You know what 'damage' that did to the economy? Some low levels were able to afford a slightly better weapon or engine a week earlier than they could have otherwise.
If the money levels in the GW2 thing were extreme, then a money rollback as the values were adjusted would be reasonable. Banning people for it is just plain nuts. Calling it an exploit is a bit of a stretch, as an exploit either takes doing something special or extreme, if not an all out 'attack' on the system to achieve. Buying and selling from an npc merchant in the normal fashion is normal activity. It's a pricing glitch. The devs and testers screwed up by not finding this before release. Correcting the issue is appropriate, punishing players for doing the obvious is stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
As the old saying goes (more or less)
The fool thinks he knows everything, and the wiseman is aware he knows nothing.
ask a statistician
I actually had to deal with a customer that didn't even know how to turn on his computer when you pointed out the rocker type power switch labeled on/off.
And that's not the worst one.
Those people really exist, and more often than not, are arrogant about their ignorance.
Think about that next time you're talking to a tech support person and they seem a little bit on edge.
If falsely re-assuring people that a disaster won't happen is actionable, then a lot of politicians and government employees are in big trouble.
On top of that, did they establish that the scientists did not believe their own statements?
Now, at least in Italy, you can expect any expert of any hard (or impossible) to predict field to start spouting worst case scenarios for every question just to avoid liability.
Real dumb move Italy. Just because you wanted a scapegoat, you've screwed yourself over for real issues.
I apologize for not being familiar with the current market of android security apps, and though that may be a good thing to have, I'm rather doubtful it's your current issue.
It seems you are concluding that you have been hacked because you can't connect to one home network that someone else administers, but are fine on other networks. It's probably the network, not your phone.
Some probably causes:
The admin changed the security protocol to one your devices don't support. (I see that with nintendo 3ds gameboys all the time.)
The admin changed the network key, and hasn't given you the new/correct one.
The admin changed speed settings to something your devices don't support. (Like 802.11g when your stuff only goes to 802.11c. No idea what your gear does support, it's just an example. And there are new double letter versions out there to cause even more confusion, like 802.11ac)
The admin has blocked your devices, or has set it to only allow specified devices, of which yours haven't been specified. (Usually done using MACs.)
In short, with the info you've given us, your phone is probably fine, your home admin is probably unthinking, stupid, or a dick. Try to find out which first before throwing accusations, you still have to live with them.
Correct. For instance, the Nazis actually did great things for Germany's economy and national pride. On the other hand, their methods and ideals are why the entire world reviles even the mention of their name.
As Sique was saying, just because a group does one good thing, you don't have to like or agree with them. (My paraphrasing of his statement.)
PETA.
Ok, now to point out, what everyone that has watched even 1 episode of Pokemon or actually played any of the Pokemon games for more than 10 minutes, it's about caring for your pokemon and building a relationship with them.
As to stuffing them into balls, considering something the size of an elephant or more can fit into one of those little balls and still not weigh more than a few ounces, they aren't being "stuffed" in. It's apparently some kind of pocket dimension.
On top of that, IT'S A CARTOON AND VIDEO GAME AND IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO REALITY!
Once again PETA proves that they don't get it and aren't just stupid, they are stooopid with three Os.
Monsanto has a seed 'technology' nicknamed Terminator. You can grow one crop, and the seeds from that crop are sterile. (They can't grow any more crops from it.)
There was a big stink about them selling them to farmers, seems the farmers don't like crippled seeds as for the past several thousand years (since agriculture was invented) they have been holding back seeds to help plant crops the next year.
If Monsanto thought that wouldn't happen with their product, they are stupid beyond measure. If any court finds in Monsantos favor, they are corrupt, stupid, and totally ignorant of agricultural standards and practices. Only an utter moron would do something this stupid. One food shortage, and the populace will riot, and someone will remind them that a stupid judge and politician let a corporation prevent them from planting crops. Guess who's going to be on the short end of a pitchfork then.
How in the hell did an anti-science cretin get a spot in the bully pulpit for science in this country?
For that matter, how do we get him fired for incompetence and inability to perform the duties of the position?
Free market utilities... Like Enron?
It separates and concentrates the gold, it does not make it.
The problem is the person that wrote the title for the Slashdot article doesn't understand that 'produce' and 'create' do not always mean the same thing, and so screwed up the meaning of the article title by changing one word.
Of course disclosing patentable, but not yet ready for patenting information is one.
Another is the occasionally cutthroat race to publish first, and no, legal filings and such don't qualify, and yes, there will be unscrupulous people that will use this as a means to obtain an advantage on other researchers.
How about the entire spiel of activist idiots not knowing, or caring, about what the research actually says, they are just looking for something they can misconstrue in an attempt to vilify either the researcher or their work.
Currently there is a spate of 'demand for access' attacks. Yes, attacks. They are like a bureaucratic DDoS with paperwork instead of pings. It's rather easy for a group that doesn't like the subject of your research, or you, to keep bombarding you with claims, thus forcing you to waste HUGE amounts of time trying to deal with it.
Don't forget the politics. Politicans, and those that want to make people do it their way, are not above cherry picking anything the researcher says, does, or writes in an attempt to bolster their agenda, even if it's totally against the results of the science.
Of course, there's people that understand some of the words, but not the meaning, very simply because they don't have the specialized training and experience gained from years of college and decades of study in the field to actually understand what the stuff actually says. It's kind of like a dentist trying to declare that the nearly unanimous world population of climatologists are all wrong. Really, who's more likely to be right, a vast group comprised of all the experts on that field in the world, or some schmoe who just read some of their papers? By the way, that really happened.
On top of all that, the preliminary work (as in before published/released) is piecemeal, out of context, and rarely used by non-researchers appropriately. It's like a lawyer suddenly declaring in court that you crashed your car because the lawyer ran over to the car factory and found a small bin of defective control boards. How convenient, especially when he ignores the fact those boards had failed the tests, that's why they were defective, or that the bin was labeled 'Trash' in Japanese, a language the lawyer can't read. Yet he'll still try to prevent it as proof as to why the auto manufacturer is evil, and his drunken client with a suspended license wasn't at fault for driving his car into a tree.
Yes, there are more reasons, and a lot of that overlaps because many of the people attempting to abuse the research use more than one of those simultaneously.
So no, researchers should not have to deal with their incomplete research trolled through by others, nor should they have to waste their time and money dealing with it. If you want to know what the research says, just wait until it gets published in a peer reviewed journal or the like. If you can't understand what they are saying in those articles, you are literally too ignorant of the subject to attempt to judge their research.
"left tap for the app context menu, right tap for the system context menu"
So just like Left Click and Right Click then.
Except with a finger instead of a mouse button...
Canada?
Technically they don't, only citizens of the appropriate country are allowed to vote in that countries various elections (if they have elections). That's not US, that's everyone in the world. Just try going to Spain, Germany, Russia, Japan, Australia, South Korea or any place you are not a citizen of and try to vote. If you're lucky, you'll just get turned away because some countries have distinct penalties for that kind of stuff.
Is it racist to limit voting to your own citizens? No. It is part of the basis of a country to be ruled by your own people and has been institutionalized since national voting began back in ancient history. Think about it, did the Huns ever try to vote in the Roman Empire? (Yes, the Romans had voting, just not the same way we do.)
Don't forget the ones that believe in Hollow Earth, Homeopathy, Magic, Demonic Possession, Alien Invasions, Flat Earth, Werewolves, Vampires, and so many other things. There's way too many people around these days that think reason is anathema and science is based on belief.
I'm cheering for EA on this one. Oh god, I feel sick and dirty, I need to take a shower now. :(
A few years back there was a bit of a test done where samples were submitted to several different testing companies to check if the 'suspect' matched. 75% of the companies returned positive results. Too bad the reality is they were unrelated samples. So it looks like the companies were returning false positives 3 out of 4 times if they thought it would help the police/prosecution.
It's not always like that, and it's a good reason for the defense to do tests as well, but it does bring in to question the usability of such techniques when they are so commonly and easily misused & abused.
they have rules for re-use of numbers, specifically after you die.
I wouldn't say exactly that. Shoehorning in some kind of internet functionality, especially into a game where it is utterly extraneous, is extra time, complexity, bug issues, and costs. It does effect the final product, and when it's shit slapped on just because the CEO said to, it makes the final product worse, not better.
(You don't really think they allocate extra money, devs, testing, or time to a project for an unnecessary bolt-on just because the CEO wants that extra whatever now do you?)
Especially when you're playing Solitaire and just got all the aces out. :)
People have been thinking about it for a long time now, and they even know the distances involved to some very accurate numbers, even though they keep changing. (The entire universe is in motion all the time.) It's not even close to unimaginable, unless you are lacking in imagination, or want to bicycle there or something equally absurd.
The politics and economics is a much greater barrier than the engineering. They have several ideas for ships that will be accelerated to speeds far far greater than anything we've launched up to now. The budget of an interstellar mission would be something that would make the Voyager budget look like a broken shoestring.
Sure, those systems they are talking about won't travel at a large percentage of C, but it would be enough to make it within a human lifetime, after all, you'd be target the nearby stars, not another galaxy. Also, there is no need to worry about Einstein or timewarps or anything else from a sci-fi movie of the week.
The math? We've had that for a long time. Besides that, an interstellar vessel would have to be able to respond to local navigational issues, so it can do course corrections. Nothing more embarrassing than sending a ship several light years only to have it crash into a previously undetected dwarf planet or asteroid because you forgot a maneuvering system. So it's not so much like throwing a dart at China as it is launching a cruise missile with a navigation upgrade.
Interstellar travel is possible, but we don't have it yet. If the investment was made, you could probably watch the launch of one with your grandchildren. As to overturning Einstein, this has nothing to do with that, unless you want a convenient FTL. Of course, science is full of overturned paradigms, and nobody is immune to having their pet theories revised, invalidated, or replaced, not even good old one-mug himself.
Of course, if someone is trying to sell you tickets for a flight to Beta Centauri, they are either delusional, or a rather unskilled con-artist.
I suspect they were talking about how long they would be able to assert copyright control over an important historical public speech.
Although I think they changed it a couple years ago to 90 years after death so mickey mouse - steamboat willie wouldn't fall out of copyright.
Of course, they also rolled back the money and did some banning for some EQ potters that were making an item they could sell for a few coppers more than the cost of the components to make it. Gee, I guess a lot of games feel crafters have to lose money whenever they make something, EQ sure did.
I know the GW2 thing isn't about crafting (this time), but the point is still valid.
Back in Earth & Beyond, beginning players found a 3 point trade route in the starter system (Sol) that did an ok profit margin, about 30% if I remember correctly. Turns out it was higher than the devs intended, so they fixed it and some players started yelling it was an exploit and the ones using should have been banned. So, in a game where you were supposed to find profitable trade routes (costs varied at each location), and only one Star system you will have seen (too low level to go to another one), a reasonable trade route would get you banned? No, the devs didn't go psychotic and nuke anyone, they just adjusted the prices and went on. You know what 'damage' that did to the economy? Some low levels were able to afford a slightly better weapon or engine a week earlier than they could have otherwise.
If the money levels in the GW2 thing were extreme, then a money rollback as the values were adjusted would be reasonable. Banning people for it is just plain nuts. Calling it an exploit is a bit of a stretch, as an exploit either takes doing something special or extreme, if not an all out 'attack' on the system to achieve. Buying and selling from an npc merchant in the normal fashion is normal activity. It's a pricing glitch. The devs and testers screwed up by not finding this before release. Correcting the issue is appropriate, punishing players for doing the obvious is stupid.
Hey Cartman, go whine to your mom.