Indeed... because of all of the precautions it employs in the so-called interests to "protect" your data, it seems like the only thing this would be good for having on it is content that you don't care if you lose... and if that is the case, it is unlikely anyone else would be interested in trying to attack it in the first place.
If you have horse-drawn buggy traffic, then you are living in a time before computers, and would not be able to nostalgically reflect on the days of bbsing of yore, let alone slashdot's better days.
Since you appear to be talking about a specific situation that is relevant to your own specific personal experience, and not a hypothetical situation that may be tangentially related to the article, it's probably best if I don't know all of the details. However, the only reason I could even *possibly* have to think any differently than I do is if I had any reason to believe that the person might take some kind of measurable action as a result of his lewd thoughts, and if there was such a reason, then that reason could be a justifiable basis to get a restraining order, at least. If the evidence were more substantial than that, there may even be enough of a basis for a charge of conspiracy to commit a particular crime to stick.
But the fact that someone may be thinking about something is not really any kind of sufficient basis to presume or believe that they might actually act upon it, and living as if that were the case when you do not want them to do that thing, no matter how bad it might be, is just spending your life living in fear.... and it's entirely self-induced, because that fear is caused because of what you *believe* about the other person, not what is actually happening (because again, what goes on solely inside of person's head does not have any measurable effect on reality). The only implication that what you might know about what another person is thinking should have on your life is how you react to that particular person and that particular person only. The person might be a neighbor, but that doesn't mean you ever have to socialize with them, or even be physically around them for any period of time. If if should even come to pass that this creepy dude asks you why you appear to be avoiding him, you can come out with it plainly and tell him that you don't like the way that he looks at you, full stop. No further exchange beyond that should ever be necessary and you can both go about your business.
If the creepy neighbor ever does decide to act on any of his lewd thoughts, then you charge the asshole with assault... but you can't live in fear of what *might* be, or else you paralyze yourself from truly experiencing the present moment for everything that it offers.
I do not wish to invade and know of the details of your situation.... I while I can sympathize with the feelings you might have of feeling powerless to do anything about the situation, ultimately those feelings that you have are not caused by what anyone else but you believes, because just as certainly as you cannot control what other people are thinking or believing, nobody else can control you either, unless you let them.
In dos 3.2 and 3.3 days, yes. Not so much the case with prodos, which did indeed use 512 byte blocks, which were implemented as pairs of sectors as understood by the floppy disk controller, but could reflect the native block size used for some hard drives.
What you notice is a distinct lack of caring about what other people keep inside of their own heads and doesn't actually affect me in any measurable way unless I were to care about what they think in the first place.
Unless the creepy neighbor possesses a science-fictiony ability like mind over matter, what they happen to think in their own head has absolutely no bearing on reality, and I have no reason to care about it.
First of all... most of society doesn't judge adults by how silly they may have looked as children, and the portion of society that does is not worth spending any time with in the first place.
And while it is wholly deplorable of her parents to not respect her desire to have those pictures taken down, her attitude about how bad she thinks it will affect her isn't exactly brimming with a mature point of view. As I said, most people probably don't care about silly childhood photo's. On top of it, that she feels she should sue them over something like this is ultimately just a grown-up version of having a temper tantrum because she didn't get her way.
Wouldn't such made credentials be fairly easy to discover as bogus? Like on the order of ease of being able to tell the difference between monopoly money and actual currency?
She could choose to not be offended, and realize that the fact that she considers those photos of her to be embarassing is actually her own problem, because they were taken years and years ago, and are not relevant to anything that she might care about today. The photos were probably posted for sentimental reasons, not to ridicule.
That being said, I think it is abhorrent that the parents didn't take the photos offline when she asked them to. As immature as I think she's being about the whole thing, it's as disrespectful as hell to not be considerate of another human being's feelings when they've honestly described how you may have upset them.
You misuse the word "force". There is absolutely no reason beyond her own personal feelings that could have kept her from saying "Oh, well... what the hell? They are just child pictures anyways, and it is just not worth the grief to get that upset over it."
I'm not saying her parents were right to refuse to take them down when she asked. That's disrespectful no matter how you look at this, but someone having a hang-up over someone else seeing a photo of them as a kid doing something that the person would rather not remember right now is that one person's problem... not anyone else's.
I have expressed a similar sentiment on the whole european "right to be forgotten" crap.
If the universe were simulation, then it is the simulation that actually created us and not *actually* evolution. We would not even have any kind of real existence, and it's largely a waste of time to even consider where we came from because anything that we might think we know about the past was just part of the same simulation anyways.
I'm not saying it can't be good to explore metaphysical possibilities, but I wish to hell that people would stop giving the notions any more credibility than they would otherwise give the idea that there is some invisible God in the sky somewhere... the designer of the simulation may as well be "God", for all we can tell (and in some ways, that's not too far off of what some Christians believe).
Depends on your definition of "cheap". Fpor the iphone, $40 is how much the Belkin lightning hub costs.
Anyways, using such a device reduces the device's portability if you leave it plugged in all the time, and has a higher chance of getting lost if you unplug it each time you don't need it. People that need headphones to use the device would generally otherwise leave their headphones plugged in all of the time on it as well.
I know, they provide a dongle which adds that functionality back in
Yes, but if you should need actual headphones, that still doesn't allow you to use the device while charging it without requiring yet another dongle that costs about $40 to split one lightning port into two. So you have a dongle on a dongle, the combined size of them being longer than the iphone itself. This is bad for portability if you leaved them plugged in, and if you always unplug them when you aren't using them, the risk increases of accidentally losing one or the other or both.
The only reality where this move by Apple makes any kind of sense, even given their argument that the lightning port is arguably superior to the headphone jack in every way that envision it is, is one where nothing bad ever happens to anyone, ever.
Some people require headphones to use a device, and bluetooth may not always be an option. Removing the jack removes any ability to charge it while using headphones that are attached to its single USB-C port.
It's the exact same problem with the iPhone 7 and its single lightning port. Apple clearly doesn't have a fucking clue what it's doing anymore. They are so desperate to try and be industry leaders again that they are trying random shit that nobody seriously wants or will find useful as an effort to "think outside of the box", and it's not a good thing. For them or their customers.
It's not about whether or not one believes it, it's about the fact that somehow the notion that our universe is a simulation is supposedly worthy of consideration by the scientific community as possible when the very thing that it directly implies is supposedly not. It would seem to me that if ID, which is what the universe being a simulation would almost immediately imply is always discounted as having any merit for serious consideration, then the universe being a simulation must be discounted as no less than the same pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo. It's simple logic... If A then B and A then B. So since A implies B and not B, then not A.
Are you arguing that it's not possible for our universe to be a simulation? Or rather, that it's not worth seriously considering the possibility that it could be?
The latter, because it implies intelligent design, which is supposedly not worth serious consideration.
Because one directly implies the other, either ID is at least as worthy of serious scientific consideration as the notion that the universe is a simulation seems to be or else the notion that the universe is a simulation should be discounted as pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo.
My grievance on the matter is over the fact that some people with scientific interests will believe that notions such as the universe being a simulation are somehow worthy of serious consideration as being possible when such ideas directly imply Intelligent Design, and the latter has long since been all but completely condemned by the scientific community as being unworthy of any serious speculation. It's not the fact that either one is particularly unscientific that bothers me... to be honest. It's the complete lack of any consistency that, to be quite frank, kind of pisses me off about the whole thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed... because of all of the precautions it employs in the so-called interests to "protect" your data, it seems like the only thing this would be good for having on it is content that you don't care if you lose... and if that is the case, it is unlikely anyone else would be interested in trying to attack it in the first place.
Wow.... I hadn't heard of that before. Did insurance cover the damages, or was the owner basically fucked?
I have a problem with your post.
If you have horse-drawn buggy traffic, then you are living in a time before computers, and would not be able to nostalgically reflect on the days of bbsing of yore, let alone slashdot's better days.
Have some goddamn continuity, man.
Just for fun, I tried to see if I could enable touch-id on my iPhone with my nose. Apparently the "fingerprint cannot be read".
Since you appear to be talking about a specific situation that is relevant to your own specific personal experience, and not a hypothetical situation that may be tangentially related to the article, it's probably best if I don't know all of the details. However, the only reason I could even *possibly* have to think any differently than I do is if I had any reason to believe that the person might take some kind of measurable action as a result of his lewd thoughts, and if there was such a reason, then that reason could be a justifiable basis to get a restraining order, at least. If the evidence were more substantial than that, there may even be enough of a basis for a charge of conspiracy to commit a particular crime to stick.
But the fact that someone may be thinking about something is not really any kind of sufficient basis to presume or believe that they might actually act upon it, and living as if that were the case when you do not want them to do that thing, no matter how bad it might be, is just spending your life living in fear.... and it's entirely self-induced, because that fear is caused because of what you *believe* about the other person, not what is actually happening (because again, what goes on solely inside of person's head does not have any measurable effect on reality). The only implication that what you might know about what another person is thinking should have on your life is how you react to that particular person and that particular person only. The person might be a neighbor, but that doesn't mean you ever have to socialize with them, or even be physically around them for any period of time. If if should even come to pass that this creepy dude asks you why you appear to be avoiding him, you can come out with it plainly and tell him that you don't like the way that he looks at you, full stop. No further exchange beyond that should ever be necessary and you can both go about your business.
If the creepy neighbor ever does decide to act on any of his lewd thoughts, then you charge the asshole with assault... but you can't live in fear of what *might* be, or else you paralyze yourself from truly experiencing the present moment for everything that it offers.
I do not wish to invade and know of the details of your situation.... I while I can sympathize with the feelings you might have of feeling powerless to do anything about the situation, ultimately those feelings that you have are not caused by what anyone else but you believes, because just as certainly as you cannot control what other people are thinking or believing, nobody else can control you either, unless you let them.
In dos 3.2 and 3.3 days, yes. Not so much the case with prodos, which did indeed use 512 byte blocks, which were implemented as pairs of sectors as understood by the floppy disk controller, but could reflect the native block size used for some hard drives.
What you notice is a distinct lack of caring about what other people keep inside of their own heads and doesn't actually affect me in any measurable way unless I were to care about what they think in the first place.
Unless the creepy neighbor possesses a science-fictiony ability like mind over matter, what they happen to think in their own head has absolutely no bearing on reality, and I have no reason to care about it.
Wait, What?
There's a manual?
Not a hard question...
Monty Python's Flying Circus
Are You Being Served
Blackadder
Benny Hill
Mrs Brown's Boys
Two Ronnies
There are probably loads more.
Why would anyone else even care? And even if they did, why should I care what they think?
First of all... most of society doesn't judge adults by how silly they may have looked as children, and the portion of society that does is not worth spending any time with in the first place.
And while it is wholly deplorable of her parents to not respect her desire to have those pictures taken down, her attitude about how bad she thinks it will affect her isn't exactly brimming with a mature point of view. As I said, most people probably don't care about silly childhood photo's. On top of it, that she feels she should sue them over something like this is ultimately just a grown-up version of having a temper tantrum because she didn't get her way.
Wouldn't such made credentials be fairly easy to discover as bogus? Like on the order of ease of being able to tell the difference between monopoly money and actual currency?
The reporter the cop was impersonating.
It's okay if an FBI agent impersonates a journalist but it's not okay for an oil company exec to impersonate Elon Musk?
Wouldn't that be covered under identity theft laws? Or does financial damage have to occur for such laws to come into effect?
She could choose to not be offended, and realize that the fact that she considers those photos of her to be embarassing is actually her own problem, because they were taken years and years ago, and are not relevant to anything that she might care about today. The photos were probably posted for sentimental reasons, not to ridicule.
That being said, I think it is abhorrent that the parents didn't take the photos offline when she asked them to. As immature as I think she's being about the whole thing, it's as disrespectful as hell to not be considerate of another human being's feelings when they've honestly described how you may have upset them.
You misuse the word "force". There is absolutely no reason beyond her own personal feelings that could have kept her from saying "Oh, well... what the hell? They are just child pictures anyways, and it is just not worth the grief to get that upset over it."
I'm not saying her parents were right to refuse to take them down when she asked. That's disrespectful no matter how you look at this, but someone having a hang-up over someone else seeing a photo of them as a kid doing something that the person would rather not remember right now is that one person's problem... not anyone else's.
I have expressed a similar sentiment on the whole european "right to be forgotten" crap.
I'm not saying it can't be good to explore metaphysical possibilities, but I wish to hell that people would stop giving the notions any more credibility than they would otherwise give the idea that there is some invisible God in the sky somewhere... the designer of the simulation may as well be "God", for all we can tell (and in some ways, that's not too far off of what some Christians believe).
Depends on your definition of "cheap". Fpor the iphone, $40 is how much the Belkin lightning hub costs.
Anyways, using such a device reduces the device's portability if you leave it plugged in all the time, and has a higher chance of getting lost if you unplug it each time you don't need it. People that need headphones to use the device would generally otherwise leave their headphones plugged in all of the time on it as well.
Yes, but if you should need actual headphones, that still doesn't allow you to use the device while charging it without requiring yet another dongle that costs about $40 to split one lightning port into two. So you have a dongle on a dongle, the combined size of them being longer than the iphone itself. This is bad for portability if you leaved them plugged in, and if you always unplug them when you aren't using them, the risk increases of accidentally losing one or the other or both.
The only reality where this move by Apple makes any kind of sense, even given their argument that the lightning port is arguably superior to the headphone jack in every way that envision it is, is one where nothing bad ever happens to anyone, ever.
Some people require headphones to use a device, and bluetooth may not always be an option. Removing the jack removes any ability to charge it while using headphones that are attached to its single USB-C port.
It's the exact same problem with the iPhone 7 and its single lightning port. Apple clearly doesn't have a fucking clue what it's doing anymore. They are so desperate to try and be industry leaders again that they are trying random shit that nobody seriously wants or will find useful as an effort to "think outside of the box", and it's not a good thing. For them or their customers.
It's not about whether or not one believes it, it's about the fact that somehow the notion that our universe is a simulation is supposedly worthy of consideration by the scientific community as possible when the very thing that it directly implies is supposedly not. It would seem to me that if ID, which is what the universe being a simulation would almost immediately imply is always discounted as having any merit for serious consideration, then the universe being a simulation must be discounted as no less than the same pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo. It's simple logic... If A then B and A then B. So since A implies B and not B, then not A.
The latter, because it implies intelligent design, which is supposedly not worth serious consideration.
Because one directly implies the other, either ID is at least as worthy of serious scientific consideration as the notion that the universe is a simulation seems to be or else the notion that the universe is a simulation should be discounted as pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo.
My grievance on the matter is over the fact that some people with scientific interests will believe that notions such as the universe being a simulation are somehow worthy of serious consideration as being possible when such ideas directly imply Intelligent Design, and the latter has long since been all but completely condemned by the scientific community as being unworthy of any serious speculation. It's not the fact that either one is particularly unscientific that bothers me... to be honest. It's the complete lack of any consistency that, to be quite frank, kind of pisses me off about the whole thing.