It's not owed to Google, but that's not the point. The point is that Google is taking public information and turning it into a service that is useful to ordinary people. You may disagree, but personally I think that's socially useful and I for one will not be opting out.
Yes, in much the same way that when an individual is imprisoned you don't send their friends and family down too. Shutting down the corporation hurts all its employees and their families, as well as the guilty parties.
Re:WTF does that have to do with IQ?
on
2011 Geek IQ Test
·
· Score: 5, Informative
IQ tests test various types of reasoning, not knowledge.
I don't think he's suggesting that fingerprint readers are defeated by bricklaying. I think he's suggesting that a) fingerprint readers are easily defeated (the Mythbusters team managed it a while ago on one of their shows for example), and b) some activities can temporarily damage or destroy your prints, rendering you unable to use the device. I.e. he was making two separate points.
You think the Russians, with their massive levels of corruption, will stop selling to Mexican gangs?
They don't even have to sell to Mexican gangs directly, they just have to sell to someone who is willing to sell to (someone who is willing to sell to someone who is willing to sell to...) the Mexican gangs.
Well it's monitoring your position - or more accurately, the position of the object to which it is attached. If it's on your car, it knows nothing about what you're actually doing, and if you don't travel by car then it doesn't even know where you actually are.
The problem is that she has been repeatedly challenged to publish her data, and has not only consistently refused to do so but has also attacked the people making the calls.
Just adding my voice to the thanks - this happened to me a few years ago when someone used my domain in their faked From: address on their spam. At the height of the problem I was getting 2000+ spams, bounces and assorted other junk per day. (Sure, I could've switched off the catch-all addressing, but I was using it for legitimate purposes and would've switched off addresses I was actually using.)
I own a domain and have catch-all addressing enabled, and believe me there are two things wrong with your comment:
1. Spammers most certainly do spam random addresses; and
2. Spammers almost invariably fake their return addresses (and a few years back someone used ones at my domain; I was getting 2000+ spams, bounces and flames per day)
Legitimate marketers that spam people who forget to opt-out might clean up their address lists, but the (even) shadier ones certainly don't seem to.
Until we conduct the research we have no idea where it could lead us. My favourite example is the laser, which was sat in research labs for years after its invention as no one had any idea what to use it for. Now most homes in the developed world contain at least one; I have three myself (in regular use that is, I have more lying around unused). Likewise superconductivity - once a novelty, now used in medical imaging (and so helping to save lives).
Sure this is pretty esoteric, but who knows where the path might lead until we've followed it?
He's right though. I go through phases of not reading the comments on science-related articles here for that very reason - the general level of commentary is awful. Sure, not everyone has the knowledge and/or experience required to comment meaningfully, but it would be nice if they would refrain from doing so.
You seem surprised. I stop reading the comments on science-related articles here from time to time for that very reason; very very few people here actually have the knowledge required to comment sensibly on this sort of stuff. That's fine, everyone knows almost nothing about almost everything. However it would be nice if they didn't make so many asinine comments.
Actually the filter is when other researchers go "oh, that's interesting/weird/bullshit" and try to recreate or refute the results.
Science is a process, it takes a lot of work and a long time to be able to sit back and say "ok, we've pretty-much got this figured out from the looks of it".
You do realise that he probably did this in his spare time, right? That sort of calculation could easily be part of a general physics or electrical engineering exam, approximating an order of magnitude answer is trivial given the required knowledge of the subject. This is definitely not a research topic.
Yes it is restricting free speech, but on the other hand you have that whole "pursuit of happiness" thing - that's incompatible with (for example) people being allowed to publicly defame you and incite people to ostracise you (or even attack you, if the claims are bad enough). When two rights potentially conflict like that, one or other of them has to be restricted in the conflicting case(s).
Slashdot Mirror
It's not owed to Google, but that's not the point. The point is that Google is taking public information and turning it into a service that is useful to ordinary people. You may disagree, but personally I think that's socially useful and I for one will not be opting out.
A lot of people think organ donation should be opt-out.
Yes, in much the same way that when an individual is imprisoned you don't send their friends and family down too. Shutting down the corporation hurts all its employees and their families, as well as the guilty parties.
IQ tests test various types of reasoning, not knowledge.
It seems to me that even using your real name counts for nothing. For what it's worth, this is my real name (the C is short for Campbell).
But so what? I'm not the only one in the world, so what does it really tell you?
No, that's part of the problem with depression; the truly depressed don't believe that anything or anyone can help them.
The same people who currently decide what is porn.
A contract's a contract, whether you like the person who signed it or not.
I don't think he's suggesting that fingerprint readers are defeated by bricklaying. I think he's suggesting that a) fingerprint readers are easily defeated (the Mythbusters team managed it a while ago on one of their shows for example), and b) some activities can temporarily damage or destroy your prints, rendering you unable to use the device. I.e. he was making two separate points.
You think the Russians, with their massive levels of corruption, will stop selling to Mexican gangs?
They don't even have to sell to Mexican gangs directly, they just have to sell to someone who is willing to sell to (someone who is willing to sell to someone who is willing to sell to...) the Mexican gangs.
Oh, and people had 3D on PC like, 8 years ago (or more.)
I had a PowerVR-based 3D card in my PC in 1999, so make that at least 12 years ago. (I wasn't a particularly early adopter)
Well it's monitoring your position - or more accurately, the position of the object to which it is attached. If it's on your car, it knows nothing about what you're actually doing, and if you don't travel by car then it doesn't even know where you actually are.
On the other hand, telling a suspect that you have a covert surveillance warrant relating to them rather defeats the purpose of the warrant.
Now who is going to logically think things thru and not panic, the average /.er or some poor person who watches too much FOX news and CSI?
Given the levels of logical thinking usually displayed on here I can only conclude that this was a trick question.
The problem is that she has been repeatedly challenged to publish her data, and has not only consistently refused to do so but has also attacked the people making the calls.
Just adding my voice to the thanks - this happened to me a few years ago when someone used my domain in their faked From: address on their spam. At the height of the problem I was getting 2000+ spams, bounces and assorted other junk per day. (Sure, I could've switched off the catch-all addressing, but I was using it for legitimate purposes and would've switched off addresses I was actually using.)
I own a domain and have catch-all addressing enabled, and believe me there are two things wrong with your comment:
1. Spammers most certainly do spam random addresses; and
2. Spammers almost invariably fake their return addresses (and a few years back someone used ones at my domain; I was getting 2000+ spams, bounces and flames per day)
Legitimate marketers that spam people who forget to opt-out might clean up their address lists, but the (even) shadier ones certainly don't seem to.
Until we conduct the research we have no idea where it could lead us. My favourite example is the laser, which was sat in research labs for years after its invention as no one had any idea what to use it for. Now most homes in the developed world contain at least one; I have three myself (in regular use that is, I have more lying around unused). Likewise superconductivity - once a novelty, now used in medical imaging (and so helping to save lives).
Sure this is pretty esoteric, but who knows where the path might lead until we've followed it?
He's right though. I go through phases of not reading the comments on science-related articles here for that very reason - the general level of commentary is awful. Sure, not everyone has the knowledge and/or experience required to comment meaningfully, but it would be nice if they would refrain from doing so.
You seem surprised. I stop reading the comments on science-related articles here from time to time for that very reason; very very few people here actually have the knowledge required to comment sensibly on this sort of stuff. That's fine, everyone knows almost nothing about almost everything. However it would be nice if they didn't make so many asinine comments.
Actually the filter is when other researchers go "oh, that's interesting/weird/bullshit" and try to recreate or refute the results.
Science is a process, it takes a lot of work and a long time to be able to sit back and say "ok, we've pretty-much got this figured out from the looks of it".
You do realise that he probably did this in his spare time, right? That sort of calculation could easily be part of a general physics or electrical engineering exam, approximating an order of magnitude answer is trivial given the required knowledge of the subject. This is definitely not a research topic.
Yes it is restricting free speech, but on the other hand you have that whole "pursuit of happiness" thing - that's incompatible with (for example) people being allowed to publicly defame you and incite people to ostracise you (or even attack you, if the claims are bad enough). When two rights potentially conflict like that, one or other of them has to be restricted in the conflicting case(s).
They can if you ever set foot in the UK.
And if you don't want to read this sort of thing, you don't have to click the link.
This sort of story, when posted here, always generates a large amount of discussion; it would seem that most of the readership approves.