No they don't. Most people don't in fact. (actually I do, at least on my work computer). I guess it doesn't cover you, well done. Feel free to walk around today with a feeling of superiority.
Every time somebody tags a user in a photo, the user is notified and can untag him/herself.
And if somebody tags a photo of you and you are not a user (IIRC, a Facebook user can tag any picture with your name, even if you are not a Facebook user yourself)? How does Facebook notify you? How can you untag it?
Answer: you can't.
Next question, if Facebook is using facial recognition, does it work on non-users? If somebody tags a photo with the name of a non-user, will it look for other photos of that non-user and try and automatically tag them?
The scary part is that Facebook has a profile for you, even if you have never visited Facebook. Notice all those "Like" buttons on your favorite websites - unless you are never accept cookies, Facebook already has a profile built up for you just in case you decide to join sometime in the future. How nice of them!
Regardless of whether or not breaking it is trivial, breaking it is illegal under the DMCA. I'd rather have no DRM than have to break the law (regardless of how easy it is or how vanishingly small chance of being caught) to make something I buy usable.
...is that I'm going to have to fiddle around to get my RSA key fob off my keyring so I can put a new one on. Damn keyrings always end up hurting my nails.
"grafts"? Are you suggesting he's a con man? Or did you mean "gaffs", in which case I think you just did one yourself.
Obama is a highly educated constitutional scholar, his only gaff was thinking that the Republicans thought bipartisanship was anything other than "do what we say". And as Nadaka already said, the birth certificate has been available and online for years.
My thoughts exactly. Much as in a sane and sensible world, Obama would wipe the floor with an intellectual light-weight like Palin, I fear we don't live in that world. After all, another intellectual light-weight and draft dodger seemed likely for a sure defeat against the a highly intelligent VP who had been VP during a period of almost unprecedented peace and prosperity, but that didn't quite work out so well......
...then why would you imply you did by saying that you are certain that's not your crotch?
Because of any random crotch shot that I have never seen before, the chances that it's actually of me is pretty low (YMMV - probably depends on what kind of parties you typically go to). Seems like a reasonable first approximation. And I never said I was certain, I just said it wasn't.
No, your lack of ability to understand politics is the source of the problem. You want to just dismiss everything with a thought ending cliche of "all politicians lie" without exerting the brainpower to understand what is actually happening. Politicians have to make compromising in order to get anything through the legislative process, some time it means they have to do things they said the wouldn't do or not do something that they said they'd do. Only a moron would label that as lying - it's compromise, it's politics and it's the way it has to be. It's people's simplistic grasp of the issues and willful determination not to understand them that is the issue.
If you have a problem with it, maybe democracy isn't your thing? Perhaps I could interest you in a totalitarian regime where at least you know your leaders will do what they say they are going to do regardless of what anybody else thinks. Hey, they may be oppressing large portions of the population, maybe even you, but at least they ain't lying about it.
Assuming it's true, is there a concern that an MRI might cause blood thinning when it isn't needed? Is it possible for your blood to be too thin? Might it accelerate bleeding?
Isn't exactly that attitude the source of all our problems? If you think all politicians lie, then you aren't paying attention. It's usually good deal more complicated than your simple cliche allows.
Really? It's a picture of somebodies crutch? If you have superior crotch identifying ability from your long experience of staring at crotches (including your own) then I take my hat off to you. But I think if he said it wasn't him (although I'd use your modifier of "probably") and it later turned out it was, I don't think anybody in their right mind would hold him accountable. Then again, this is politics we're talking about and right minds are in short supply.
Because maybe he has a pair of boxers that look like that? They are not uncommon. Are you really so distinctive from the waist down to just about the top of your thighs that you would be able to say "with certitude" that a picture somebody else might have snapped of you (perhaps with a cell phone as you changed at the gym) is or is not you? I don't know that I could.
I agree he's handling it (no pun intended) in a really weird way. Personally, if I'd never seen the photo before, I'd just say no - it's not me. If it later turned out that it was, so what?
I think you are spot on with you analysis. I don't understand why he is skirting around the issue of whether or not it's him. A simple answer of "No, I wish" or "Yes, I don't know how somebody got that picture" (it isn't a crime to have your photo taken in your underwear - it's a little odd if you posed for it, but it could be a candid picture) or even "I honestly don't know" (after all there is very little in the picture that is distinctive and if it's a picture somebody else took - again candidly - him might of never seen it before). But outright refusing to answer and dodging the question is weird.
Perhaps he hopes it'll put a stop to all those tiny Weiner jokes?
And since Weiner won't confirm nor deny that the picture is actually him (which is a little odd), that line seems a little premature. Unless the poster knows something we don't.
Step 2: Create a straw man argument and attribute it to your opponent to support your insanity accusation. Claim that all "reasonable" people already support your own position.
All reasonable people do. The vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations support the theory that humans are doing irreversible damage to the climate through the uncontrolled release of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide. The debate is settled. You seem to think there is some grand global conspiracy between unrelated groups of scientists world-wide. You are the one that said that:
" Environmental protection isn't even the real goal, it's just an excuse to get you to go along with reverting to subsistence living while the "experts" control all the resources."
So how is what I said a straw man? It's exactly what you proposed. These "experts" you think are looking to control all the resources would need millions of scientists around the world to agree to push this "myth" in order for you fantasy to happen. Or do you now not stand by your own argument?
Don't try and weasel out it. Please explain how these "experts" get the entire scientific community to go along with this nefarious plan for world domination?
What you don't seem to understand is that we are all cutting our figurative throats and theirs too if we don't address the problem. But stupid, xenophobic, myopic people like you won't be satisfied until the water is lapping at your feet.
How's that tin-foil hat fitting you? There really is no reasoning with somebody as irrationally paranoid as you. You really think that the entire scientific community is going along with this to further some political aim. Do you ever stop to listen to the nonsense you are spewing?
Funny, because the entire rest of your post says exactly the opposite. If you are taking personal responsibility, then what does it matter what your coal-burning global warming alarmist straw men or anybody else is or is not doing?
I'm not going to do it because so-and-so isn't doing it sounds like the complete opposite of personal responsibility. It sounds exactly like "I'm not going to work so long as the government keeps giving me money."
If the west doesn't cut back then why should developing nations? The west still produces the most carbon emissions so they don't have any moral authority to insist that China, India or whoever not do the same things that the west has been doing the years.
Slashdot Mirror
Does everyone not do that these days?
No they don't. Most people don't in fact. (actually I do, at least on my work computer). I guess it doesn't cover you, well done. Feel free to walk around today with a feeling of superiority.
Every time somebody tags a user in a photo, the user is notified and can untag him/herself.
And if somebody tags a photo of you and you are not a user (IIRC, a Facebook user can tag any picture with your name, even if you are not a Facebook user yourself)? How does Facebook notify you? How can you untag it?
Answer: you can't.
Next question, if Facebook is using facial recognition, does it work on non-users? If somebody tags a photo with the name of a non-user, will it look for other photos of that non-user and try and automatically tag them?
The scary part is that Facebook has a profile for you, even if you have never visited Facebook. Notice all those "Like" buttons on your favorite websites - unless you are never accept cookies, Facebook already has a profile built up for you just in case you decide to join sometime in the future. How nice of them!
Regardless of whether or not breaking it is trivial, breaking it is illegal under the DMCA. I'd rather have no DRM than have to break the law (regardless of how easy it is or how vanishingly small chance of being caught) to make something I buy usable.
There's got to be an "in Soviet Russia..." joke in there somewhere.
Except you just sent a message to the seller that you're okay with DRM.
Well I don't know about you, tiny, but I need BOTH hands. ;)
Which is great until you slip and stab yourself in the fucking hand.
...is that I'm going to have to fiddle around to get my RSA key fob off my keyring so I can put a new one on. Damn keyrings always end up hurting my nails.
"grafts"? Are you suggesting he's a con man? Or did you mean "gaffs", in which case I think you just did one yourself.
Obama is a highly educated constitutional scholar, his only gaff was thinking that the Republicans thought bipartisanship was anything other than "do what we say". And as Nadaka already said, the birth certificate has been available and online for years.
My thoughts exactly. Much as in a sane and sensible world, Obama would wipe the floor with an intellectual light-weight like Palin, I fear we don't live in that world. After all, another intellectual light-weight and draft dodger seemed likely for a sure defeat against the a highly intelligent VP who had been VP during a period of almost unprecedented peace and prosperity, but that didn't quite work out so well......
But I'm not a doctor.
Hmmmm...I'm not either (not the medical variety at least), but you might be right.
...then why would you imply you did by saying that you are certain that's not your crotch?
Because of any random crotch shot that I have never seen before, the chances that it's actually of me is pretty low (YMMV - probably depends on what kind of parties you typically go to). Seems like a reasonable first approximation. And I never said I was certain, I just said it wasn't.
No, your lack of ability to understand politics is the source of the problem. You want to just dismiss everything with a thought ending cliche of "all politicians lie" without exerting the brainpower to understand what is actually happening. Politicians have to make compromising in order to get anything through the legislative process, some time it means they have to do things they said the wouldn't do or not do something that they said they'd do. Only a moron would label that as lying - it's compromise, it's politics and it's the way it has to be. It's people's simplistic grasp of the issues and willful determination not to understand them that is the issue.
If you have a problem with it, maybe democracy isn't your thing? Perhaps I could interest you in a totalitarian regime where at least you know your leaders will do what they say they are going to do regardless of what anybody else thinks. Hey, they may be oppressing large portions of the population, maybe even you, but at least they ain't lying about it.
Assuming it's true, is there a concern that an MRI might cause blood thinning when it isn't needed? Is it possible for your blood to be too thin? Might it accelerate bleeding?
Isn't exactly that attitude the source of all our problems? If you think all politicians lie, then you aren't paying attention. It's usually good deal more complicated than your simple cliche allows.
Really? It's a picture of somebodies crutch? If you have superior crotch identifying ability from your long experience of staring at crotches (including your own) then I take my hat off to you. But I think if he said it wasn't him (although I'd use your modifier of "probably") and it later turned out it was, I don't think anybody in their right mind would hold him accountable. Then again, this is politics we're talking about and right minds are in short supply.
Because maybe he has a pair of boxers that look like that? They are not uncommon. Are you really so distinctive from the waist down to just about the top of your thighs that you would be able to say "with certitude" that a picture somebody else might have snapped of you (perhaps with a cell phone as you changed at the gym) is or is not you? I don't know that I could.
I agree he's handling it (no pun intended) in a really weird way. Personally, if I'd never seen the photo before, I'd just say no - it's not me. If it later turned out that it was, so what?
I think you are spot on with you analysis. I don't understand why he is skirting around the issue of whether or not it's him. A simple answer of "No, I wish" or "Yes, I don't know how somebody got that picture" (it isn't a crime to have your photo taken in your underwear - it's a little odd if you posed for it, but it could be a candid picture) or even "I honestly don't know" (after all there is very little in the picture that is distinctive and if it's a picture somebody else took - again candidly - him might of never seen it before). But outright refusing to answer and dodging the question is weird.
Perhaps he hopes it'll put a stop to all those tiny Weiner jokes?
And since Weiner won't confirm nor deny that the picture is actually him (which is a little odd), that line seems a little premature. Unless the poster knows something we don't.
Step 2: Create a straw man argument and attribute it to your opponent to support your insanity accusation. Claim that all "reasonable" people already support your own position.
All reasonable people do. The vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations support the theory that humans are doing irreversible damage to the climate through the uncontrolled release of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide. The debate is settled. You seem to think there is some grand global conspiracy between unrelated groups of scientists world-wide. You are the one that said that:
" Environmental protection isn't even the real goal, it's just an excuse to get you to go along with reverting to subsistence living while the "experts" control all the resources."
So how is what I said a straw man? It's exactly what you proposed. These "experts" you think are looking to control all the resources would need millions of scientists around the world to agree to push this "myth" in order for you fantasy to happen. Or do you now not stand by your own argument?
Don't try and weasel out it. Please explain how these "experts" get the entire scientific community to go along with this nefarious plan for world domination?
What you don't seem to understand is that we are all cutting our figurative throats and theirs too if we don't address the problem.
That's something that's still in question (that man is contributing the majority of climate change pressure).
No it isn't. Keep putting your head in the sand and cherry picking data to confirm what you've already decided is true.
What you don't seem to understand is that we are all cutting our figurative throats and theirs too if we don't address the problem. But stupid, xenophobic, myopic people like you won't be satisfied until the water is lapping at your feet.
How's that tin-foil hat fitting you? There really is no reasoning with somebody as irrationally paranoid as you. You really think that the entire scientific community is going along with this to further some political aim. Do you ever stop to listen to the nonsense you are spewing?
I believe in personal responsibility.
Funny, because the entire rest of your post says exactly the opposite. If you are taking personal responsibility, then what does it matter what your coal-burning global warming alarmist straw men or anybody else is or is not doing?
I'm not going to do it because so-and-so isn't doing it sounds like the complete opposite of personal responsibility. It sounds exactly like "I'm not going to work so long as the government keeps giving me money."
If the west doesn't cut back then why should developing nations? The west still produces the most carbon emissions so they don't have any moral authority to insist that China, India or whoever not do the same things that the west has been doing the years.