It seems many here are quick to criticize the immaturity or pointlessness of launching a DOS on some arbitrary website no one ever visits, which is their right. However, I think launching an assault on a website (especially as Anonymous) serves a very important purpose, both functionally and symbolically. It conveys a very direct voice of opposition against companies shutting down websites like TPB or (as we've seen just this week) other torrent domains without due process. It is very clear that those companies and politicians have no idea how these websites function. Rightly so, they are made in a tiered and complex fashion so as to spread, eliminate, or avoid liability, as is the case in the OP (e.g. i-frames, torrents with no trackers, using only links to other sites but not actually hosting any illegal content). However, this isn’t an excuse for the judicial system to say that merely because a system is too complex to understand that those who are genuinely innocent should be lumped in with the guilty. That is ridiculous and I’m sure no one would agree with such a verdict. So while many people on Slashdot might complain about the point of DOS’ing a website, it says very loud and clear to those ignorant parties that people won’t stand for this kind of tyranny. Good for them, I say.
Here is another attempt at splintering the Internet into what is palatable. By this logic, we should include opt-in programs for any kind of objectionable content: unhealthy sites (because I don't want my future children exposed to McDonalds marketing), politically opposed websites (because I don't want my children exposed to those liberal crazies, with all their gay rights and pro-choice propaganda)... or any other kind of website that I object to.
Pornography has become the scapegoat for Internet control. I mean, what politician is going to object to it? First it was child pornography because no one can or should say that they don't want it censored. Now it's legitimate adult porn. As minute as this might seem, it's the first in a series of steps that is fracturing the Internet.
I understand why increasing electronic car's battery life is important but when the second generation of cars were coming out of Ford, no one was complaining about larger gas tanks. They built infrastructure to compensate for the lack of a 200 gallon tank and the complaint, "well how am I supposed to drive across the state on one tank!? You mean I have to wait, fill it, and pump it myself!?" No, they built infrastructure. When battery life is about equal to gasoline cars, build infrastructure to support them. One suggestion at a TED talk was a station that replaces empty batteries with new charged ones. Imagine a car wash that you drive into, pay for your new battery, the machine lifts up the hood, pops out the empty or half-full cell and pops in a new one. But wait, that's MY battery, how do I know if I'm getting a good battery? Well how do you know you're getting gasoline and not apple juice? You set standards, charge limits and you pay by some standardized metric (gallons of oil to X in electric batteries). This creates new jobs for mechanics and technicians to build these stations, replaces gasoline cars with environmentally friendly electronic cells, and practically eliminates the "range anxiety" problem. Once you can travel a few hundred miles on a charge, it won't be a problem because you can pull over to a station and pay for a full cell. If you want to wait, you can drive home and plug in your car for a few hours. Infrastructure support is the answer, not the ultimate electronic battery. It doesn't need to exist for this technology to work (that isn't to say that the technology doesn't need to improve, of course it does).
If the majority of hits are singles, does this still apply? It only mentions hitting a double in that you can round the base faster. It would look pretty funny if the batter used this for a single and it took them much longer.
These types of risks aren't inherent in devoting time merely to a contest, they're everywhere. You're at risk of unveiling your ideas at soon as you sit down for the interview and answer the question, "so why should we hire you?". You may have a great idea, spill the beans, and then not get the job only to see the company adopt your idea. Similarly, whose to say that when you implement a new idea in a company that they don't fire you and hire someone else once the system is implanted. While these are unlikely events they're similar types of risks and they're everywhere.
Creationism has a valid place in schools. It belongs in philosophy classes, religion classes, and even history classes (i.e. its relationship to the time period and the Bible's influence on history, etc).
However, creationism has no place in science classes. What proponents of creationism don't understand is that contributors of evolution realize that evolution is still merely a theory with a whole ton of support. It isn't perfect. That's why it isn't a law but rather a theory, a very strong theory. Theories aren't proven but merely tested against other theories or null hypotheses. Evolution is the best explanation we have. Furthermore, it's important to note that evolution is a theory because it is falsifiable. This is a critical tenant of any theory in science: that you can find evidence to support or deny the claim.
What creationism doesn't have is any evidence for it, either for or against it. It deduces down to belief. It can't be falsified and therefore, simply, is not a theory and thus not science. I've heard some people resort to string theory as a similar notion that falls into the science category without any evidence and I would suggest those people do a bit more homework and they will find that in some cases it does find support.
The mere fact is that you can't ever know if God exists and you can't know if he/she/it created everything in the universe. Since we can't know, it can't be science since it can't be a theory, since there is no proof.
No one should touch Facebook. If you can't handle a few pictures on the Intertubes, don't log onto Facebook (there, you win). If you can, you should have the right to go do that (everyone else wins). What a backwards place they are. I don't see protests about Raptor Jesus from Christian extremists.
I say Facebook should leave it up like they do all groups.
This article is absolutely absurd. It's pretty terrible that data are being misused like this. This is a classic example of correlation and causation. Assuming that everything they say about the data they collected it true, it doesn't mean that when browsers become popular that their quality decreases. It just means that popular browsers and low quality browsers are related... not that one causes the other. For example, murder rates and ice cream sales are highly related (they are, look it up), does that mean when someone sells more icecream that people die? No, it just means they they're highly correlated.
Also, another flaw in this terrible article is that people are self selected to their website. It could just mean that more people who use IE visit their website for whatever reason.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems many here are quick to criticize the immaturity or pointlessness of launching a DOS on some arbitrary website no one ever visits, which is their right. However, I think launching an assault on a website (especially as Anonymous) serves a very important purpose, both functionally and symbolically. It conveys a very direct voice of opposition against companies shutting down websites like TPB or (as we've seen just this week) other torrent domains without due process. It is very clear that those companies and politicians have no idea how these websites function. Rightly so, they are made in a tiered and complex fashion so as to spread, eliminate, or avoid liability, as is the case in the OP (e.g. i-frames, torrents with no trackers, using only links to other sites but not actually hosting any illegal content). However, this isn’t an excuse for the judicial system to say that merely because a system is too complex to understand that those who are genuinely innocent should be lumped in with the guilty. That is ridiculous and I’m sure no one would agree with such a verdict. So while many people on Slashdot might complain about the point of DOS’ing a website, it says very loud and clear to those ignorant parties that people won’t stand for this kind of tyranny. Good for them, I say.
Here is another attempt at splintering the Internet into what is palatable. By this logic, we should include opt-in programs for any kind of objectionable content: unhealthy sites (because I don't want my future children exposed to McDonalds marketing), politically opposed websites (because I don't want my children exposed to those liberal crazies, with all their gay rights and pro-choice propaganda)... or any other kind of website that I object to. Pornography has become the scapegoat for Internet control. I mean, what politician is going to object to it? First it was child pornography because no one can or should say that they don't want it censored. Now it's legitimate adult porn. As minute as this might seem, it's the first in a series of steps that is fracturing the Internet.
This seems like an incredibly convenient discovery considering China's new embargo of rare metal exports to Japan and the US.
I understand why increasing electronic car's battery life is important but when the second generation of cars were coming out of Ford, no one was complaining about larger gas tanks. They built infrastructure to compensate for the lack of a 200 gallon tank and the complaint, "well how am I supposed to drive across the state on one tank!? You mean I have to wait, fill it, and pump it myself!?" No, they built infrastructure. When battery life is about equal to gasoline cars, build infrastructure to support them. One suggestion at a TED talk was a station that replaces empty batteries with new charged ones. Imagine a car wash that you drive into, pay for your new battery, the machine lifts up the hood, pops out the empty or half-full cell and pops in a new one. But wait, that's MY battery, how do I know if I'm getting a good battery? Well how do you know you're getting gasoline and not apple juice? You set standards, charge limits and you pay by some standardized metric (gallons of oil to X in electric batteries). This creates new jobs for mechanics and technicians to build these stations, replaces gasoline cars with environmentally friendly electronic cells, and practically eliminates the "range anxiety" problem. Once you can travel a few hundred miles on a charge, it won't be a problem because you can pull over to a station and pay for a full cell. If you want to wait, you can drive home and plug in your car for a few hours. Infrastructure support is the answer, not the ultimate electronic battery. It doesn't need to exist for this technology to work (that isn't to say that the technology doesn't need to improve, of course it does).
If the majority of hits are singles, does this still apply? It only mentions hitting a double in that you can round the base faster. It would look pretty funny if the batter used this for a single and it took them much longer.
Unless the prices fall suddenly, the new Macbooks just found a new reason to be more expensive than ever: SS drives.
Sounds like its time to find a new social media website.
Nothing suspicious going on in that picture.
These types of risks aren't inherent in devoting time merely to a contest, they're everywhere. You're at risk of unveiling your ideas at soon as you sit down for the interview and answer the question, "so why should we hire you?". You may have a great idea, spill the beans, and then not get the job only to see the company adopt your idea. Similarly, whose to say that when you implement a new idea in a company that they don't fire you and hire someone else once the system is implanted. While these are unlikely events they're similar types of risks and they're everywhere.
Creationism has a valid place in schools. It belongs in philosophy classes, religion classes, and even history classes (i.e. its relationship to the time period and the Bible's influence on history, etc). However, creationism has no place in science classes. What proponents of creationism don't understand is that contributors of evolution realize that evolution is still merely a theory with a whole ton of support. It isn't perfect. That's why it isn't a law but rather a theory, a very strong theory. Theories aren't proven but merely tested against other theories or null hypotheses. Evolution is the best explanation we have. Furthermore, it's important to note that evolution is a theory because it is falsifiable. This is a critical tenant of any theory in science: that you can find evidence to support or deny the claim. What creationism doesn't have is any evidence for it, either for or against it. It deduces down to belief. It can't be falsified and therefore, simply, is not a theory and thus not science. I've heard some people resort to string theory as a similar notion that falls into the science category without any evidence and I would suggest those people do a bit more homework and they will find that in some cases it does find support. The mere fact is that you can't ever know if God exists and you can't know if he/she/it created everything in the universe. Since we can't know, it can't be science since it can't be a theory, since there is no proof.
RealID was a great idea, keep up the good work.
No one should touch Facebook. If you can't handle a few pictures on the Intertubes, don't log onto Facebook (there, you win). If you can, you should have the right to go do that (everyone else wins). What a backwards place they are. I don't see protests about Raptor Jesus from Christian extremists. I say Facebook should leave it up like they do all groups.
This article is absolutely absurd. It's pretty terrible that data are being misused like this. This is a classic example of correlation and causation. Assuming that everything they say about the data they collected it true, it doesn't mean that when browsers become popular that their quality decreases. It just means that popular browsers and low quality browsers are related... not that one causes the other. For example, murder rates and ice cream sales are highly related (they are, look it up), does that mean when someone sells more icecream that people die? No, it just means they they're highly correlated. Also, another flaw in this terrible article is that people are self selected to their website. It could just mean that more people who use IE visit their website for whatever reason.