They can try to mate, though it is usually frowned upon. I'm led to believe they wouldn't produce any offspring. Though there was this girl I once woke up beside after some heavy drinking that casts a doubt on that assertion.
If it is as scant on information as your example shows, then RovinBaleeeem will come out the same as me, and then you got 2 scenarios. It's not accurate enough to tell people apart, and thus doesn't work. Or too much faith is put in it that one person can get blamed for something another does.
It would be hoped that the scanner is accurate enough to identify the thumbprint of an individual in a school of 500, and be robust enough that over 15-20 years, no student come into the school with a print similar to another. If it is accurate enough that this never happens, then the information becomes accurate enough to identify the individual later on in life etc.
I have no feelings on this either way. Assuming that this project is simply for convenience, and not security, then it's okay for it to be somewhat inaccurate.
What is a mathematical template of your fingerprint if not just another representation of your fingerprint image?
It's like saying "we have the names of everyone right here, but it's okay, we wrote them down backwards so that only we know who they are"
It's a simple step for anyone to take an image from a crime scene, convert it into the same mathematical template and make a match with one of these school kids. Now that may, in the greater scheme of things be a good thing, it catches a possible criminal. But it still is somewhat infringing on people's privacy. Atleast, that's how privacy nuts will view it.
They say that no image of the finger print is kept, but instead a "mathematical template".
What if at some point down the line sell/give all the mathematical templates and the method with which the templates were created to "The Man". Then it becomes possible for "The Man" to get thumbprints from say, a crime scene, or other place and convert it to the same mathematical template and, erm, finger you as a suspect?
Again, you'd have to be ultra paranoid, or have a major stick up your butt in relation to privacy to be worried of this. But people seem to be operating under the view that if you budge an inch "The Man" will take a mile.
Yeah, I did mistype the last line, it was a tricky one:(
Should have been "isn't"
I did continue to read the thread and indeed posted again further down with a nice longer post that explained things in more detail. And no I didn't feel like an ass.
"I just don't like the idea of the justice system being subverted in such a way that a corporation can sue someone anonymously, "
So you would be open to the idea of an online passport, and the removal of Anonymity across the internet Mr Coward? This way everyone would have to be responsible for the content they view and download when online?
How is your Cake?
You can't avoid corporations suing people anonymously while at the same time be trying to protect people's privacy on the net.
It's going to be a shame to go through the trouble of writing this post and have it modded down because it disagrees with he common feelings in this thread but anyway, here goes:
When a cool new movie comes out you have several choices.
1) I like this movie, I will pay money and go to the cinema and watch it
2) I like this movie... but I don't like cinema costs, I'll wait for DVD rental (insert various legal on-line options for rental)
3) I don't like the movie, I won't watch it
4) I like the movie, but I dislike the DRM they put on discs, I hate how they have stupid copyright laws to make them lots of money, and because of my opinions, I'm surely legally allowed to acquire a pirated copy of the movie and not have to pay them for it.
5) I like the movie, but because of the DRM etc blah blah I'm going to refrain from buying the movie, and thus watching it as that is the only legal option I have to me. I can vote with my pocket etc...
Because people dislike the movie producers and the DRM, they seem to think that they are able to get it for free. That it is not stealing. "Stealing means I deprive someone else of their property" What if your action deprives someone of earnings? What if those lost earnings deprive them of property they would otherwise have?
"But they are the biggest thieves in the world, we constantly see that they make tons of money regardless"
Yeah, So? Does that make your action legal? It's suddenly alright to steal from the rich... and keep for yourself?
Theft of movies is a crime. And yes it is stealing. Just because you don't do it in some dark alleyway at knife-point, and do it so easily and simply from the comfort of your own home, doesn't make it any less of a crime. And as long as people keep doing it, we'll keep getting DRM on discs and FBI warnings etc. And as long as people on Slashdot and other places keep spouting crap like how DRM is Hollywood's fault and they are evil, so it's okay to steal from them, then it will keep on happening.
How about you share your wife/GF with the community? There shouldn't be a problem letting other people access her as long as your own access isn't taken away.
How long are people going to try and continue to insist that unlawful access to pirated content is just another form of stealing?
It really pisses me off every day that I have to unlock my doors, disable the engine immobiliser and use an ignition key to get my car running in the morning.
Why can't I simply walk up to my car, and press a button and it comes on?
Oh right, because some fucker will come along and steal it.
People stealing software like they think they have a right to are what causes companies to install DRM. It is simply a security measure that ensures you pay for the privilege to play the game they spent money creating.
Until pirating of games disappears, and everyone behaves all nice and moral DRM/Product registration/Internet connection and all other forms of anti-piracy methods are going to be developed and incorporated into games. Be thankful that the protection measures that Blizzard are adding to SC2 are among the least intrusive in the market.
What Blizzard has figured out is that people will buy Starcraft 2 because of product loyalty. What I've seen of beta testing leeds me to understand that another portion of the playerbase will buy it because it's really well made.
The single verification (and not continuous online connection) will stop a large proportion of casual piracy, but it won't stop it all. Blizzard probably did the math of how much it would cost them to implement strict DRM, how many customers they would lose over this, and just how effective such DRM, ultimatly, would be.
Also, by making the verification a simple process, you don't throw down the gauntlet to pirates challenging them to try to beat your DRM. I imagine that no other game was so aggressively pirated as Assassin's Creed, specifically because it claimed to be unpiratable. And as online game will require constantly internet connection to battle.net, and you'll need to have registered version of the game attached to your account, very few people will use a pirated copy, as that is the primary attraction to SC2.
What I would like to see is that the game beats Assassin's Creed on sales, not despite lesser DRM, but BECAUSE of lesser DRM, and because of loyalty to the brand.
It is also important to note that despite what might be written on the outside of the bag, the contents cannot be empirically verified until observed directly, after which they usually promptly cease to exist.
Well either way, its wrong, as di-alogue would be conversation between 2 people. Half a dialogue is an monologue, quarter of a dialogue would be a fractalogue, which is the closest thing to a halfalogue.
Also, I question the tense used in the summary, and article. If this black hole is supposed to be travelling at high speed, and is/was in a Galaxy far far away, surely this has already happened, and is not currently happening?
Slashdot Mirror
Because we can totally trust what they put in them?
Who is Bill, and how can he give this kind of power to the Feds?
Indeed, 0.45 = (43+2) / (97+3)
They can try to mate, though it is usually frowned upon. I'm led to believe they wouldn't produce any offspring. Though there was this girl I once woke up beside after some heavy drinking that casts a doubt on that assertion.
I would certainly like to know how we'd end up with a fraction of a species
I count 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11 ...
What are all other numbers but a combination of primes?
If it is as scant on information as your example shows, then RovinBaleeeem will come out the same as me, and then you got 2 scenarios. It's not accurate enough to tell people apart, and thus doesn't work. Or too much faith is put in it that one person can get blamed for something another does.
It would be hoped that the scanner is accurate enough to identify the thumbprint of an individual in a school of 500, and be robust enough that over 15-20 years, no student come into the school with a print similar to another. If it is accurate enough that this never happens, then the information becomes accurate enough to identify the individual later on in life etc.
I have no feelings on this either way. Assuming that this project is simply for convenience, and not security, then it's okay for it to be somewhat inaccurate.
Privacy nut: "They are keeping records of all your private information, all your biometric data. We need to stop this!"
Me: "Your voice is private biometric data. So shut up."
What is a mathematical template of your fingerprint if not just another representation of your fingerprint image?
It's like saying "we have the names of everyone right here, but it's okay, we wrote them down backwards so that only we know who they are"
It's a simple step for anyone to take an image from a crime scene, convert it into the same mathematical template and make a match with one of these school kids. Now that may, in the greater scheme of things be a good thing, it catches a possible criminal. But it still is somewhat infringing on people's privacy. Atleast, that's how privacy nuts will view it.
I think the problem is this:
They say that no image of the finger print is kept, but instead a "mathematical template".
What if at some point down the line sell/give all the mathematical templates and the method with which the templates were created to "The Man". Then it becomes possible for "The Man" to get thumbprints from say, a crime scene, or other place and convert it to the same mathematical template and, erm, finger you as a suspect?
Again, you'd have to be ultra paranoid, or have a major stick up your butt in relation to privacy to be worried of this. But people seem to be operating under the view that if you budge an inch "The Man" will take a mile.
I just hope that when Android becomes a self-aware death machine, it'll go after those with open, unsecured, WiFi first.
Careful, that'll put you right onto a motorway, where you'll get hit by a car, and it'll be Google's fault
This make me glad I never use he internet, ever.
They go about and brush all the plant's lady parts? Perverts :(
Yeah, I did mistype the last line, it was a tricky one :(
Should have been "isn't"
I did continue to read the thread and indeed posted again further down with a nice longer post that explained things in more detail. And no I didn't feel like an ass.
"I just don't like the idea of the justice system being subverted in such a way that a corporation can sue someone anonymously, "
So you would be open to the idea of an online passport, and the removal of Anonymity across the internet Mr Coward? This way everyone would have to be responsible for the content they view and download when online?
How is your Cake?
You can't avoid corporations suing people anonymously while at the same time be trying to protect people's privacy on the net.
It's going to be a shame to go through the trouble of writing this post and have it modded down because it disagrees with he common feelings in this thread but anyway, here goes:
When a cool new movie comes out you have several choices.
1) I like this movie, I will pay money and go to the cinema and watch it
2) I like this movie ... but I don't like cinema costs, I'll wait for DVD rental (insert various legal on-line options for rental)
3) I don't like the movie, I won't watch it
4) I like the movie, but I dislike the DRM they put on discs, I hate how they have stupid copyright laws to make them lots of money, and because of my opinions, I'm surely legally allowed to acquire a pirated copy of the movie and not have to pay them for it.
5) I like the movie, but because of the DRM etc blah blah I'm going to refrain from buying the movie, and thus watching it as that is the only legal option I have to me. I can vote with my pocket etc...
Because people dislike the movie producers and the DRM, they seem to think that they are able to get it for free. That it is not stealing. "Stealing means I deprive someone else of their property" What if your action deprives someone of earnings? What if those lost earnings deprive them of property they would otherwise have?
"But they are the biggest thieves in the world, we constantly see that they make tons of money regardless"
Yeah, So? Does that make your action legal? It's suddenly alright to steal from the rich ... and keep for yourself?
Theft of movies is a crime. And yes it is stealing. Just because you don't do it in some dark alleyway at knife-point, and do it so easily and simply from the comfort of your own home, doesn't make it any less of a crime. And as long as people keep doing it, we'll keep getting DRM on discs and FBI warnings etc. And as long as people on Slashdot and other places keep spouting crap like how DRM is Hollywood's fault and they are evil, so it's okay to steal from them, then it will keep on happening.
How about you share your wife/GF with the community? There shouldn't be a problem letting other people access her as long as your own access isn't taken away.
How long are people going to try and continue to insist that unlawful access to pirated content is just another form of stealing?
It really pisses me off every day that I have to unlock my doors, disable the engine immobiliser and use an ignition key to get my car running in the morning.
Why can't I simply walk up to my car, and press a button and it comes on?
Oh right, because some fucker will come along and steal it.
People stealing software like they think they have a right to are what causes companies to install DRM. It is simply a security measure that ensures you pay for the privilege to play the game they spent money creating.
Until pirating of games disappears, and everyone behaves all nice and moral DRM/Product registration/Internet connection and all other forms of anti-piracy methods are going to be developed and incorporated into games. Be thankful that the protection measures that Blizzard are adding to SC2 are among the least intrusive in the market.
What Blizzard has figured out is that people will buy Starcraft 2 because of product loyalty. What I've seen of beta testing leeds me to understand that another portion of the playerbase will buy it because it's really well made.
The single verification (and not continuous online connection) will stop a large proportion of casual piracy, but it won't stop it all. Blizzard probably did the math of how much it would cost them to implement strict DRM, how many customers they would lose over this, and just how effective such DRM, ultimatly, would be.
Also, by making the verification a simple process, you don't throw down the gauntlet to pirates challenging them to try to beat your DRM. I imagine that no other game was so aggressively pirated as Assassin's Creed, specifically because it claimed to be unpiratable. And as online game will require constantly internet connection to battle.net, and you'll need to have registered version of the game attached to your account, very few people will use a pirated copy, as that is the primary attraction to SC2.
What I would like to see is that the game beats Assassin's Creed on sales, not despite lesser DRM, but BECAUSE of lesser DRM, and because of loyalty to the brand.
It is also important to note that despite what might be written on the outside of the bag, the contents cannot be empirically verified until observed directly, after which they usually promptly cease to exist.
That a male or female human hair? Since they are different thickness's, I find this method of comparison shoddy at best.
Well either way, its wrong, as di-alogue would be conversation between 2 people. Half a dialogue is an monologue, quarter of a dialogue would be a fractalogue, which is the closest thing to a halfalogue.
The universe is biased towards the "Glass is half full" way of thinking.
Also, I question the tense used in the summary, and article. If this black hole is supposed to be travelling at high speed, and is/was in a Galaxy far far away, surely this has already happened, and is not currently happening?