It would have been if it had included measures like "Ten minutes next to the reactor core of Fukushima after partial meltdown" or "Dose from spending an hour on the grounds at the Fukushima plant in 2036".
It tried; it includes "Extra dose from one day in an average town near the Fukushima plant". Not the same as 10 minutes next to the core, but I guess Randall was using what he'd got.
Obligatory Stevens: Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?
Damn, is wireless a series of tubes too??
For most people it is, I'd say. Just say "user agent" around and count the number of blank stares. (Does not apply if you only hang around with techies.)
Indeed, how do Americans fall for this stuff while people in other nations seem to be able to get better deals? Are we really just that dumb?
Not that much. The "will happily pay thousands of dollars because they're giving me a free phone now" is possible thanks to a logical fallacy called "hyperbolic discounting" -- the article in the link refers to lab animals, but it's proven that it works on humans, too. Simpler descriptions here and here. Of course it's being exploited and used as a marketing method since years.
And: not only Americans fall for this, and endless businesses all around the world use this trick to, well, screw us. We Europeans just like to think we are smarter than the yanks;) but this marketing technique is so widespread we don't even notice anymore.
According to TFA, "Microsoft launched the raids as part of a civil lawsuit", "U.S. marshals accompanied employees of Microsoft's digital crimes unit", and "Microsoft officials brought with them a federal court order granting them permission to seize computers". I'm afraid this doesn't really answer your question, but it looks like it's suggesting that a) the computers were actually seized by the feds, and b) TFA is copypasta from a Microsoft press release.
Funny, I play drums and guitar too, and I've been in a band in the past, and yet I don't like this kind of games. Will your Majesty allow me to express my humble opinion, or does the fact that you enjoy the game compels everybody else to follow Your will?
Not everyone has the time/commitment/money for lessons (which would certainly be a better option for learning to play).
Still, they somehow have the time/commitment/money for playing the game? Or are they just casual players and thus not really interested in playing an instrument? This is the point: you want to play guitar, you just buy one. You want to learn to play, you might choose self-learning if you don't want to throw money at lessons. (Of course, you just want to have a nice time with friends, you go and play with them and be happy.)
when's the last time you passed a guitar to a non guitar playing friend and had them start playing?
It was some years ago. I taught him his first chords. I had him "start playing". Alas, no computers were involved. These games were not out yet.
Such laws usually have to do with newspapers and magazines, but they could be extended to apply to people posting pictures of their friends on the 'net
Not wrong in principle, but impossible to enforce.
Every movie when there's a scene of someone getting a giant, flashy, mind-boggling "Access Denied" alert.
Honourable mention to Independence Day, of course... (and many more when there's a "hacker" "hacking".)
But truth be told, whenever a computer screen is shown in a movie there is something to cringe at. Improbable interfaces, random jargon terms, impossible "image enhancements", there's plenty of choice.
One for connoisseurs: Battle Royale. There's a scene where a young "hacker" frantically pounds at the keyboard (on a seemingly normal text editor by the way) and you see thousands of lines of what's apparently C code scroll on the screen, being literally bornn under his fingers. Never, ever does he hit backspace, or even take a look at what he's typing. When he's finished he launches the "program" and of course it blows the entire island's security system for good. Priceless.
Slashdot Mirror
It would have been if it had included measures like "Ten minutes next to the reactor core of Fukushima after partial meltdown" or "Dose from spending an hour on the grounds at the Fukushima plant in 2036".
It tried; it includes "Extra dose from one day in an average town near the Fukushima plant". Not the same as 10 minutes next to the core, but I guess Randall was using what he'd got.
Obligatory Stevens: Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?
Damn, is wireless a series of tubes too??
For most people it is, I'd say. Just say "user agent" around and count the number of blank stares. (Does not apply if you only hang around with techies.)
Indeed, how do Americans fall for this stuff while people in other nations seem to be able to get better deals? Are we really just that dumb?
Not that much. The "will happily pay thousands of dollars because they're giving me a free phone now" is possible thanks to a logical fallacy called "hyperbolic discounting" -- the article in the link refers to lab animals, but it's proven that it works on humans, too. Simpler descriptions here and here. Of course it's being exploited and used as a marketing method since years. ;) but this marketing technique is so widespread we don't even notice anymore.
And: not only Americans fall for this, and endless businesses all around the world use this trick to, well, screw us. We Europeans just like to think we are smarter than the yanks
I bet it links to goatse. Was it part of the test?
According to TFA, "Microsoft launched the raids as part of a civil lawsuit", "U.S. marshals accompanied employees of Microsoft's digital crimes unit", and "Microsoft officials brought with them a federal court order granting them permission to seize computers". I'm afraid this doesn't really answer your question, but it looks like it's suggesting that a) the computers were actually seized by the feds, and b) TFA is copypasta from a Microsoft press release.
Maybe it's proof that this is more real than we think.
Depends. Will the message have been sent to someone else, or to sometime else?
Wow. I didn't think there was a subtle and even polite way of calling someone a douche. I stand corrected :)
You don't sound like you've actually played the games then?
Of course I didn't play the game. Neither did I RTFA. Why this question?
My point, the real one, is that today is a holiday here, but it's raining and I don't have much better to do than bitch about something random on /.
Funny, I play drums and guitar too, and I've been in a band in the past, and yet I don't like this kind of games. Will your Majesty allow me to express my humble opinion, or does the fact that you enjoy the game compels everybody else to follow Your will?
Just that you could as well skip the game. And: this comment.
Not everyone has the time/commitment/money for lessons (which would certainly be a better option for learning to play).
Still, they somehow have the time/commitment/money for playing the game? Or are they just casual players and thus not really interested in playing an instrument? This is the point: you want to play guitar, you just buy one. You want to learn to play, you might choose self-learning if you don't want to throw money at lessons. (Of course, you just want to have a nice time with friends, you go and play with them and be happy.)
when's the last time you passed a guitar to a non guitar playing friend and had them start playing?
It was some years ago. I taught him his first chords. I had him "start playing". Alas, no computers were involved. These games were not out yet.
You can already play with a real guitar with no need for a stupid game. Maybe even go out and find some people to form an actual band with.
Solar-powered underwear would be cool. Or hot?
Alas, stupidity is not a criminal offense.
all that should be needed to have the the picture removed would be to tell Facebook to do so
Too late.
"Facebook" and "privacy" in the same sentence is technically an oxymoron.
No, it's just way easier to prove now that everybody publishes every detail of their sorry lives --or their friends' sorry lives-- on the web.
Such laws usually have to do with newspapers and magazines, but they could be extended to apply to people posting pictures of their friends on the 'net
Not wrong in principle, but impossible to enforce.
Yes, this "identified without permission" thing sounded more like an admission of guilt than an actual defence.
Tagging a photo is similar to someone asking "who is that person" and the photographer telling him.
Exactly. Besides, she used the wrong defence: she should have said she's wasn't drinking that much.
What's openSUSE's future look like? Since Novell is slowly dying, are we going to see openSUSE fade from being the #2 / #3 distro?
What's Linux's future look like?
What's the world's future look like?
Every movie when there's a scene of someone getting a giant, flashy, mind-boggling "Access Denied" alert.
Honourable mention to Independence Day, of course... (and many more when there's a "hacker" "hacking".)
But truth be told, whenever a computer screen is shown in a movie there is something to cringe at. Improbable interfaces, random jargon terms, impossible "image enhancements", there's plenty of choice.
One for connoisseurs: Battle Royale. There's a scene where a young "hacker" frantically pounds at the keyboard (on a seemingly normal text editor by the way) and you see thousands of lines of what's apparently C code scroll on the screen, being literally bornn under his fingers. Never, ever does he hit backspace, or even take a look at what he's typing. When he's finished he launches the "program" and of course it blows the entire island's security system for good. Priceless.