It makes me wonder why the terrorists don't just blow up the people waiting to be scanned instead of trying to get onto the plane.
It makes me wonder too. Why don't they just blow up a church, mall or something else that infuriates they're crazy sensibilities and is completely insecure. They still go after planes (and rail sometimes). I theorize it's some kind of "see, your security can't stop us." Maybe they have some secret Quran passages in those caves that speak really badly about airplanes, but whatever it is, I don't think they will ever target those lines, no matter how many comments it is suggested in.
Why haven't we seen any expert analysis on this though?
...all done by Muslims...target the ones who are more likely to be terrorists, rather than wasting even more of everyone else's time in the name of "fairness".
I agree at first glance, but on later thought: "I'm sorry, Mohammed, but this job will require air travel and we just don't want the delays and searches of company equipment you'll entail. We'll have to hire John Smith here even though he's otherwise unqualified."
Certainly, however, the investigative bodies that should have nabbed the underwear bomber before he even got to the "random" searches can use non-random methods to search out people, but this will easily let the Mohamed I mentioned above be free of selected searches.
whats the big deal...stop raising nakedness onto such a high pedestal
Oh, I don't care about that whatsoever; I wander around the mens locker room with a bunch of naked guys and their kids at the gym. I have a feeling I'm not the only one who doesn't care. However, I'm not a fan of the security theater. I try to get people riled up and on my side with things that set me off like "intolerable inconvenience" and "wasted taxes" and nobody cares. Then some one says "naked" and everyone's all upset!
Well in that case: NAKED! There gonna make you NAKED! Exposed GENITALS! LUDENESS! PENIS SIZE isssues! KIDDY PORN! Did I mention NAKED?! Down with the security theater; it makes NAKED!
This device will be sold to people who are worried about potential problems
I was thinking the device would mainly be sold to geeks who can never have enough data. Though this will also be a detriment to health as we see how much we can screw with them.
"Those RedBulls kicked in precisely 20minutes after chugged them: look at my heart rate right here at 1:25!"
"Hey, look at my breathing change as I accelerated at 2:37.32 PM! Tomorrow I'll jump from higher and see what that does!"
Of course, an angry person can calm down and get counseling.
And a pedophile can't? Counseling and self-help groups help alcoholics stay dry. Why can't they help pedophiles?
I disagree with the GP's statement to begin with. I was in anger counseling (as a kid, I grew up now) and I had lapses. The number of AA members who have lapses is astounding, its hard to find consistent statistics but its at least 50% (100% of those that I know). And as GP said: "We have yet to find a real way to change anyone's sexual attractions," and he's right. We've tried to counsel homosexuals for some time now, and we just can't seem to "cure" any but a small minority of them. The chances of lapses from pedophilia therapy sound intolerable to me.
The reason that nobody does anything to help pedophiles is that nobody wants to help them.
And people wont start wanting to help anytime soon. A freind of a friend of mine was caught with pornographic images of children on his computer (USA). My friend reacted exactly as I would have; he deleted every email he ever received from the guy and de-friended him on all social network sights so the FBI didn't have any continuing connections to monitor. Showing up at parties with a known pedo? A good way to defriend everyone you know with kids.
I just hope that society gets its act together before someone discovers a gene that might create a predisposition to pedophilia and the scaremongers start demanding a mandatory eugenics program to be instated.
I think you do have some insight there. The attempted suicide being illegal is not because we think depressed people are going to look over their local ordinances and see what their allowed to do, but because suicide attempters tend to be loud, obnoxious and unsuccessful with their supposed attempts and you need to be able to have them arrested for harrassment/blackmail/stress on the system or whatever.
Clinically assisted suicides once again brings in other people and laws are there to regulate what people do to eachother.
However, alone in a room suicide is fine by me, ditto with drawing stick figures.
> Do these elements show socialization skills? Cooperative ability? Evaluation of morals? Imagine if the prison ruled that all > players must be Lawful Good.
Then players will secretly be chaotic evil, masquerading as lawful good. Let's see them stop that!
So they're all gonna RP paladins then, huh?
(Sorry, one too many run-ins with players & DMs who think "You stole a crust of bread from the garbage for your children? CRIMINAL! DIE!" is expected paladin behavior.)
GP said: "provided there's a good GM in charge of player role accuracy"
All of the DMs I've played with, who were concerned about role playing, have had reasonable views on the lawful good alignment. I'm sorry about your experiences though.
As a IT guy I hate being asked by a lay person "Do you understand what he's doing on that screen?" when we're watching some movie or TV show with a completely fake UI on some computer.
I love that question.
Especially after watching swordfish, I like to start every answer with "She's using a multi-headed hydra to...bs...bs...I have to do it all the time."
Which they follow with, "Wow, your so smart" if they ever want their computer fixed again.
Not as easy as friending you and clicking on "view photos of Mathias", but worrying, especially considering that that data is there forever and better data mining may be applied in the future.
Freedom of speech does not cover commercial speech...freedom of speech does not give people the right to harass me
Freedom of speech does cover ALL speech...
Just to be clear, I'm talking about the US where this decision took place.
I respect your idealism but it is not currently reflected in US law and case history. The banning of telivised tobacco adds, do not call lists and restraining orders to stop email contact are a few examples. Further, you can see many people such as myself think this is a good thing (to some degree).
The slippery slope of "mommy government wiping your inbox hole" (though quite clever) has been going for over a century, the consequences are currently being felt with cases like this.
$54k could easily be paid in a structured settlement.
Remember alot of the./ community are youngens who went to college and now owe around that amount in loans to pay off; we'll owe more when the interest piles up.
First, Freedom of speech does not cover commercial speech. If spammers are sending spam to save the whales they might get some protection, but as long as they are advertising they have to deal with the laws regarding commercial speech.
Second, freedom of speech does not give people the right to harass me. I don't want unsolicited advertising, I can get restraining orders on anyone in RL to stop them from following me around begging me to give them money. Do not call lists, spam acts, etc, are there to protect me from being harassed by companies doing this to me with modern technology. If spammers want to spam each other anonymously, they can go do that, but when they harass me, it is no longer within their rights.
Spam IMO is illegal, private companies and individuals do not have the resources to stop it and so we have government intervention. I for one am not worried about spammers rights and thank my government for protecting mine.
Meh, the whole article is irrelevant. Once it gets to the Supreme Court, they'll just say we're restricting spammers' freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is quite different from commercial speech.
If spammers are spamming to save the whales, they might get some coverage by the first amendment, but offering Tylenol as Viagra and pumping out misleading claims about your new acai product is commercial speech and not covered by the first amendment.
Rumpus: When you say “click on somebody’s profile,” you mean you save our viewing history? Employee: That’s right. How do you think we know who your best friends are? But that’s public knowledge; we’ve explicitly stated that we record that. If you look in your type-ahead search, and you press “A,” or just one letter, a list of your best friends shows up. It’s no longer organized alphabetically, but by the person you interact with most, your “best friends,” or at least those whom we have concluded you are best friends with.
This is rubbish, isn't it?
I've just typed "a" into the search box and it comes up with an alphabetical list of contacts. The first one happens to be someone whos profile I don't think I've ever clicked on.
I think it is, none of the people who responded to your post said anything that worked for me. I'm posting this redundant comment because I suspect a few dozen other people read your comment, tried the replies and didn't get anywhere trying to find this feature either.
And I've been waiting for this feature forever! When I want to find someone I have to scroll through three pages of people I haven't seen for years but don't want to delete because I might want to reconnect for some reason. I am so disappointed.
... Just be careful of what you write in profile...It's not like they are watching you from a satellite and posting pics of you every 5 mins without your consent, they publish what YOU publish.
I often talk about acquaintances on my profile who are careful on facebook or even those who never used facebook and tag embarrassing photos of them as well! I don't have a satellite cam, but if I did I would update those photos every five seconds. So, no matter how smart people are with facebook, their retard frienemies, like me, will be there violating their privacy.
Facebook publishes what EVERYONE publishes and further adds it to their database that stores it permanantly!
GP (modded 5 insightful) says there is no problem, just abstain from facebook and you'll be fine. Then the parent story shows that friends or others will upload photos of you, tag and discuss those photos whether or not you allow them to. Now you are in facebook's databases _forever_ even if you abstained from getting an account.
And that "Remove Tag" button just marks the tag as removed in the database. The tag is still sitting there for them to mine, you just can't see it anymore.
Yes, if facebook sells your deleted information to future emplyers that photo will be an embarrassment, but this photo will be tiny in comparison to the problems that will create.
This guy seems to be worried about a photo tagged without permission, which is easy to take care of on facebook, but near impossible on say flickr, or an enemies personal site.
Slashdot Mirror
It makes me wonder why the terrorists don't just blow up the people waiting to be scanned instead of trying to get onto the plane.
It makes me wonder too. Why don't they just blow up a church, mall or something else that infuriates they're crazy sensibilities and is completely insecure. They still go after planes (and rail sometimes). I theorize it's some kind of "see, your security can't stop us." Maybe they have some secret Quran passages in those caves that speak really badly about airplanes, but whatever it is, I don't think they will ever target those lines, no matter how many comments it is suggested in.
Why haven't we seen any expert analysis on this though?
...all done by Muslims...target the ones who are more likely to be terrorists, rather than wasting even more of everyone else's time in the name of "fairness".
I agree at first glance, but on later thought: "I'm sorry, Mohammed, but this job will require air travel and we just don't want the delays and searches of company equipment you'll entail. We'll have to hire John Smith here even though he's otherwise unqualified."
Certainly, however, the investigative bodies that should have nabbed the underwear bomber before he even got to the "random" searches can use non-random methods to search out people, but this will easily let the Mohamed I mentioned above be free of selected searches.
whats the big deal...stop raising nakedness onto such a high pedestal
Oh, I don't care about that whatsoever; I wander around the mens locker room with a bunch of naked guys and their kids at the gym. I have a feeling I'm not the only one who doesn't care. However, I'm not a fan of the security theater. I try to get people riled up and on my side with things that set me off like "intolerable inconvenience" and "wasted taxes" and nobody cares. Then some one says "naked" and everyone's all upset!
Well in that case: NAKED! There gonna make you NAKED! Exposed GENITALS! LUDENESS! PENIS SIZE isssues! KIDDY PORN! Did I mention NAKED?! Down with the security theater; it makes NAKED!
I didn't see anything in the article about hacking. It all looked like cracking to me.
I know, I bet the lumberjacks are pissed. They want their word back.
Seriously, hacking has many meanings. So do many words, just deal.
PCs running Windows 7 RC will automatically shut down every two hours. Those shutdowns will come without warning.
How am I supposed to tell if I have a paid version or not?
Got this right from the summery:
users are to receive warnings of the impending end.
Didn't even have to read the article.
Or you can pay for W7, but that would be too easy.
how do we disable it?
You can probably just set your clock back a few years. Maybe they've thought of that, but then again, maybe they haven't.
This device will be sold to people who are worried about potential problems
I was thinking the device would mainly be sold to geeks who can never have enough data. Though this will also be a detriment to health as we see how much we can screw with them.
"Those RedBulls kicked in precisely 20minutes after chugged them: look at my heart rate right here at 1:25!"
"Hey, look at my breathing change as I accelerated at 2:37.32 PM! Tomorrow I'll jump from higher and see what that does!"
If I were this guy, this would be my defense...
The Simpsons have existed for 20+ years. Yes, they may have childlike features, but they are all past the age of consent, even Maggie.
This is Australia silly; they're banning small breasts in porn because it looks like child porn. http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/
If you read that article, ANYTHING that resembles child porn to a child-porn-centered-classifier is illegal.
Of course, an angry person can calm down and get counseling.
And a pedophile can't? Counseling and self-help groups help alcoholics stay dry. Why can't they help pedophiles?
I disagree with the GP's statement to begin with. I was in anger counseling (as a kid, I grew up now) and I had lapses. The number of AA members who have lapses is astounding, its hard to find consistent statistics but its at least 50% (100% of those that I know). And as GP said: "We have yet to find a real way to change anyone's sexual attractions," and he's right. We've tried to counsel homosexuals for some time now, and we just can't seem to "cure" any but a small minority of them. The chances of lapses from pedophilia therapy sound intolerable to me.
The reason that nobody does anything to help pedophiles is that nobody wants to help them.
And people wont start wanting to help anytime soon. A freind of a friend of mine was caught with pornographic images of children on his computer (USA). My friend reacted exactly as I would have; he deleted every email he ever received from the guy and de-friended him on all social network sights so the FBI didn't have any continuing connections to monitor. Showing up at parties with a known pedo? A good way to defriend everyone you know with kids.
I just hope that society gets its act together before someone discovers a gene that might create a predisposition to pedophilia and the scaremongers start demanding a mandatory eugenics program to be instated.
I hope so too, I just don't see any solutions :(
I think you do have some insight there. The attempted suicide being illegal is not because we think depressed people are going to look over their local ordinances and see what their allowed to do, but because suicide attempters tend to be loud, obnoxious and unsuccessful with their supposed attempts and you need to be able to have them arrested for harrassment/blackmail/stress on the system or whatever.
Clinically assisted suicides once again brings in other people and laws are there to regulate what people do to eachother.
However, alone in a room suicide is fine by me, ditto with drawing stick figures.
> Do these elements show socialization skills? Cooperative ability? Evaluation of morals? Imagine if the prison ruled that all
> players must be Lawful Good.
Then players will secretly be chaotic evil, masquerading as lawful good. Let's see them stop that!
So they're all gonna RP paladins then, huh?
(Sorry, one too many run-ins with players & DMs who think "You stole a crust of bread from the garbage for your children? CRIMINAL! DIE!" is expected paladin behavior.)
GP said: "provided there's a good GM in charge of player role accuracy"
All of the DMs I've played with, who were concerned about role playing, have had reasonable views on the lawful good alignment. I'm sorry about your experiences though.
As a IT guy I hate being asked by a lay person "Do you understand what he's doing on that screen?" when we're watching some movie or TV show with a completely fake UI on some computer.
I love that question.
Especially after watching swordfish, I like to start every answer with "She's using a multi-headed hydra to...bs...bs...I have to do it all the time."
Which they follow with, "Wow, your so smart" if they ever want their computer fixed again.
Another commentator pointed out that if they get your name right, people can group your photos, for example by googling you:
http://images.google.com/images?imgtbs=s&hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS354US354&um=1&sa=1&q=%22Mathias+Smith%22+site:facebook.com&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&start=0
Not as easy as friending you and clicking on "view photos of Mathias", but worrying, especially considering that that data is there forever and better data mining may be applied in the future.
Freedom of speech does not cover commercial speech...freedom of speech does not give people the right to harass me
Freedom of speech does cover ALL speech...
Just to be clear, I'm talking about the US where this decision took place.
I respect your idealism but it is not currently reflected in US law and case history. The banning of telivised tobacco adds, do not call lists and restraining orders to stop email contact are a few examples. Further, you can see many people such as myself think this is a good thing (to some degree).
The slippery slope of "mommy government wiping your inbox hole" (though quite clever) has been going for over a century, the consequences are currently being felt with cases like this.
$54k could easily be paid in a structured settlement.
Remember alot of the ./ community are youngens who went to college and now owe around that amount in loans to pay off; we'll owe more when the interest piles up.
Actually stealing news dreamed up by others via twitter and facebook.
The idea being to show whether those dreams are reliable.
How many times do I have to post this comment?
First, Freedom of speech does not cover commercial speech. If spammers are sending spam to save the whales they might get some protection, but as long as they are advertising they have to deal with the laws regarding commercial speech.
Second, freedom of speech does not give people the right to harass me. I don't want unsolicited advertising, I can get restraining orders on anyone in RL to stop them from following me around begging me to give them money. Do not call lists, spam acts, etc, are there to protect me from being harassed by companies doing this to me with modern technology. If spammers want to spam each other anonymously, they can go do that, but when they harass me, it is no longer within their rights.
Spam IMO is illegal, private companies and individuals do not have the resources to stop it and so we have government intervention. I for one am not worried about spammers rights and thank my government for protecting mine.
Meh, the whole article is irrelevant. Once it gets to the Supreme Court, they'll just say we're restricting spammers' freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is quite different from commercial speech.
If spammers are spamming to save the whales, they might get some coverage by the first amendment, but offering Tylenol as Viagra and pumping out misleading claims about your new acai product is commercial speech and not covered by the first amendment.
Rumpus: When you say “click on somebody’s profile,” you mean you save our viewing history?
Employee: That’s right. How do you think we know who your best friends are? But that’s public knowledge; we’ve explicitly stated that we record that. If you look in your type-ahead search, and you press “A,” or just one letter, a list of your best friends shows up. It’s no longer organized alphabetically, but by the person you interact with most, your “best friends,” or at least those whom we have concluded you are best friends with.
This is rubbish, isn't it?
I've just typed "a" into the search box and it comes up with an alphabetical list of contacts. The first one happens to be someone whos profile I don't think I've ever clicked on.
I think it is, none of the people who responded to your post said anything that worked for me. I'm posting this redundant comment because I suspect a few dozen other people read your comment, tried the replies and didn't get anywhere trying to find this feature either.
And I've been waiting for this feature forever! When I want to find someone I have to scroll through three pages of people I haven't seen for years but don't want to delete because I might want to reconnect for some reason. I am so disappointed.
... Just be careful of what you write in profile...It's not like they are watching you from a satellite and posting pics of you every 5 mins without your consent, they publish what YOU publish.
I often talk about acquaintances on my profile who are careful on facebook or even those who never used facebook and tag embarrassing photos of them as well! I don't have a satellite cam, but if I did I would update those photos every five seconds. So, no matter how smart people are with facebook, their retard frienemies, like me, will be there violating their privacy.
Facebook publishes what EVERYONE publishes and further adds it to their database that stores it permanantly!
GP (modded 5 insightful) says there is no problem, just abstain from facebook and you'll be fine. Then the parent story shows that friends or others will upload photos of you, tag and discuss those photos whether or not you allow them to. Now you are in facebook's databases _forever_ even if you abstained from getting an account.
So I have to be on facebook to stop my friends/enemies/frenemies from tagging me in photos?
And that "Remove Tag" button just marks the tag as removed in the database. The tag is still sitting there for them to mine, you just can't see it anymore.
Yes, if facebook sells your deleted information to future emplyers that photo will be an embarrassment, but this photo will be tiny in comparison to the problems that will create.
This guy seems to be worried about a photo tagged without permission, which is easy to take care of on facebook, but near impossible on say flickr, or an enemies personal site.
The article clearly states that the information - six copies of the photo - remain in Facebook's system forever. But this being /. you didn't read TFA.
Only 20% of microfleems are subradiante! Did you know that? This being ./ your not very well read.