Thank you, Capt. Obvious. Everyone is aware that it's against the TOS. People don't think it should be. Moreover, It's Google's irrationally and unreasonably extreme enforcement of this term that's causing controversy. It's creepy how desperate Google is becoming and how low they're willing to go to bully you into giving accurate personal information for them to mine.
Personally I like that they're being strict about these things and that the same rules apply to Joe User and Big Boss Hoss. Of course Google needs to fix the access to their other services when they block someone from Google+, but I'm quite certain they're already working on it.
Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago
on
3D Hurts Your Eyes
·
· Score: 1
At any point before motion pictures did anyone's eyes have to watch still images and pretend they were moving?
I'll just pop in to say one thing: it's not the eyes that pretend anything, it's the brain. Watching a still picture is physically absolutely no different from watching a series of pictures as long as they change fast enough; eye doesn't move, eye doesn't change focus, the muscles don't need to do anything at all that is different from watching a still image. It's the brains that interpret the changing scene the eye sees as movement.
Now, comparing that to 3D there actually _are_ physical differences, not just mental ones; the eyes do have to keep moving, changing focus, sometimes even moving in non-parallel motion, and eyes are trying to focus on something that seems to be far away even when it's all the time at exactly same distance. This all causes a lot more strain on the muscles in the eye than would otherwise happen.
Ie. you're comparing apples and oranges. I won't take part here in if it's a good thing or a bad thing that people watch 3D, I just wished to point out the fallacy in your argument.
BTW, Apple batteries have had firmware for the last 10-15 years, so your info is a little late.
It's not the issue of there being firmware, it's the issue of the said firmware being rewriteable through software without any kind of physical interaction needed.
Is it just me or are these lawsuits just getting more and more ridiculous? What will it take before patent laws are thrown out the window and replaced with something sane?
I'd say be very afraid of what you're asking for. If (and when?) the patents system gets overhauled I can definitely see MAFIAA trying to push for the possibility of patenting plot items, filming and instrument-playing techniques, certain tunes and so on. They won't get everything through, but they MOST DEFINITELY will get something through, and that's when the sh*t really hits the fan.
I'm surprised to see Wikipedia listed as "social media".
Why is that? Because it doesn't encourage direct user(s) to user(s) communication?
After all, all content on Wikipedia is built from the ground-up by users, all of which can also be edited by users, and thus gets shared with everyone. That makes it social.
Basically it all boils down to how you define social media and atleast IMHO 'social media' doesn't mean it has to be real-time, interactive and encourage direct communication; non-interactive and indirect communication from group(s) to group(s) is enough.
However If I was a general in the empire I would just use explosives, like a grenades.
Considering how often the troops shoot half a mile in the wrong direction you should also have them have some shooting lessons. I mean, a grenade is powerful, but the troops would be most likely to drop them behind their backs when trying to throw.
Why is it considered an obvious need that the TSA continue using these devices? They've cost the U.S. tens of millions of dollars and so far I haven't heard of them actually having stopped any real terrorist, in fact they've just made it even easier for people and TSA employees to steal stuff from fellow travelers.
Have these things stopped any actual terrorism attempt? And if so, was the attempt sophisticated enough that it wouldn't have been noticed otherwise?
What's more, you'd have to be sharing your bluetooth id AND the attacker would have to be within range of your signal.
Many laptops for example share their bluetooth ID by default, and Joe User won't be aware of it or even know why it matters.
Secondly, Internet cafes, libraries, trains, etc... all are places where people often whip out their laptops. And if you happen to be living in flats you most likely ARE within range of atleast a few of your neighbours' devices. Atleast I often see 4-8 bluetooth devices that aren't mine, they're usually from the apartments above and below.
I personally feel that those who criticise privacy advocates are secretly ashamed of not being interesting and can't bear that there are many people out there doing things where adequate anonymity is the difference between success and detainment. There's also a bit of languor in there: "I'm so lazy I need targeted adverts to choose what I want."
I personally criticise overly zealous advocates. So far I have not seen Google misuse the data they have obtained and thus I feel quite secure using their products. And I feel many of those advocates just think too much of themselves and believe their lives are so interesting to other people that they need to hide themselves.
As for the "I'm so lazy I need targeted adverts to choose what I want.": I use Adblock so I don't see those ads anyways, targeted or not.
No, it's not free at all. You just don't pay with money, you pay with your information. Come back when they have an EULA that says "You as a member of Google+ own everything that you submit to us" (as it should be).
What if the information they gain simply isn't worth protecting or that the gains outweigh the cons? I personally couldn't care less if Google learns more about my shopping habits, for example, and it's something I would even just tell straight to them if they just asked me.
I personally feel you "privacy advocates" are just plain too paranoid.
Tell me, what have you ever done in terms of standing up for what you believe in that could risk a long jail term?
Standing up for something doesn't mean one has to do something illegal or grieve innocent bystanders. It's EASY to start doing illegal shit when you're also doing it anonymously. It's a lot harder standing up for something when you have to do it legally and with your real name.
Aside from doxing Arizona law enforcement, what harm did they really cause?
They released a lot of information about completely innocent people, including real names, passwords, street addresses, phone numbers and so on. That is already enough for a competent person to perform identity fraud. Especially the one website where most users were older age; you can't expect the elderly to be able to cope with the information overload of Internet and pick up good security practices, so LulzSec placing the blame on them was a seriously ignorant move.
Or what, you don't think releasing such is harming anyone?
Maybe 90%... you wouldn't want to operate machinery
I can tell you've never hung out with machinists. Smoking pot doesn't affect your ability to operate machinery any more than it affects your ability to play Street Fighter or Call of Duty.
The few potheads I've seen who have been smoking pot more-or-less on a daily basis for several years are themselves rather definite proof that smoking pot DOES affect your ability to, well, do almost anything.
Being a female gamer myself I gotta say I really agree with your post. Especially "I personally think any lack of women in gaming (which I've not observed, lots of women play games in my experience) is more cultural/mindset than anything else. Women feel like gaming is not something they should do, so they don't. That isn't the sort of thing different kinds of games really can fix." seems to me to be the single biggest obstacle. Even among my friends I have girls who simply don't play games because "it's a guy thing."
I personally have never really cared about conforming to social standards or other people's opinions so I've been a happy camper myself. 2 of my ex-girlfriends and the current one are all gamers themselves too, and all happen to be of the type who doesn't follow fashion and trends and don't really care that much about what other women think of them. That to me seems quite a clear indicator that it's all about the society.
I'm somehow not at all surpised to see Adobe, Microsoft, Apple and HP servers marked as BAD on that list. What is surprising however is the low number of sites marked as GOOD. Don't admins follow IT security news, are they only given 2 minutes a year to restart the server and/or services, or are they just incompetent?
Ok, so even though I'm a programmer, when I started reaading the article, I was really thinking this was about a vermin hunter, someone who rids people's houses of infestations of insects or something like that... Am I the only one?
No, you aren't. I just thought about someone going Terminator-on-your-ass on cockroaches or something before I read the submission itself.
If you want an iPad-like experience then OBVIOUSLY iPad is the way to go. Vice versa, if you want an Android experience Galaxy Tab 10.1 is a very good, solid choice.
Children in school yards are easy targets for rifles.
Childrens' hyperactive and erratic nature in school yards combined with their relatively small stature makes them rather difficult targets for rifles.
Adults in suits and lazy gamers make much easier targets.
Well, to be honest, throwing candy bags which you've just injected with rat poison or something using an injection needle -- would leave only a negligibly small hole and thus be really easy to miss -- would work wonders.
But well, that's besides the point. I personally agree with what was said a few comments up: just because something is easy it doesn't somehow become the right thing to do. Killing is easy. Harassing others is easy. Damaging property when there's no one around to stop you is easy. And you're still a douche if you do any of those. I'll be glad when lulzsec gets taken down.
I heartily agree. I just ordered my very first Android device -- an Acer Iconia Tab A500 -- a few days ago, and I've been thinking that I really need to install an antivirus just because I can't trust even the official Android Market to provide me with malware-free software:/ It's really disconcerting, even to a geek. Just imagine how disconcerting it'll be to the not-technologically-savvy people if they heard how often there's malware there.
I personally think Google really, really needs to stop accepting everything and sets up an app review process. Yes, it will create a delay, and if Google doesn't hire enough competent people to do that there'll sooner or later be a big backlog on things to do, but... well, for the end-user even that is better than the risk of getting 'that something extra' with your downloads.
That's exactly what I thought. Apple most likely has already made a deal with MAFIAA et. al. that whenever Apple runs into tags like "riPpeD by AsTROturF" it's a definite proof that it's an unlicensed copy and they'll submit the tags, filename and the person the files belong to to MAFIAA. Most people don't realize that these rippers almost always leave a tag of their own behind for some unfathomable reason, and thus when these people upload their files somewhere they're just exposing themselves to legal proceedings.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you, Capt. Obvious. Everyone is aware that it's against the TOS. People don't think it should be. Moreover, It's Google's irrationally and unreasonably extreme enforcement of this term that's causing controversy. It's creepy how desperate Google is becoming and how low they're willing to go to bully you into giving accurate personal information for them to mine.
Personally I like that they're being strict about these things and that the same rules apply to Joe User and Big Boss Hoss. Of course Google needs to fix the access to their other services when they block someone from Google+, but I'm quite certain they're already working on it.
At any point before motion pictures did anyone's eyes have to watch still images and pretend they were moving?
I'll just pop in to say one thing: it's not the eyes that pretend anything, it's the brain. Watching a still picture is physically absolutely no different from watching a series of pictures as long as they change fast enough; eye doesn't move, eye doesn't change focus, the muscles don't need to do anything at all that is different from watching a still image. It's the brains that interpret the changing scene the eye sees as movement.
Now, comparing that to 3D there actually _are_ physical differences, not just mental ones; the eyes do have to keep moving, changing focus, sometimes even moving in non-parallel motion, and eyes are trying to focus on something that seems to be far away even when it's all the time at exactly same distance. This all causes a lot more strain on the muscles in the eye than would otherwise happen.
Ie. you're comparing apples and oranges. I won't take part here in if it's a good thing or a bad thing that people watch 3D, I just wished to point out the fallacy in your argument.
How's this for consistency: I'm a failure even on Google+! I only have 1 friend there and no one else :D
BTW, Apple batteries have had firmware for the last 10-15 years, so your info is a little late.
It's not the issue of there being firmware, it's the issue of the said firmware being rewriteable through software without any kind of physical interaction needed.
Is it just me or are these lawsuits just getting more and more ridiculous? What will it take before patent laws are thrown out the window and replaced with something sane?
I'd say be very afraid of what you're asking for. If (and when?) the patents system gets overhauled I can definitely see MAFIAA trying to push for the possibility of patenting plot items, filming and instrument-playing techniques, certain tunes and so on. They won't get everything through, but they MOST DEFINITELY will get something through, and that's when the sh*t really hits the fan.
I'm surprised to see Wikipedia listed as "social media".
Why is that? Because it doesn't encourage direct user(s) to user(s) communication?
After all, all content on Wikipedia is built from the ground-up by users, all of which can also be edited by users, and thus gets shared with everyone. That makes it social.
Basically it all boils down to how you define social media and atleast IMHO 'social media' doesn't mean it has to be real-time, interactive and encourage direct communication; non-interactive and indirect communication from group(s) to group(s) is enough.
However If I was a general in the empire I would just use explosives, like a grenades.
Considering how often the troops shoot half a mile in the wrong direction you should also have them have some shooting lessons. I mean, a grenade is powerful, but the troops would be most likely to drop them behind their backs when trying to throw.
Why is it considered an obvious need that the TSA continue using these devices? They've cost the U.S. tens of millions of dollars and so far I haven't heard of them actually having stopped any real terrorist, in fact they've just made it even easier for people and TSA employees to steal stuff from fellow travelers.
Have these things stopped any actual terrorism attempt? And if so, was the attempt sophisticated enough that it wouldn't have been noticed otherwise?
What's more, you'd have to be sharing your bluetooth id AND the attacker would have to be within range of your signal.
Many laptops for example share their bluetooth ID by default, and Joe User won't be aware of it or even know why it matters.
Secondly, Internet cafes, libraries, trains, etc... all are places where people often whip out their laptops. And if you happen to be living in flats you most likely ARE within range of atleast a few of your neighbours' devices. Atleast I often see 4-8 bluetooth devices that aren't mine, they're usually from the apartments above and below.
Right, you pair the devices, then you set it to hidden.
Unfortunately, you can get infected already during that moment.
I personally feel that those who criticise privacy advocates are secretly ashamed of not being interesting and can't bear that there are many people out there doing things where adequate anonymity is the difference between success and detainment. There's also a bit of languor in there: "I'm so lazy I need targeted adverts to choose what I want."
I personally criticise overly zealous advocates. So far I have not seen Google misuse the data they have obtained and thus I feel quite secure using their products. And I feel many of those advocates just think too much of themselves and believe their lives are so interesting to other people that they need to hide themselves.
As for the "I'm so lazy I need targeted adverts to choose what I want.": I use Adblock so I don't see those ads anyways, targeted or not.
No, it's not free at all. You just don't pay with money, you pay with your information. Come back when they have an EULA that says "You as a member of Google+ own everything that you submit to us" (as it should be).
What if the information they gain simply isn't worth protecting or that the gains outweigh the cons? I personally couldn't care less if Google learns more about my shopping habits, for example, and it's something I would even just tell straight to them if they just asked me.
I personally feel you "privacy advocates" are just plain too paranoid.
Tell me, what have you ever done in terms of standing up for what you believe in that could risk a long jail term?
Standing up for something doesn't mean one has to do something illegal or grieve innocent bystanders. It's EASY to start doing illegal shit when you're also doing it anonymously. It's a lot harder standing up for something when you have to do it legally and with your real name.
Ergo, your argument clearly falls on its face.
But they didn't. Sony did that, as a knee-jerk reaction. Don't blame LulzSec for Sony's ill-considered response.
Wait, knocking a MMO offline because they partnered with Sony is okay, because Sony did it first? What kind of argument is that!?
A strawman argument.
Aside from doxing Arizona law enforcement, what harm did they really cause?
They released a lot of information about completely innocent people, including real names, passwords, street addresses, phone numbers and so on. That is already enough for a competent person to perform identity fraud. Especially the one website where most users were older age; you can't expect the elderly to be able to cope with the information overload of Internet and pick up good security practices, so LulzSec placing the blame on them was a seriously ignorant move.
Or what, you don't think releasing such is harming anyone?
Maybe 90%... you wouldn't want to operate machinery
I can tell you've never hung out with machinists. Smoking pot doesn't affect your ability to operate machinery any more than it affects your ability to play Street Fighter or Call of Duty.
The few potheads I've seen who have been smoking pot more-or-less on a daily basis for several years are themselves rather definite proof that smoking pot DOES affect your ability to, well, do almost anything.
Android App Quality Pathetically Low SaysDeveloper
Title Quality Pathetically Low, Says Commenter.
Both are correct, though.
Being a female gamer myself I gotta say I really agree with your post. Especially "I personally think any lack of women in gaming (which I've not observed, lots of women play games in my experience) is more cultural/mindset than anything else. Women feel like gaming is not something they should do, so they don't. That isn't the sort of thing different kinds of games really can fix." seems to me to be the single biggest obstacle. Even among my friends I have girls who simply don't play games because "it's a guy thing."
I personally have never really cared about conforming to social standards or other people's opinions so I've been a happy camper myself. 2 of my ex-girlfriends and the current one are all gamers themselves too, and all happen to be of the type who doesn't follow fashion and trends and don't really care that much about what other women think of them. That to me seems quite a clear indicator that it's all about the society.
I'm somehow not at all surpised to see Adobe, Microsoft, Apple and HP servers marked as BAD on that list. What is surprising however is the low number of sites marked as GOOD. Don't admins follow IT security news, are they only given 2 minutes a year to restart the server and/or services, or are they just incompetent?
Ok, so even though I'm a programmer, when I started reaading the article, I was really thinking this was about a vermin hunter, someone who rids people's houses of infestations of insects or something like that... Am I the only one?
No, you aren't. I just thought about someone going Terminator-on-your-ass on cockroaches or something before I read the submission itself.
If you want an iPad-like experience then OBVIOUSLY iPad is the way to go. Vice versa, if you want an Android experience Galaxy Tab 10.1 is a very good, solid choice.
Sheer flamebait article.
*makes a waving motion with her hand* These are not the droids you are looking for.
Children in school yards are easy targets for rifles.
Childrens' hyperactive and erratic nature in school yards combined with their relatively small stature makes them rather difficult targets for rifles.
Adults in suits and lazy gamers make much easier targets.
Well, to be honest, throwing candy bags which you've just injected with rat poison or something using an injection needle -- would leave only a negligibly small hole and thus be really easy to miss -- would work wonders.
But well, that's besides the point. I personally agree with what was said a few comments up: just because something is easy it doesn't somehow become the right thing to do. Killing is easy. Harassing others is easy. Damaging property when there's no one around to stop you is easy. And you're still a douche if you do any of those. I'll be glad when lulzsec gets taken down.
I heartily agree. I just ordered my very first Android device -- an Acer Iconia Tab A500 -- a few days ago, and I've been thinking that I really need to install an antivirus just because I can't trust even the official Android Market to provide me with malware-free software :/ It's really disconcerting, even to a geek. Just imagine how disconcerting it'll be to the not-technologically-savvy people if they heard how often there's malware there.
I personally think Google really, really needs to stop accepting everything and sets up an app review process. Yes, it will create a delay, and if Google doesn't hire enough competent people to do that there'll sooner or later be a big backlog on things to do, but... well, for the end-user even that is better than the risk of getting 'that something extra' with your downloads.
That's exactly what I thought. Apple most likely has already made a deal with MAFIAA et. al. that whenever Apple runs into tags like "riPpeD by AsTROturF" it's a definite proof that it's an unlicensed copy and they'll submit the tags, filename and the person the files belong to to MAFIAA. Most people don't realize that these rippers almost always leave a tag of their own behind for some unfathomable reason, and thus when these people upload their files somewhere they're just exposing themselves to legal proceedings.