Does it really matter? The amount of effort required to look into ONE person in footage is huge. Stop being so paranoid everyone. If they looked at footage of me they would see a guy walking down the street..WOW. sometimes I think people are concerned over things like this far to much. Just live your life and chill out!
When did I say you can't point something out? Answer: Never. I merely pointed out that criticism without offering alternative suggestions make you look like a bitchy dickhead, and I stand by that conclusion.
OK, without looking like a bitchy dick head then. Which should have been pretty obviously meant by "can't", since clearly a person can physically say something, it's the saying without being considered an arrogant prick or a bitchy dickhead or whatever insult you want to use next time.
Goalposts - moved.
Look, it's really, really simple, so much so I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would have so much trouble understanding, other than willful ignorance:
"Just because you can't think of a reason doesn't mean there isn't one." - egocentric dickhead.
"Just because you can't think of a reason doesn't mean there isn't one... such as [insert example here]." - not an egocentric dickhead.
If you still don't see the difference, you may want to take a good, hard, introspective look at yourself... or start taking ESL classes, 'cuz obviously it ain't your first.
Of course you find someone pointing out a logical problem with an argument as being arrogant and bitchy, you much prefer the "eye roll and/or derisive laughter" response.
Speaking of arrogant, reread the post you responded to - you were so busy making sure you were thoroughly offended by my words you failed to notice that particular response was directed at the person making the logical fallacy, not the one pointing it out; hell, I'll save you the trouble of having to scroll up:
Of course, by responding to the statement "I know X =Y because I can't think of a reason for X !=Y" with anything other than an eye roll and/or derisive laugh,
I.e., the person making the logical fallacy is the one who should be responded to with derision. But please, feel free to continue misinterpreting my words to satisfy your own egotism. It entertains me.
Also, can you point out where the original post was fawning over how awesome they think themselves?
Well, unless your statement
Arrogance is good at making people stupid.
was self-directed, I would consider that a fine example.
Where did I say all riots since in recorded history were caused by cellphones?
You didn't; neither did I. Where's that even come from?
The GP asked for a legitimate scenario for the need to cut off cellular communication. I gave one, and the only counter you can come up with is a strawman consisting of a link to Wikipedia. Nice.
No, you didn't. You gave an example of an event you believe was aggravated by cell phones; I provided evidence that such events have occured, repeatedly, throughout history, long before the advent of the cell phone.
In fact, I posit that the damage in the London riot you mentioned would have been far worse if not for cell phones - kind of hard to chuck a molly through a shop window when you're busy updating your Twitter and Facebook feeds.
So in order for me to point out that just because someone can't think of a reason doe something doesn't mean there isn't one they haven't thought of you require that I know one myself? That's a mightly strange restriction to have.
When did I say you can't point something out? Answer: Never. I merely pointed out that criticism without offering alternative suggestions make you look like a bitchy dickhead, and I stand by that conclusion.
OK, I added the 'bitchy' this time, but it applies, so what the hell.
So if someone was to claim "I know P!=NP because I can't think of any reasons for P to equal NP", then nobody can reply with "Just because you can't think of any doesn't mean there isn't one" unless they also provide a proof that P=NP?
Oh, someone could give that response, and to that person I would reply, "Well thanks there, Captain Obvious... almost didn't recognize you without the mask and cape." Of course, by responding to the statement "I know X =Y because I can't think of a reason for X !=Y" with anything other than an eye roll and/or derisive laugh, you're fucking up IMO.
Seriously, do you really think you're providing any new or useful information by pointing out the obvious? 'Dur, gee, I hadn't thought of the fact that there might be things I hadn't thought of; whatever would society do without Oxford scholars such as yourself?' Get over yourself, man, people like you only say shit like that so you can provoke a response and thus validate your existence. Congratulations, you got what you wanted; now do us all a favor and jog on.
Must be really hard to communicate under the restrictions that exist in your world.
With ego-maniacal narcissists, yes.
Saves me the trouble of having to listen to them fawn over how awesome they think themselves.
So... publicly, they are against software patents, yet they still hold many?
Isn't that kind of like the owner of a slaughterhouse speaking our publicly against eating meat? Doesn't matter what they say in public, they're still contributing to the problem they claim to be against.
Since software patents are, unfortunately, allowed in the US I'd say it's better to secure as many as you can, even if you're against them. Otherwise, your competitors (which are clearly pro-patent litigation) will grab them eventually and you'll have a much harder time in court when they sue you. This is basic common sense.
What you're saying is equivalent to saying that only murderers should own guns. You can clearly be against murderers and still own a gun. Cops needs guns in order to effectively fight murderers. In fact, this is a much better analogy.
Yea, ok, that's reasonable; accepted.
FTFY. Incidentally, Google-owned/originated patents have been used by handset manufacturers to sue... well, Apple, mainly.
On the positive side, at least I'm just another ill-informed consumer, as opposed to a paid shill.
I honestly don't understand what you were implying by linking to my profile. If you go and read my posts you'll basically see a lot of stuff about Brazil, because that's where I'm from. I occasionally comment on other technology and random subjects as well.
Because as I read through the list of comments you've made, I noticed a fair amount (not a lot, but certainly not zero) of posts in which you make misinformed statements and promote FUD (albeit unknowingly for the most part, I'm certain).
Always good to make sure your own house is clean before pointing out the mud on your neighbor's floor, you know?
Am I a paid shill from the Brazilian Govt. trying to spread information about the country on a "News for Nerds" board?
Eh, I was afraid the way I worded that would lead to misinterpretation: I wasn't referring to you in any way in making that statement, that was totally a self-deprecating remark. Sorry for the confusion.
I better go collect my payment then, before a corrupt politician robs it first...
LOL, in "capitalist" Amerika, corrupt banker robs you... then pays off the politicians.
"Constructive criticism" is a term invented to deflect actual criticism by denying it's validity. It's a touchy-feely term that allows those being criticized to ignore actual criticism. It's bullshit I don't buy into.
Actually, it's the difference between, "That's a stupid idea," and "That's a stupid idea, let me help you make it better." You can try and write it off as "touchy-feely" socialism, or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact you're coming across as an idea-less asshole with nothing better to do than bitch about other people's work.
Here's a thought - instead of droning on about how you think they've done it wrong, try giving your idea of how to do it right.
There's sufficient information in my critique to allow anyone with an IQ above room temperature to derive the flaws and see what corrective action is required.
... which is apparently beyond your own reasoning capabilities? I don't buy that shit for a second, yo.
it's not like that's some special power that only you possess; opinions are like assholes - everybody's got one, and most of them smell like shit. Few people have the intellect/creativity/hojos/etc to actually do something about it other than bitch.
Just because you're ignorant, doesn't mean other people are. That you can't recognize the difference between a valid critique and mere "bitching" is your own failure.
Personal attacks and strawmen get you nowhere with me, dude. Besides, the only reason you find your critique to be valid is because it's your critique... which is quite ironic, if you think about it, since here you are attacking me for doing the same thing to you that you've done to others. Hypocritical much?
Point being, pissing and moaning about the shortcomings of others does nothing to better the situation, so why engage in such pointless negativity, other than to hear the sound of your own voice?
This from you? You really are a piece of work indeed. You honestly think I that only to hear the sound of my own voice? You're even more ignorant than I believed.
Aww, tiny baby get his butt hurt by someone else's criticism? Well, let me pull out my 20nm violin, so I can play you the saddest song in the world...
The lessons for you to take from this are - criticism is nothing but egotism unless you're offering valid alternatives, and of course, don't dish it out if you can't take it.
So basically, since *you* can't imagine a scenario where it would be appropriate, that means there is no such scenario in existance. Kind of like how if someone can't imaging how life could evolved with such complexity, then that means it had to have been made by a God.
Well, youcould suggest a scenario yourself... or, you know, continue being a dickhead for no good reason.
That I can't do better doesn't mean I can't recognize when they're done badly.
Perhaps, but it's not like that's some special power that only you possess; opinions are like assholes - everybody's got one, and most of them smell like shit. Few people have the intellect/creativity/hojos/etc to actually do something about it other than bitch. In the words of John Mason Brown,
“The critic is a man who prefers the indolence of opinion to the trials of action.”
Point being, pissing and moaning about the shortcomings of others does nothing to better the situation, so why engage in such pointless negativity, other than to hear the sound of your own voice? Here's a thought - instead of droning on about how you think they've done it wrong, try giving your idea of how to do it right.
They only use their own patents defensively and have spoken in public they're against software patents.
So... publicly, they are against software patents, yet they still hold many?
Isn't that kind of like the owner of a slaughterhouse speaking our publicly against eating meat? Doesn't matter what they say in public, they're still contributing to the problem they claim to be against.
Google has not yet directly sued anyone for patent infringement.
FTFY. Incidentally, Google-owned/originated patents have been used by handset manufacturers to sue... well, Apple, mainly.
In all fairness, though, this 'new' research doesn't so much offer an explanation as a different theory than that derived from previous research. The use of indefinite terms (such as " backflow may amplify") indicate to me the questionably validity of their 'results.' The day "may" and "could" equate to "will" and "does" is the day I turn in my skeptic's credentials.
Not to mention one of the team being quoted as “Unless you have little green men from mars doing this on the quiet, it must be storm waves,” which I read as "If you don't believe I'm right you're an idiotic nutcase." Sorry, Charlie, I don't buy that line of 'reasoning,' especially from someone who considers themselves a scientists.
1. Student racks up gov't loan debt going to school; plans to pay debt back by getting a good job with their degree;
2. Gov't loan shark prevents student from either finishing their education or getting a job to pay loan back with;
3. Student has no other option than to take minimum wage shit jobs that don't pay enough for them to live on, let alone pay back the loan, so they are forced to (say it with me):
Be on welfare.
Indentured servitude, my ass, this is a blatant attempt to enslave the populace, and I for one will tolerate no part of it.
One poster mentioned something about it being used because there wasn't an ASCII character for the British unit of currency, but that explanation doesn't really fit this particular situation; Here in the US, Bell Labs (the "mafia enforcer" wing of Ma Bell's telco monopoly, back in the day), always referred to it as a "pound" sign for reasons I don't really care enough to find out...
Probably just another piece of tech stolen by laying siege to a small town university, like they did with touch-tones.
This is google's direct chance to get the whole software -> patents thing invalidated. Many have been unwilling to fight for getting such a ruling, but I would bet a lot of money on google setting this up to invalidate patents on software.
Google uses those same laws to fuck their own competitors as well, and thus has little incentive to get anything changed.
As much as I would like to see such a ruling myself, I highly doubt any large corporation would be championing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it really matter? The amount of effort required to look into ONE person in footage is huge. Stop being so paranoid everyone. If they looked at footage of me they would see a guy walking down the street..WOW. sometimes I think people are concerned over things like this far to much. Just live your life and chill out!
Yea, it's not like there's advanced recognition software they could be using; nor does the military ever, I dunno, mistake cameras for guns and blow away innocent journalists.
Ignorance is Strength
exactly how often is the air force accidentally spying on us?
Sorry, citizen, that's classified.
OK, without looking like a bitchy dick head then. Which should have been pretty obviously meant by "can't", since clearly a person can physically say something, it's the saying without being considered an arrogant prick or a bitchy dickhead or whatever insult you want to use next time.
Goalposts - moved.
Look, it's really, really simple, so much so I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would have so much trouble understanding, other than willful ignorance:
"Just because you can't think of a reason doesn't mean there isn't one." - egocentric dickhead.
"Just because you can't think of a reason doesn't mean there isn't one... such as [insert example here]." - not an egocentric dickhead.
If you still don't see the difference, you may want to take a good, hard, introspective look at yourself... or start taking ESL classes, 'cuz obviously it ain't your first.
Of course you find someone pointing out a logical problem with an argument as being arrogant and bitchy, you much prefer the "eye roll and/or derisive laughter" response.
Speaking of arrogant, reread the post you responded to - you were so busy making sure you were thoroughly offended by my words you failed to notice that particular response was directed at the person making the logical fallacy, not the one pointing it out; hell, I'll save you the trouble of having to scroll up:
I.e., the person making the logical fallacy is the one who should be responded to with derision. But please, feel free to continue misinterpreting my words to satisfy your own egotism. It entertains me.
Also, can you point out where the original post was fawning over how awesome they think themselves?
Well, unless your statement
was self-directed, I would consider that a fine example.
Where did I say all riots since in recorded history were caused by cellphones?
You didn't; neither did I. Where's that even come from?
The GP asked for a legitimate scenario for the need to cut off cellular communication. I gave one, and the only counter you can come up with is a strawman consisting of a link to Wikipedia. Nice.
No, you didn't. You gave an example of an event you believe was aggravated by cell phones; I provided evidence that such events have occured, repeatedly, throughout history, long before the advent of the cell phone.
In fact, I posit that the damage in the London riot you mentioned would have been far worse if not for cell phones - kind of hard to chuck a molly through a shop window when you're busy updating your Twitter and Facebook feeds.
Trial by observing the ritual combat of lawyers beats the hell out of the alternative.
The mental image this phrase invokes...
Laughing
My
Ass
Off
So in order for me to point out that just because someone can't think of a reason doe something doesn't mean there isn't one they haven't thought of you require that I know one myself? That's a mightly strange restriction to have.
When did I say you can't point something out? Answer: Never. I merely pointed out that criticism without offering alternative suggestions make you look like a bitchy dickhead, and I stand by that conclusion.
OK, I added the 'bitchy' this time, but it applies, so what the hell.
So if someone was to claim "I know P!=NP because I can't think of any reasons for P to equal NP", then nobody can reply with "Just because you can't think of any doesn't mean there isn't one" unless they also provide a proof that P=NP?
Oh, someone could give that response, and to that person I would reply, "Well thanks there, Captain Obvious... almost didn't recognize you without the mask and cape." Of course, by responding to the statement "I know X =Y because I can't think of a reason for X !=Y" with anything other than an eye roll and/or derisive laugh, you're fucking up IMO.
Seriously, do you really think you're providing any new or useful information by pointing out the obvious? 'Dur, gee, I hadn't thought of the fact that there might be things I hadn't thought of; whatever would society do without Oxford scholars such as yourself?' Get over yourself, man, people like you only say shit like that so you can provoke a response and thus validate your existence. Congratulations, you got what you wanted; now do us all a favor and jog on.
Must be really hard to communicate under the restrictions that exist in your world.
With ego-maniacal narcissists, yes.
Saves me the trouble of having to listen to them fawn over how awesome they think themselves.
Nah, bored now, moving on to something else...
Hell did you see that doing so cut off police, fire, and medical response radio as well? What the hell, BART!?
Yea, that kinda blows the whole "public safety" lie out of the water, doesn't it?
Riots don't need cell phones to spread.
Not to mention the countless methods that require no communication device whatsoever.
So... publicly, they are against software patents, yet they still hold many?
Isn't that kind of like the owner of a slaughterhouse speaking our publicly against eating meat? Doesn't matter what they say in public, they're still contributing to the problem they claim to be against.
Since software patents are, unfortunately, allowed in the US I'd say it's better to secure as many as you can, even if you're against them. Otherwise, your competitors (which are clearly pro-patent litigation) will grab them eventually and you'll have a much harder time in court when they sue you. This is basic common sense.
What you're saying is equivalent to saying that only murderers should own guns. You can clearly be against murderers and still own a gun. Cops needs guns in order to effectively fight murderers. In fact, this is a much better analogy.
Yea, ok, that's reasonable; accepted.
FTFY. Incidentally, Google-owned/originated patents have been used by handset manufacturers to sue... well, Apple, mainly.
[citation needed]
Here ya go
You first.
On the positive side, at least I'm just another ill-informed consumer, as opposed to a paid shill.
I honestly don't understand what you were implying by linking to my profile. If you go and read my posts you'll basically see a lot of stuff about Brazil, because that's where I'm from. I occasionally comment on other technology and random subjects as well.
Because as I read through the list of comments you've made, I noticed a fair amount (not a lot, but certainly not zero) of posts in which you make misinformed statements and promote FUD (albeit unknowingly for the most part, I'm certain).
Always good to make sure your own house is clean before pointing out the mud on your neighbor's floor, you know?
Am I a paid shill from the Brazilian Govt. trying to spread information about the country on a "News for Nerds" board?
Eh, I was afraid the way I worded that would lead to misinterpretation: I wasn't referring to you in any way in making that statement, that was totally a self-deprecating remark. Sorry for the confusion.
I better go collect my payment then, before a corrupt politician robs it first...
LOL, in "capitalist" Amerika, corrupt banker robs you... then pays off the politicians.
"Constructive criticism" is a term invented to deflect actual criticism by denying it's validity. It's a touchy-feely term that allows those being criticized to ignore actual criticism. It's bullshit I don't buy into.
Actually, it's the difference between, "That's a stupid idea," and "That's a stupid idea, let me help you make it better." You can try and write it off as "touchy-feely" socialism, or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact you're coming across as an idea-less asshole with nothing better to do than bitch about other people's work.
There's sufficient information in my critique to allow anyone with an IQ above room temperature to derive the flaws and see what corrective action is required.
... which is apparently beyond your own reasoning capabilities? I don't buy that shit for a second, yo.
Just because you're ignorant, doesn't mean other people are. That you can't recognize the difference between a valid critique and mere "bitching" is your own failure.
Personal attacks and strawmen get you nowhere with me, dude. Besides, the only reason you find your critique to be valid is because it's your critique... which is quite ironic, if you think about it, since here you are attacking me for doing the same thing to you that you've done to others. Hypocritical much?
This from you? You really are a piece of work indeed. You honestly think I that only to hear the sound of my own voice? You're even more ignorant than I believed.
Aww, tiny baby get his butt hurt by someone else's criticism? Well, let me pull out my 20nm violin, so I can play you the saddest song in the world...
The lessons for you to take from this are - criticism is nothing but egotism unless you're offering valid alternatives, and of course, don't dish it out if you can't take it.
So basically, since *you* can't imagine a scenario where it would be appropriate, that means there is no such scenario in existance. Kind of like how if someone can't imaging how life could evolved with such complexity, then that means it had to have been made by a God.
Well, you could suggest a scenario yourself... or, you know, continue being a dickhead for no good reason.
Arrogance is good at making people stupid.
No shit, Pot.
Perhaps, but it's not like that's some special power that only you possess; opinions are like assholes - everybody's got one, and most of them smell like shit. Few people have the intellect/creativity/hojos/etc to actually do something about it other than bitch. In the words of John Mason Brown,
“The critic is a man who prefers the indolence of opinion to the trials of action.”
Point being, pissing and moaning about the shortcomings of others does nothing to better the situation, so why engage in such pointless negativity, other than to hear the sound of your own voice? Here's a thought - instead of droning on about how you think they've done it wrong, try giving your idea of how to do it right.
You know, constructive criticism.
They only use their own patents defensively and have spoken in public they're against software patents.
So... publicly, they are against software patents, yet they still hold many?
Isn't that kind of like the owner of a slaughterhouse speaking our publicly against eating meat? Doesn't matter what they say in public, they're still contributing to the problem they claim to be against.
Google has not yet directly sued anyone for patent infringement.
FTFY. Incidentally, Google-owned/originated patents have been used by handset manufacturers to sue... well, Apple, mainly.
Please stop spreading misinformation and FUD.
You first.
On the positive side, at least I'm just another ill-informed consumer, as opposed to a paid shill.
Sorry for the confusion, allow me to rephrase:
How does Facebook define "transaction?"
If you can answer that, you should be able to figure out what information they consider 'necessary.'
These are so badly done...
Yea, the icons you came up with are waaaay better...
Oh, wait...
I think this needs some work. Claiming Facebook doesn't collect information not necessary for the transaction?
Weasel Words says: Define "Facebook transaction."
In all fairness, though, this 'new' research doesn't so much offer an explanation as a different theory than that derived from previous research. The use of indefinite terms (such as " backflow may amplify") indicate to me the questionably validity of their 'results.' The day "may" and "could" equate to "will" and "does" is the day I turn in my skeptic's credentials.
Not to mention one of the team being quoted as “Unless you have little green men from mars doing this on the quiet, it must be storm waves,” which I read as "If you don't believe I'm right you're an idiotic nutcase." Sorry, Charlie, I don't buy that line of 'reasoning,' especially from someone who considers themselves a scientists.
One error in my previous statement: A loan shark probably has more honor and compassion than the government.
Hey, idiot - do the math:
1. Student racks up gov't loan debt going to school; plans to pay debt back by getting a good job with their degree;
2. Gov't loan shark prevents student from either finishing their education or getting a job to pay loan back with;
3. Student has no other option than to take minimum wage shit jobs that don't pay enough for them to live on, let alone pay back the loan, so they are forced to (say it with me):
Be on welfare.
Indentured servitude, my ass, this is a blatant attempt to enslave the populace, and I for one will tolerate no part of it.
One poster mentioned something about it being used because there wasn't an ASCII character for the British unit of currency, but that explanation doesn't really fit this particular situation; Here in the US, Bell Labs (the "mafia enforcer" wing of Ma Bell's telco monopoly, back in the day), always referred to it as a "pound" sign for reasons I don't really care enough to find out...
Probably just another piece of tech stolen by laying siege to a small town university, like they did with touch-tones.
We humbly refer you to the response given in Arkell v. Pressdram:
FUCK OFF
Feel better now?
This is google's direct chance to get the whole software -> patents thing invalidated. Many have been unwilling to fight for getting such a ruling, but I would bet a lot of money on google setting this up to invalidate patents on software.
Google uses those same laws to fuck their own competitors as well, and thus has little incentive to get anything changed.
As much as I would like to see such a ruling myself, I highly doubt any large corporation would be championing it.
Well, I, for one, support Google.
They are in the business to sell advertising. If you do not buy advertising, then you have probably never paid a dime directly to Google.
Advertising isn't all they sell.
Your premise, and thus subsequent theory, is flawed.