Why would anyone assume that? How clueless does someone have to be in 2015 to not understand that nothing on the internet is private, ever, in any way. It is a public place. Do not do anything on the internet you would not do in your front lawn.
Freeman Dyson wouldn't be bombastic and exaggerate, would he?
Statistically speaking, the odds are about a hundred billion to one that the person who wrote the article didn't understand what they were told, probably third or fourth hand, by someone who also didn't understand the paper, written by a physicist and a computer geek who don't understand biology or evolution.
It's about procreation and the survival of the genetic line. Individual survival is irrelevant, especially once one has procreated. (Though even those who don't contribute to the survival of the genetic line of their family - the person who has a sibling willing to sacrifice themselves to save the family enhances the chances the family will procreate.)
This kind of confusion is what happens when people try to do research outside of their expertise. If you want to understand biology, ask a biologist, not a physicist or a computer geek. (Though a lot of biologists make the same mistake, of course.)
No, he's really not. And given what a bunch of pansy ass wimps the conspiracy theorists generally are, I'm sure Buzz could handle it on his own. He certainly did Bart Sibrel in 2002, and he keeps as busy a schedule as ever.
Or some equivalent? Because if it does, how can adding a third party in between the victim and the police dispatcher possibly improve the police response?
My point would be the part about background checks that you snipped out so that you wouldn't have to answer it.
A quarter of California drivers have no insurance.
Well there's your problem right there. Good luck with that.
Not a problem for me. I have uninsured motorist coverage, which you cannot by auto insurance without in California. It's only a problem for people who get in an accident with an uninsured driver under circumstances where their insurance won't cover them. Like, say, while driving for an illegal limousine service without commercial insurance (and driving without insurance is a criminal offense in California).
Last night's big news story here in LA was an alleged sexual assault - by and Uber driver. Because Uber's idea of a "background check" consists of an automated check on whether or not the driver's license put in to the web sore is valid. (Not whether or not it's the person putting it in, of course.)
The big issue is the insurance one, and that's a bigger issue to drivers than passengers, but it's a problem for both. A quarter of California drivers have no insurance. If you are in an accident that is the other guys' fault, Uber's insurance doesn't cover you, nor will your own driver's (since he doesn't have commercial insurance). Good luck with that.
No, and I never will, so long as their entire business model is based on running an illegal, uninsured (and it is, for both driver and passenger, if the other driver is at fault, as several lawsuits have shown) limousine service (which is, legally, what they are in California). Too many horror stories (and lawsuits) already. I have no desire to become one of their victims.
I can't help but wonder how long it will take the less savory drivers to develop code words for the following:
"Too black." "Too Jewish." "Lives in a neighborhood that's too black." "Too black, and was rude when I called him a nigger and accused him of trying to carjack me because he wouldn't give me a tip of ten times the fare." Uber is about a hundred different kinds of lawsuits that have found a place to happen.
The fine print on the record sleeve outlines your license agreement (that you agreed to by opening the sleeve), which says that you will not make unauthorized copies or sell the record to anyone who will.
You are apparently unfamiliar with the first sale doctrine. Such "license agreements" date back at least a century (when book publishers tried similar things to keep people from selling used books), and have been shot down by the courts pretty much every single time.
I'm not Christian. Never claimed to be. So stop lying about what other people have said. Atheists seem to do that a lot. Just like the wingnuts at the other end of the spectrum. Honestly, I can't tell them apart. Since I can't be bothered to take either seriously enough to actually listen to their drivel.
There is a recognized atheist church in the United States. Tax exemptions and everything. In fact, they've recently had a schism, so technically, there's two atheist churches. At least.
... violates how language works, when one defines a concept in language it's drawn from the environment, there is no "god" to point to in our environment. If I say house I can point to it, if I say car, I can point to it. The same cannot be said for god.
I'm curious. Are you saying that you can point to, say, love, beauty, or freedom? Or are you saying that they don't exist?
What a sad, empty life it would be, to live in a world without abstract concepts.
Yeah, and I'd totally be able to afford and prevail in a legal battle with Google.
That's the biggest reason to have insurance. That way, you don't have to deal with it, your insurance company will. And they will fight tooth and nail because Google has very deep pockets.
And while they may, indeed, somebody be able to get rid of them, it won't be for a generation or more, and that has far more to do with insurance and liability than safety.
The order isn't against any person or entity in Ireland. It is against a US company, and US employees, who can access the data from their desks in the US. Under US law, it is certainly a valid order. Under Irish law, it is not. There is a conflict that the US prosecutor (and judge) do not want to (or can't, under current law) address. No matter what Microsoft does, they will break the law somewhere.
This is a surprisingly (for the source) thoughtful account of things so far, and explains the reasoning behind the order.
I doubt you will bother to ready it, and likely won't understand it if you do, and certainly won't care, but there it is.
Slashdot Mirror
. . . confidentially, we assume . . .
Why would anyone assume that? How clueless does someone have to be in 2015 to not understand that nothing on the internet is private, ever, in any way. It is a public place. Do not do anything on the internet you would not do in your front lawn.
Freeman Dyson wouldn't be bombastic and exaggerate, would he?
Statistically speaking, the odds are about a hundred billion to one that the person who wrote the article didn't understand what they were told, probably third or fourth hand, by someone who also didn't understand the paper, written by a physicist and a computer geek who don't understand biology or evolution.
It's about procreation and the survival of the genetic line. Individual survival is irrelevant, especially once one has procreated. (Though even those who don't contribute to the survival of the genetic line of their family - the person who has a sibling willing to sacrifice themselves to save the family enhances the chances the family will procreate.)
This kind of confusion is what happens when people try to do research outside of their expertise. If you want to understand biology, ask a biologist, not a physicist or a computer geek. (Though a lot of biologists make the same mistake, of course.)
You remind me of the over-excited Chihuahua that is so happy to meet a new friend it humps your pant leg until it pees all over the carpet.
No, he's really not. And given what a bunch of pansy ass wimps the conspiracy theorists generally are, I'm sure Buzz could handle it on his own. He certainly did Bart Sibrel in 2002, and he keeps as busy a schedule as ever.
The cops don't have to be smarter than the crooks to catch them. They only have to be competent, and patient.
Or some equivalent? Because if it does, how can adding a third party in between the victim and the police dispatcher possibly improve the police response?
Last night's big news story here in LA was an alleged sexual assault - by and Uber driver.
What's your point?
My point would be the part about background checks that you snipped out so that you wouldn't have to answer it.
A quarter of California drivers have no insurance.
Well there's your problem right there. Good luck with that.
Not a problem for me. I have uninsured motorist coverage, which you cannot by auto insurance without in California. It's only a problem for people who get in an accident with an uninsured driver under circumstances where their insurance won't cover them. Like, say, while driving for an illegal limousine service without commercial insurance (and driving without insurance is a criminal offense in California).
Last night's big news story here in LA was an alleged sexual assault - by and Uber driver. Because Uber's idea of a "background check" consists of an automated check on whether or not the driver's license put in to the web sore is valid. (Not whether or not it's the person putting it in, of course.)
The big issue is the insurance one, and that's a bigger issue to drivers than passengers, but it's a problem for both. A quarter of California drivers have no insurance. If you are in an accident that is the other guys' fault, Uber's insurance doesn't cover you, nor will your own driver's (since he doesn't have commercial insurance). Good luck with that.
No, and I never will, so long as their entire business model is based on running an illegal, uninsured (and it is, for both driver and passenger, if the other driver is at fault, as several lawsuits have shown) limousine service (which is, legally, what they are in California). Too many horror stories (and lawsuits) already. I have no desire to become one of their victims.
I can't help but wonder how long it will take the less savory drivers to develop code words for the following:
"Too black."
"Too Jewish."
"Lives in a neighborhood that's too black."
"Too black, and was rude when I called him a nigger and accused him of trying to carjack me because he wouldn't give me a tip of ten times the fare."
Uber is about a hundred different kinds of lawsuits that have found a place to happen.
Now, it's 101.
The fine print on the record sleeve outlines your license agreement (that you agreed to by opening the sleeve), which says that you will not make unauthorized copies or sell the record to anyone who will.
You are apparently unfamiliar with the first sale doctrine. Such "license agreements" date back at least a century (when book publishers tried similar things to keep people from selling used books), and have been shot down by the courts pretty much every single time.
I believe the dispute was mainly of the distribution of money.
Which is to say, just like most other church schisms.
If you agree, publicly, that the vast majority of theists aren't wingnuts, sure.
You seem to be have some kind of demonic picture in your head about what an atheist is.
If I do, it's because that's what I see from pretty much everyone who calls themselves an atheist. I can only comment on what I see.
Simply not believing in a deity does not magically transform everyone into a cunt, you know.
Perhaps you're confusing cause and effect. Maybe being a cunt magically transforms you in to an atheist.
Which is not the same thing as denying they exist. My question stands.
Do you feel manly when you make fun of people on the internet? Does it make your dog horny to see you so masculine and shit?
I'm not Christian. Never claimed to be. So stop lying about what other people have said. Atheists seem to do that a lot. Just like the wingnuts at the other end of the spectrum. Honestly, I can't tell them apart. Since I can't be bothered to take either seriously enough to actually listen to their drivel.
There is a recognized atheist church in the United States. Tax exemptions and everything. In fact, they've recently had a schism, so technically, there's two atheist churches. At least.
... violates how language works, when one defines a concept in language it's drawn from the environment, there is no "god" to point to in our environment. If I say house I can point to it, if I say car, I can point to it. The same cannot be said for god.
I'm curious. Are you saying that you can point to, say, love, beauty, or freedom? Or are you saying that they don't exist?
What a sad, empty life it would be, to live in a world without abstract concepts.
And they say atheists can't be fundamentalist extremist asshole, too.
Well, at least it wasn't Bennett Hasselton.
Yeah, and I'd totally be able to afford and prevail in a legal battle with Google.
That's the biggest reason to have insurance. That way, you don't have to deal with it, your insurance company will. And they will fight tooth and nail because Google has very deep pockets.
And while they may, indeed, somebody be able to get rid of them, it won't be for a generation or more, and that has far more to do with insurance and liability than safety.
The order isn't against any person or entity in Ireland. It is against a US company, and US employees, who can access the data from their desks in the US. Under US law, it is certainly a valid order. Under Irish law, it is not. There is a conflict that the US prosecutor (and judge) do not want to (or can't, under current law) address. No matter what Microsoft does, they will break the law somewhere.
This is a surprisingly (for the source) thoughtful account of things so far, and explains the reasoning behind the order.
I doubt you will bother to ready it, and likely won't understand it if you do, and certainly won't care, but there it is.