When someone makes a point of telling me how honest he is, I make sure to count my fingers after we shake hands. My reaction to people who tell me how smart they are is similar.
Yeah, when someone tells me how smart they are, I count my fingers afterwords, too, out of fear their stupidity might be contageous.
TV by broadband isn't even the same market as DVDs. Broadband could conceivably replace cable, as that's the same market. You watch something once, then move on. Given the abusive restrictions on making recordings and copies of downloaded content, you can only think of it as one-time television.
DVDs are a completely different market, for people who want to own a copy of a favorite movie or TV show, that they can watch any time they want, over and over. And that their ability to watch doesn't depend on a web site staying in business (and everything else working just right, too, on their internet connection).
The only problem with your whining is that credit card fraud is many times more likely to happen when you use your credit card in a brick-n-mortar store, face to face, than when you use it online. And if the number is stolen, the amount fraudulently charged to it will be several times as much.
This isn't news, or especially obscure. While online credit card fraud may be the "fastest growing category," it's still minor compared to disgruntled cashiers who copy down details on the sly.
. . . it's not Windows. Or, at least, not entirely Windows. A PC that gets zombied within four minutes of connecting was connected through an ISP that allows incoming connections on Windows networking ports. That's not Windows' fault, that's the ISP's fault. Assuming the PC was brand new, it was sold without current patches already installed. That's not Windows' fault, that's the vendor's fault.
And as long as we blame Windows for things that are trivially easy for the folks actually responsible to fix, stuff like this will keep happening, and the internet will continue to suck.
(And yes, Windows sucks, too, and worse than most other things, but why should Microsoft bother to even try to fix it when they get blamed for stuff that isn't under their control?)
Either the cops will only be able to buy smart guns, too, and thus 10% of the time they get in to a gunfight, their gun won't work (and thus, the law will quietly disappear), or the cops will be able to buy real guns, and criminals will just steal them (or buy them) from the cops.
Let's not forget that the majority of guns used to commit crimes in DC went through the DC police deptartment first.
Phone calls can be as anonymous as postal mail, if you pay attention to the details. Payphones are one way. Another is a prepaid cellphone. If the "user on the other end" can't be traced, it's anonymous.
Well you can murder someone, actually murder them and get 8 years as opposed to waving a laser pointer at a plane and getting 25 years.
You're comparing maximum sentence to average sentence. Which is a rather dishonest thing to do, assuming you're not just too stupid to know the difference. Sorta like the kind of dishonesty that the administration you hate so much does.
It is a storage medium. And it is not perfectly efficient. Ergo, when the article says "It takes energy to split the water molecule and release hydrogen, but that energy is later recovered during oxidation to produce water." what it means ks that "later some of that energy is later recovered.
Hydrogen must take more energy to produce than you can recover from it. So our hydrogen economy is not a hydrogen economy at all. It is an economy based on some other energy source, with an exchange rate, like currency, where you lose a little to the money changer in every transaction.
So where do they imagine that energy will come from? Solar? Unlikely. Hydro? Simply not enough to supply the world's needs. Geothermal? Also not enough. All of it combined isn't enough.
And if it is enough, why waste some of it converting it to hydrogen, then back to electricity? Why not just use it directly?
The whole concept of a "hydrogen economy" is a sham. Or a scam. Somebody's making a lot of money on all that research.
But no matter how much research you do, you cannot turn hydrogen in to an energy source. It does not occur in nature in a usable form.
. . . that if these little sociopaths are so unable to control their own behavior that they cannot stop themselves from committing crimes because they played a video game, then there's no hope of rehabilitation.
Any claim of "some vidoe game/movie/rock song made me do it" should bring automatic commitment to a mental hospital for the criminally insane, with the doctor who signs the release papers being criminally and civilally responsible for whatever they do after they get out.
News is a rather large exception. And even in the news, the image must be newsworthy.
Plus, news organizations routinely pay for such rights anyway, whether they have to or not.
A video game, however, is not news. This situation is pretty clear cut. Commercial exploitation of someone's image without persmission is illegal. And someone under 18 cannot legally give permission.
Plus, technically (stupid as the law is), her being under 18 makes it child porn.
In the US, a photograph of a topless (or bottomless) woman under 18 is child pornography. (In theory, this is true only if the minor is presented in a sexual context. In practice, that distinction means little to prosecutors or juries. And, the context of this game is definitely sexual anyway. Somebody could do prison time out of this.)
(Aside from that, while you can take pictures of people in public places, you cannot commercially exploit them outside of a news context without that person's permission. And being under 18, she literally could not give permission.)
Slashdot Mirror
First, I have excellent fucking people skills
There's your problem. If you want to succeed in business, and make your millions, you need excellent people fucking skills, not fucking people skills.
I hear Bill Gates gives classes. Pants not required. Or allowed.
When someone makes a point of telling me how honest he is, I make sure to count my fingers after we shake hands. My reaction to people who tell me how smart they are is similar.
Yeah, when someone tells me how smart they are, I count my fingers afterwords, too, out of fear their stupidity might be contageous.
TV by broadband isn't even the same market as DVDs. Broadband could conceivably replace cable, as that's the same market. You watch something once, then move on. Given the abusive restrictions on making recordings and copies of downloaded content, you can only think of it as one-time television.
DVDs are a completely different market, for people who want to own a copy of a favorite movie or TV show, that they can watch any time they want, over and over. And that their ability to watch doesn't depend on a web site staying in business (and everything else working just right, too, on their internet connection).
Methinks somebody is peddling snake oil.
If facial recognition software worked 99%, it would still be useless. In real life, it's more like 80%. Under lab conditions.
"They then re-verify those identified manually."
Because the software simply doesn't work very well.
Are you suggesting your cell phone company should have and employee look at the photo you just snapped of yourself before letting you make the call?
You implied the online fraud is somehow a problem. It isn't. Online transactions produce significantly lower fraud rates.
And you want to fix that.
The only problem with your whining is that credit card fraud is many times more likely to happen when you use your credit card in a brick-n-mortar store, face to face, than when you use it online. And if the number is stolen, the amount fraudulently charged to it will be several times as much.
This isn't news, or especially obscure. While online credit card fraud may be the "fastest growing category," it's still minor compared to disgruntled cashiers who copy down details on the sly.
Perhaps a third-party manufacturer of automotive parts needs to sue an automaker to force release of the diagnostic codes.
I believe such lawsuits are ongoing right now, as are legislative efforts to specifically require full disclosure.
First, it's not being seriously discussed by anybody who matters.
Second, the proposal did not involve anyone having to install GPS equipment in existing cars.
Third, this "story" is at least six months old.
Fourth, is Tuesday "Teach A Moron To Use The Internet Day"?
He is the world's leading expert on lack of interoperability, dammit! He knows what he's talking about!
. . . it's not Windows. Or, at least, not entirely Windows. A PC that gets zombied within four minutes of connecting was connected through an ISP that allows incoming connections on Windows networking ports. That's not Windows' fault, that's the ISP's fault. Assuming the PC was brand new, it was sold without current patches already installed. That's not Windows' fault, that's the vendor's fault.
And as long as we blame Windows for things that are trivially easy for the folks actually responsible to fix, stuff like this will keep happening, and the internet will continue to suck.
(And yes, Windows sucks, too, and worse than most other things, but why should Microsoft bother to even try to fix it when they get blamed for stuff that isn't under their control?)
Either the cops will only be able to buy smart guns, too, and thus 10% of the time they get in to a gunfight, their gun won't work (and thus, the law will quietly disappear), or the cops will be able to buy real guns, and criminals will just steal them (or buy them) from the cops.
Let's not forget that the majority of guns used to commit crimes in DC went through the DC police deptartment first.
Ballistic databases have been tried. Not a single criminal has ever been caught through one, despite the billions spent creating them.
More people are killed by bee stings than that. Hell, more people are killed by defective sex toys.
Phone calls can be as anonymous as postal mail, if you pay attention to the details. Payphones are one way. Another is a prepaid cellphone. If the "user on the other end" can't be traced, it's anonymous.
It means whoever wrote - or more likely copied and pasted - the article is an idiot.
Well you can murder someone, actually murder them and get 8 years as opposed to waving a laser pointer at a plane and getting 25 years.
You're comparing maximum sentence to average sentence. Which is a rather dishonest thing to do, assuming you're not just too stupid to know the difference. Sorta like the kind of dishonesty that the administration you hate so much does.
Well, not sorta like, but rather, exactly like.
The article also made demonstrably - and obviously - false claims about the physics.
It is a storage medium. And it is not perfectly efficient. Ergo, when the article says "It takes energy to split the water molecule and release hydrogen, but that energy is later recovered during oxidation to produce water." what it means ks that "later some of that energy is later recovered.
Hydrogen must take more energy to produce than you can recover from it. So our hydrogen economy is not a hydrogen economy at all. It is an economy based on some other energy source, with an exchange rate, like currency, where you lose a little to the money changer in every transaction.
So where do they imagine that energy will come from? Solar? Unlikely. Hydro? Simply not enough to supply the world's needs. Geothermal? Also not enough. All of it combined isn't enough.
And if it is enough, why waste some of it converting it to hydrogen, then back to electricity? Why not just use it directly?
The whole concept of a "hydrogen economy" is a sham. Or a scam. Somebody's making a lot of money on all that research.
But no matter how much research you do, you cannot turn hydrogen in to an energy source. It does not occur in nature in a usable form.
. . . that if these little sociopaths are so unable to control their own behavior that they cannot stop themselves from committing crimes because they played a video game, then there's no hope of rehabilitation.
Any claim of "some vidoe game/movie/rock song made me do it" should bring automatic commitment to a mental hospital for the criminally insane, with the doctor who signs the release papers being criminally and civilally responsible for whatever they do after they get out.
Just my thoughts.
No thinking went in to your post.
News is a rather large exception. And even in the news, the image must be newsworthy.
Plus, news organizations routinely pay for such rights anyway, whether they have to or not.
A video game, however, is not news. This situation is pretty clear cut. Commercial exploitation of someone's image without persmission is illegal. And someone under 18 cannot legally give permission.
Plus, technically (stupid as the law is), her being under 18 makes it child porn.
In the US, a photograph of a topless (or bottomless) woman under 18 is child pornography. (In theory, this is true only if the minor is presented in a sexual context. In practice, that distinction means little to prosecutors or juries. And, the context of this game is definitely sexual anyway. Somebody could do prison time out of this.)
(Aside from that, while you can take pictures of people in public places, you cannot commercially exploit them outside of a news context without that person's permission. And being under 18, she literally could not give permission.)
I have no idea, but given what I know of his personal history, it may well be personal experience.
Assuming you don't pick a question at random, that has nothing to do with the answer.
I know a guy who always puts in "Never give guns to ducks" as his answer. Regardless of the question.