Google's idea was great, but it doesn't work in the current carrier-controlled (and I don't mean this in a conspiracy-theorist way) market. The phone is just too expensive up front to compare with carrier-sponsored models that get their price dilluted into your monthly service payments.
Your comment did nothing to answer my question. And while my understanding of Japanese is poor at best, it's enough to know that you're wrong, either deliberately or due to incompetence.
3D can be immersive if done properly, but studios go for flash or for those annoying "something's going to hit you in the face" effects. The most immersive 3D experience I've had in the movies was Ice Age 3. Everything else (yes, including Avatar) was sub-par.
I didn't claim that they changed. I said that they seem less like an evil empire every day. This is a comparative statement, and largely due to Google's recent privacy issues and (though I didn't mention it in the parent post) Apple's absurdly restrictive mobile platforms. It also happens to be the case that Redmond's PR office seems to be doing a better job at promoting specific ventures lately.
Disclaimer: All my computers run exclusively on Linux (Gentoo, Linux Mint and Crunchbang), my favorite search engine is Google and I own an iPod.
I agree with every word of your post, but precisely because of this it's obvious to me that there can be no other reason behind publishing this book full of outrageous (even if true - if there were available evidence it would be different) claims than the furthering of a very specific political agenda. I do think that's a very nice definition of FUD?
That's not analogous at all. (...)
At the end of the day, the argument you make is disturbingly similar to: because Neo-Nazis just post the details of people they want assassinated that they aren't themselves responsible, when it's almost certain that given and address and a motive somebody will follow through
Please, do point out to me where I said that it was analogous. What I did say is that
It's very different from saying "a group of cyberterrorists is in principle capable of hijacking our servers and messing with our communications", and more like saying "Iraq has WMD, let's fuck their shit up" - also without evidence.
which is very different from your Neo-Nazi analogy. By the way, how is that different from when the police or news outlets divulge photos and information on wanted criminals? someone might decide to hunt them down and do justice with their own hands as well. Or is the fact that the known criminals happen to be missing somehow a merit of the people who are setting the hounds on them?
Your example is extreme, and it is not even close to the point. A government cannot be blamed for the isolated actions of a minority group of citizens, so it is very relevant whether they authorities sponsored the attacks or not. And as long as Russian property or the rights of Russian citizens are not being harmed, the Russian government has no civic obligation to stop these attacks, unless it is a part of an international treaty that says otherwise.
And is there evidence for the general tone that these governments are all planning to sabotage the USA?
But perhaps that's just me being picky. What really worries me about all this is the combination of this "ciberwar/cyberterrorism" concept with the general mentality of the USA government that "all of our citizens are domestic terrorists until proven otherwise". That just spells out "invasion of privacy" in big bold red letters.
I'm as anti-Microsoft as you can get without stepping into fanboy territory, but any system that had such a wide deployment would be more sought after by malicious programmers, and would thus have more actively exploited security flaws. Blame MS for default settings being too loose on security, but don't blame them for being under heavy fire all the time.
I personally think that allowing full disclosure of security problem would greatly help that but what do I know...
About as much as me, I'd assume.
The obvious staring-you-in-the-face difference between this and 9/11 is that this book is flinging accusations at specific parties - all of them major world governments - without any evidence. It's very different from saying "a group of cyberterrorists is in principle capable of hijacking our servers and messing with our communications", and more like saying "Iraq has WMD, let's fuck their shit up" - also without evidence.
It's the sound of the FCC never having anything to do with regulating the Internet to begin with. If someone says that the FDA doesn't have the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks, will that also be a major setback for Net Neutrality?
Slashdot Mirror
You're more likely to get him to shit rainbows AND announce that the next generation Macs will ship with Windows 7 instead of OS X.
Google's idea was great, but it doesn't work in the current carrier-controlled (and I don't mean this in a conspiracy-theorist way) market. The phone is just too expensive up front to compare with carrier-sponsored models that get their price dilluted into your monthly service payments.
For the non-Portuguese speaking people, this is an old joke in Brazil:
-Do you know Mario?
-What Mario?
-The one who fucked you behind the closet.
It rimes in Portuguese. =/
According to unreliable sources that I can't quote, it was due to a typo. Beats me what keyboard layout they were using.
Your comment did nothing to answer my question. And while my understanding of Japanese is poor at best, it's enough to know that you're wrong, either deliberately or due to incompetence.
I don't get it. How does "wowo" turn into "Luigi"?
I agree. Let's go lynch niggers together sometime.
Slashdotters love quoting Orwell whenever possible, regardless of context.
We should make sure that the entire human population has this "disorder" in no less than five generations.
3D can be immersive if done properly, but studios go for flash or for those annoying "something's going to hit you in the face" effects. The most immersive 3D experience I've had in the movies was Ice Age 3. Everything else (yes, including Avatar) was sub-par.
You could put it that way, I suppose.
I stated an honest opinion and got modded down as a troll. I call shenanigans.
I didn't claim that they changed. I said that they seem less like an evil empire every day. This is a comparative statement, and largely due to Google's recent privacy issues and (though I didn't mention it in the parent post) Apple's absurdly restrictive mobile platforms. It also happens to be the case that Redmond's PR office seems to be doing a better job at promoting specific ventures lately.
Disclaimer: All my computers run exclusively on Linux (Gentoo, Linux Mint and Crunchbang), my favorite search engine is Google and I own an iPod.
As far as I'm concerned everything should be cross-platform. So my reaction would probably be positive.
Do you get paid to spout this?
Of course I do! It's the only explanation there could be for me disagreeing with you, right?
They seem like less of an evil empire now that they're doing some good stuff once in a while and Google is being more blatantly monopolistic.
I agree with every word of your post, but precisely because of this it's obvious to me that there can be no other reason behind publishing this book full of outrageous (even if true - if there were available evidence it would be different) claims than the furthering of a very specific political agenda. I do think that's a very nice definition of FUD?
That's not analogous at all. (...) At the end of the day, the argument you make is disturbingly similar to: because Neo-Nazis just post the details of people they want assassinated that they aren't themselves responsible, when it's almost certain that given and address and a motive somebody will follow through
Please, do point out to me where I said that it was analogous. What I did say is that
It's very different from saying "a group of cyberterrorists is in principle capable of hijacking our servers and messing with our communications", and more like saying "Iraq has WMD, let's fuck their shit up" - also without evidence.
which is very different from your Neo-Nazi analogy. By the way, how is that different from when the police or news outlets divulge photos and information on wanted criminals? someone might decide to hunt them down and do justice with their own hands as well. Or is the fact that the known criminals happen to be missing somehow a merit of the people who are setting the hounds on them?
Your example is extreme, and it is not even close to the point. A government cannot be blamed for the isolated actions of a minority group of citizens, so it is very relevant whether they authorities sponsored the attacks or not. And as long as Russian property or the rights of Russian citizens are not being harmed, the Russian government has no civic obligation to stop these attacks, unless it is a part of an international treaty that says otherwise.
And is there evidence for the general tone that these governments are all planning to sabotage the USA?
But perhaps that's just me being picky. What really worries me about all this is the combination of this "ciberwar/cyberterrorism" concept with the general mentality of the USA government that "all of our citizens are domestic terrorists until proven otherwise". That just spells out "invasion of privacy" in big bold red letters.
I'm as anti-Microsoft as you can get without stepping into fanboy territory, but any system that had such a wide deployment would be more sought after by malicious programmers, and would thus have more actively exploited security flaws. Blame MS for default settings being too loose on security, but don't blame them for being under heavy fire all the time.
I personally think that allowing full disclosure of security problem would greatly help that but what do I know...
About as much as me, I'd assume.
The obvious staring-you-in-the-face difference between this and 9/11 is that this book is flinging accusations at specific parties - all of them major world governments - without any evidence. It's very different from saying "a group of cyberterrorists is in principle capable of hijacking our servers and messing with our communications", and more like saying "Iraq has WMD, let's fuck their shit up" - also without evidence.
...to back any of this up.
Even the market? Wow. I never knew that.
It's the sound of the FCC never having anything to do with regulating the Internet to begin with. If someone says that the FDA doesn't have the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks, will that also be a major setback for Net Neutrality?
And Freud not only did cocaine, but prescribed it to his patients. What's your point?