So lets say for a second that in this hypothetical case the person was wrong and the teacher was not a pedophile. The teacher should sue the people believing the liar, but not the liar? I can see how that makes sense, in Narnia.
"Tort cases therefore comprise such varied topics as auto accidents, false imprisonment, defamation, product liability (for defective consumer products), copyright infringement, and environmental pollution (toxic torts), among many others."
Defamation? Where have I heard that before? Hmmm...Oh yes! "Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)".
No, but he presented explicit accusations before he was convicted. About a case that was very much private. That's basically convicting him in public before checking with the authorities.
Ah. So essentially it is fine to yell about, say, a teacher being a pedophile. After all, you're quite sure. Nevermind the police. Oh! It turned out that you WERE right! Lucky! Wonder what consequences your actions could've had for the teacher if you had been wrong... Nevermind that, you was right, nothing wrong with the process!
Is this a public or a private case? Was Watergate a public or a private case? Who can call themselves journalists and who can't? When are you able to throw around direct accusations of such weight, instead of going to the police, and expect not to be sued?
In before "free speech being repressed!". Even if Northside had his facts straight, he should have gone to the police, not to the public. Sure, we may know now that the researcher was guilty, but what happened to due process?
An accusation such as that is not fact before it has been legally confirmed.
Because what is being described is an automatic function, carried out autonomously by the infrastructure of the net? We've programmed and built it to react to input in a certain way. In short: in sees damage to its infrastructure, it automatically routes around it and thus it "heals" that damage.
It has the ability to observe, because we've given it ways to receive input. It has the ability to act, because we've programmed it to do so. Being able to 'heal' is a consequence of this instance of acting. It is doing what we want it to do.
The problem is that even people with reasonably functioning reasoning abilities are being feed believable nonsense from the media. Even if you're a smart guy you will still be able to draw the wrong conclusions under the sheer weight of information sources, who're presenting bogus or twisted information as "fact". Yes, anyone with half a brain who cares to do some research into the advancements and facts around nuclear power should be able to see that many of the risks are wildly exaggerated or just plain false, but you could say this about a lot of other topics. Simply put nobody is able to do the research to create well-informed opinions about everything that's going on in the world. The problem is the credibility lent to the news media of the world, no matter how much of a "critical thinker" one claims to be. News, in the broad sense, is simply not being handled in the right way today and this cascades to a lot of other issues because we're being fed sensationalist and lobbyist information.
In short: the news media worldwide is corrupt. Their function of distilling information truthfully, for the masses to consume, is being twisted either by capitalistic thought or political agenda. Much of the time it is hard to distinguish which is which. No one is truly immune to this.
Chernobyl was the largest nuclear disaster in history? Sorry, I reserve that for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As for irradiating everyone on the planet, would you please give me an accurate list of who've been doing the most nuclear bomb testing since it was invented?
Without having a full overview of the technical situation, I'm guessing problems regarding size of generators, rewiring of cables, access to those cables, etc etc. We're not talking about simply pulling an extension cord and plugging in, we're talking pretty heavy duty power equipment and installation.
Again, that part of it would be speculation on my part, but I can't see it being as straight forward as simply airlifting very massive equipment that they just happen to have the exact right type of on hand. Since the installation was built a long time again, I don't think it is very likely to have any kind of "plug-and-play" action available.
Reason for no power for the pumps? 1) No power is being produced by reactors (obvious) 2) All 12 onsite backup power generators has been knocked out by the earthquake (8.9 on the richterscale is NOT a small thing) 3) The 8 hour backup-backup battery has been spent by now.
So essentially you have 4 angles of attack instead of 1, each with security settings deliberately set to something different instead of something, say, secure? Tell me again how this in any way would limit possible attack vectors. Actually, tell me if you even know what that word means.
I fail to see in what way this wouldn't "fly too well" with overclockers. As far as I can see, there is nothing forcing you to use it. It is a tool that you can choose to use to investigate (and correct) how your BIOS initializes your hardware. Regardless, if you're such a daredevil 1337 tinkerer it should be fairly easy for you to remove this toolset if it somehow came preinstalled on your computer with a configuration that completely bypassed your interaction.
You completely ignore that the point was not whether he was wanted in Sweden or not and whether he should be extradited under those circumstances, but the fact that he is in danger of extradition by proxy to a country who very likely wants him either tortured, put on death row, or both for crimes that are not crimes yet in said country nor in the UK.
Yes, the benefits of the EU is that we are working together in many matters legal and otherwise, but do you sincerely want us to become another US where people are ferried to the relevant state where the laws are the strictest and capital punishment is still allowed? Even if the UK is in an union with Sweden, they should still uphold their own policies regarding extraditing people to death.
Yes, I know that the arguments are long and varied on how Assange simply will not be extradited to the US, but the fact is that there is a very real risk or this happening. All that is needed to block an extradition is plausible risk of capital punishment or torture. An union shouldn't invalidate that.
Because teaching itself both builds character and strengthen your knowledge in your field. Because that human "video projector" is a human, readily able to take questions at any given time during the lecture.
I'm not saying anything against video lectures. These things are great and it helps to open up and spread information around for the benefit of all. But they're not the same thing. They can be a substitute, but they're not for everybody. Some of use need those human video projectors to get through our education. Some of use need a mix of both.
"Very well Ministry of Culture, I'll go elsewhere. Enjoy your bad PR."
China is more capitalist than you think. Sure, it wouldn't hurt them if a wave of dissatisfied customers left abruptly, but they wouldn't be happy about it.
Depends really on how you're handling the encryption. If the encrypted data at all times is stored in an encrypted state on site and a remote computer only ever requests encrypted parts of the data, only decrypting and handling it locally, it suddenly becomes a whole lot harder for the owner of the datacenter to fuck you over.
Sure, if you're just doing a l33t SSH tunnel to a linux based remote system, log into and decrypt your protected home folder, then you're pretty much decrypting it for those who has access to the hardware.
The question is more complicated than that. It depends on what the company is doing with the information and whether or not they're properly citing their sources. In this case, in which the information on how to present search results given a certain query is reproduced using the work of your competitor, effectively stealing and rebranding, it is very much unethical and should be unlawful if it isn't already covered sufficiently.
What it boils down to is that no matter the roundabout way Bing is doing it, if you're a search engine provider that gets data on how your competitor provides search results (mind you, not the algorithm, but specifically what is being presented - that is, the end-result - the product) in such a way that it is reproduced on your own service, effectively claiming the results your own without citing sources or asking for permission, then you're committing wilful plagiarism.
Which, again, is copy by proxy. "Uh, we're not copying Google, we're just looking at how this user uses their tools (and what the result of such queries is in terms of clicking)!" is quite frankly bollocks and could as well be direct copying. Yes, there is a difference in that strictly speaking this is not the only thing Bing is doing with their clickthrough spyware. In that regard you're right, this is a variant of the old webcrawler question; in which case Bing should be checking that they're allowed (fx. in the absence of a robots.txt) to copy the data, otherwise they're bound to be stealing other search engines' work, which is what we're seeing.
To sum it up, yes I am of the firm opinion that Bing needs more than the users' permission to be recording their interaction with websites to the extent that they're doing. The websites are, albeit 'freely', offering a service to the user and that user only, not to any hanger-ons and certainly not for commercial ends, especially not when that information is used to copy the behaviour of the service.
Total and COMPLETE negative refraction is impossible. Masking a selection of wavelengths is not. This is about fooling the human eye, not 'true' stealth tech which indeed violates the second law of thermodynamics.
There are already much better sites for those kind of purposes. A quick search on "throwaway email" on google gives you a lot of better solutions, all quicker to "set up" since most doesn't even require setting up. Heck, if you have a static IP or, more importantly, access to one, you can temporarily set up an email server and use that.
Slashdot Mirror
So lets say for a second that in this hypothetical case the person was wrong and the teacher was not a pedophile. The teacher should sue the people believing the liar, but not the liar? I can see how that makes sense,
in Narnia.
Please see elsewhere in the thread regarding Watergate.
"Tort cases therefore comprise such varied topics as auto accidents, false imprisonment, defamation, product liability (for defective consumer products), copyright infringement, and environmental pollution (toxic torts), among many others."
Defamation? Where have I heard that before? Hmmm...Oh yes! "Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)".
"No libel involved" indeed.
No, but he presented explicit accusations before he was convicted. About a case that was very much private. That's basically convicting him in public before checking with the authorities.
Ah. So essentially it is fine to yell about, say, a teacher being a pedophile. After all, you're quite sure. Nevermind the police. Oh! It turned out that you WERE right! Lucky! Wonder what consequences your actions could've had for the teacher if you had been wrong... Nevermind that, you was right, nothing wrong with the process!
Fair process? What's that?
Is this a public or a private case? Was Watergate a public or a private case? Who can call themselves journalists and who can't? When are you able to throw around direct accusations of such weight, instead of going to the police, and expect not to be sued?
In before "free speech being repressed!". Even if Northside had his facts straight, he should have gone to the police, not to the public. Sure, we may know now that the researcher was guilty, but what happened to due process?
An accusation such as that is not fact before it has been legally confirmed.
Because what is being described is an automatic function, carried out autonomously by the infrastructure of the net? We've programmed and built it to react to input in a certain way. In short: in sees damage to its infrastructure, it automatically routes around it and thus it "heals" that damage.
It has the ability to observe, because we've given it ways to receive input. It has the ability to act, because we've programmed it to do so. Being able to 'heal' is a consequence of this instance of acting. It is doing what we want it to do.
The problem is that even people with reasonably functioning reasoning abilities are being feed believable nonsense from the media. Even if you're a smart guy you will still be able to draw the wrong conclusions under the sheer weight of information sources, who're presenting bogus or twisted information as "fact". Yes, anyone with half a brain who cares to do some research into the advancements and facts around nuclear power should be able to see that many of the risks are wildly exaggerated or just plain false, but you could say this about a lot of other topics. Simply put nobody is able to do the research to create well-informed opinions about everything that's going on in the world. The problem is the credibility lent to the news media of the world, no matter how much of a "critical thinker" one claims to be. News, in the broad sense, is simply not being handled in the right way today and this cascades to a lot of other issues because we're being fed sensationalist and lobbyist information.
In short: the news media worldwide is corrupt. Their function of distilling information truthfully, for the masses to consume, is being twisted either by capitalistic thought or political agenda. Much of the time it is hard to distinguish which is which. No one is truly immune to this.
Chernobyl was the largest nuclear disaster in history? Sorry, I reserve that for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As for irradiating everyone on the planet, would you please give me an accurate list of who've been doing the most nuclear bomb testing since it was invented?
Without having a full overview of the technical situation, I'm guessing problems regarding size of generators, rewiring of cables, access to those cables, etc etc. We're not talking about simply pulling an extension cord and plugging in, we're talking pretty heavy duty power equipment and installation.
Again, that part of it would be speculation on my part, but I can't see it being as straight forward as simply airlifting very massive equipment that they just happen to have the exact right type of on hand. Since the installation was built a long time again, I don't think it is very likely to have any kind of "plug-and-play" action available.
Reason for no power for the pumps?
1) No power is being produced by reactors (obvious)
2) All 12 onsite backup power generators has been knocked out by the earthquake (8.9 on the richterscale is NOT a small thing)
3) The 8 hour backup-backup battery has been spent by now.
So essentially you have 4 angles of attack instead of 1, each with security settings deliberately set to something different instead of something, say, secure? Tell me again how this in any way would limit possible attack vectors. Actually, tell me if you even know what that word means.
I fail to see in what way this wouldn't "fly too well" with overclockers. As far as I can see, there is nothing forcing you to use it. It is a tool that you can choose to use to investigate (and correct) how your BIOS initializes your hardware. Regardless, if you're such a daredevil 1337 tinkerer it should be fairly easy for you to remove this toolset if it somehow came preinstalled on your computer with a configuration that completely bypassed your interaction.
You completely ignore that the point was not whether he was wanted in Sweden or not and whether he should be extradited under those circumstances, but the fact that he is in danger of extradition by proxy to a country who very likely wants him either tortured, put on death row, or both for crimes that are not crimes yet in said country nor in the UK.
Yes, the benefits of the EU is that we are working together in many matters legal and otherwise, but do you sincerely want us to become another US where people are ferried to the relevant state where the laws are the strictest and capital punishment is still allowed? Even if the UK is in an union with Sweden, they should still uphold their own policies regarding extraditing people to death.
Yes, I know that the arguments are long and varied on how Assange simply will not be extradited to the US, but the fact is that there is a very real risk or this happening. All that is needed to block an extradition is plausible risk of capital punishment or torture. An union shouldn't invalidate that.
Because teaching itself both builds character and strengthen your knowledge in your field. Because that human "video projector" is a human, readily able to take questions at any given time during the lecture.
I'm not saying anything against video lectures. These things are great and it helps to open up and spread information around for the benefit of all. But they're not the same thing. They can be a substitute, but they're not for everybody. Some of use need those human video projectors to get through our education. Some of use need a mix of both.
"Very well Ministry of Culture, I'll go elsewhere. Enjoy your bad PR."
China is more capitalist than you think. Sure, it wouldn't hurt them if a wave of dissatisfied customers left abruptly, but they wouldn't be happy about it.
Depends really on how you're handling the encryption. If the encrypted data at all times is stored in an encrypted state on site and a remote computer only ever requests encrypted parts of the data, only decrypting and handling it locally, it suddenly becomes a whole lot harder for the owner of the datacenter to fuck you over.
Sure, if you're just doing a l33t SSH tunnel to a linux based remote system, log into and decrypt your protected home folder, then you're pretty much decrypting it for those who has access to the hardware.
Well, the difference would be that instead of people playing honest poker, somebody would be stacking the deck. Oh, wait...
The question is more complicated than that. It depends on what the company is doing with the information and whether or not they're properly citing their sources. In this case, in which the information on how to present search results given a certain query is reproduced using the work of your competitor, effectively stealing and rebranding, it is very much unethical and should be unlawful if it isn't already covered sufficiently.
What it boils down to is that no matter the roundabout way Bing is doing it, if you're a search engine provider that gets data on how your competitor provides search results (mind you, not the algorithm, but specifically what is being presented - that is, the end-result - the product) in such a way that it is reproduced on your own service, effectively claiming the results your own without citing sources or asking for permission, then you're committing wilful plagiarism.
Which, again, is copy by proxy. "Uh, we're not copying Google, we're just looking at how this user uses their tools (and what the result of such queries is in terms of clicking)!" is quite frankly bollocks and could as well be direct copying. Yes, there is a difference in that strictly speaking this is not the only thing Bing is doing with their clickthrough spyware. In that regard you're right, this is a variant of the old webcrawler question; in which case Bing should be checking that they're allowed (fx. in the absence of a robots.txt) to copy the data, otherwise they're bound to be stealing other search engines' work, which is what we're seeing.
To sum it up, yes I am of the firm opinion that Bing needs more than the users' permission to be recording their interaction with websites to the extent that they're doing. The websites are, albeit 'freely', offering a service to the user and that user only, not to any hanger-ons and certainly not for commercial ends, especially not when that information is used to copy the behaviour of the service.
Congratulations, you've concluded that they don't copy from Google specifically, but from other search engines in general. Now how is this better?
Total and COMPLETE negative refraction is impossible. Masking a selection of wavelengths is not. This is about fooling the human eye, not 'true' stealth tech which indeed violates the second law of thermodynamics.
There are already much better sites for those kind of purposes. A quick search on "throwaway email" on google gives you a lot of better solutions, all quicker to "set up" since most doesn't even require setting up. Heck, if you have a static IP or, more importantly, access to one, you can temporarily set up an email server and use that.
I'm sorry but that's unfair competition to my, uhm, 'consultancy'.