Maybe in a billion years, when the sun has expanded a bit and mars is a bit warmer, gets an atmosphere somehow and honest to god martians are looking at the dead blue world and wondering if it ever harbored life.
There should be no blocking of whatever content. What is blocked, is accessible to the people who it's targeted at, but the general audience doesn't see it. It's swept under the carpet. Illegal content that exists on the internet should be visible, so people can complain with their representatives in parliament, or file charges with the police. I say this as one of the founders of Meldpunt (www.meldpunt.org) which is one of the founding parties of Inhope (www.inhope.org).
People should be responsible for their own blocking.
Net neutrality proposals needs to die and quickly.
I like that my ISP can scan my email for spam and remove it, I like that the ISP I use for web hosting blocks traffic from sites that are trying attacks against my web site and I am sure the vast majoity of parents like that their school blocks various web sites that are designed to prey on kids. All of this would be prevented by the various net neutrality bills that have come up; it is good that someone in the U.K. with a technical understanding is reading these proposals.
Once net neutrality is killed we can switch to the family of laws that are need and that is application neutrality. Application Neutrality is the principle that ISP don't have to treat all sites and data on the internet the same but that they have to treat with a same set of rules for all traffic for a application type. ISP should be able to block email or block various web sites and application neutrality allows them to do so provide they filter email the same or block web content by the same set of rules for all sites.
What the fuck are you talking about? Sounds like you need to install a couple filters and get the fuck out talking about net neutrality because you have no idea what it's about. Enjoy paying extra to get good performance on your streaming services or paying your isp a premium if you want your email delivered now instead of next week. Also kudos for echoing the think of the kiddies line as if schools aren't capable of running their own filters to block inappropriate content, ya'know, like they do at the moment.
Well, that is actually a really well put together explanation that has shifted my view. I still think the whole iMessage thing is a bit too default in and hard to get out of but I guess that's part and parcel of their walled garden. As for my other point, you've smashed that one. Kudos.
messages delivered by iMessage are light blue.
messages delivered by SMS are green
All over the place when you configure iCloud it asks what you want associated with iCloud and gives you ways of turning stuff off and on. If you blank a phone then from iCloud you have the ability to disassociate it from your account.
___
Anyway the devices are popular for a simple reason they are good quality. Consistently if you look at rankings the iPhone 5S is in the top 3 in every category: battery life, quality of phone, applications, speed... For someone buying a phone you get an almost best of all worlds with no trade offs. Why shouldn't end users want that?
Because you speak with a technical mind. Most of the people I know who have had this problem are women or young or just plain stupid. They mindlessly agree to whatever pops up so they can continue and when they send a text message they expect to send a text message not send a text message that the phone will then lookup the number on its own system and if it finds it send it via a completely different message to 'a device' that person has used, regardless if it has a sim card or not, thereby completely hijacking their message. My wife switched from iphone to galaxy and even though I'd disable imessage on that (because I'm aware of it) we have an old ipad that doesnt hold charge so hadn't been used in months, message from other iphone users where getting delivered to that even though it hadn't been on in months yet she'd logged into the app store on it.
Some have noticed the different colours but didn't know what the meant and one said they just thought iMessage was just what apple called text message, because, well, they're apple and that's the kind of thing they do. The system works perfectly fine while you and your mates who have iphones stay with them but try and leave apples walled garden and they're going to make problems for you.
I will fully admit the latest and recent iphones are excellent devices, despite my opinions of apple. The original ipods and first gen iphones were so shit though that there was no decent reason for someone to get one over the competition. My confusion is how they got so popular before they got good.
So if a message doesnt get delivered to the device, it gets delivered to an email account associated with the device?
No it gets delivered to that iMessage account with that email name (that should have said "iMessage account associated with that email name, which is the Apple ID"), you don't even need it to be associated with a device. That is the whole point, that is why you need to turn iMessage off when you no longer have an iDevice. Messages from your contacts that use iPhones will go to your iMessage account because their devices have been notified that you have an iMessage account, if you do not turn iMessage off then those contacts are still under the belief that you are using iMessage so their messages to you are "delivered" to your iMessage account but you cannot actually receive them without an iDevice.
A truly excellent system....for apple. So many people I know have had this exact issue. Basically if you know about all this you can get around it, but for those that think they're just sending text messages unaware that apple has hijacked them and when that single iphone is lost/broken you're shit out of luck until you go through an awful lot of messing to be able to receive messages again, it's just ridiculous that these devices are so popular. I swear jobs sold the souls of the everyone at apple and put a soul to the devil clause in the apple t&c for it to take off. The ipod wasn't even that good an mp3 player when it first came out, I don't get it.
Yes, because that's why they u-turned on the kinect always connected and console always online lines, and now this, they did that because too many people were happy with it.
And yeah, I don't have a horse in this race yet either, though I have all three from the last generation. Even so, I distinctly remember the sour taste in my mouth when I got my 360 and discovered I'd have to pay them for the privilege of viewing Netflix, and then being thankful that I already had my Wii, PS3, and Apple TV hooked up and ready to go.
Well, I have a horse in this race and it's already won, been given the ribbon, watered down, fed some oats, and released into a nice pasture to frolic with the mares. It's called a PC and you don't have to worry about bundling, Kinect, being locked out of DLCs (aka Skyrim), etc.
All you have to worry about is drivers, specs, malware, punkbuster, hackers, crackers, mad hatters, not being able to play your games because authentication servers are rammed for weeks, DRM up the wazoo...
PC gaming probably is the most versatile platform out there and is arguably better than console is almost every way, but that doesn't mean it's the awesome blissful, troublefree experience you suggest. In fact that's one of the very few areas PCs fail next to consoles. Granted, for some PC fans that's the best part but I'd say that's a separate hobby.
I think it's pretty interesting that a number of devices detected pings, but there is apparently (as per the article) nothing was found in the area where they heard the pings.
So what did they hear? How can you get a false positive on a listening device looking for a specific frequency?
I wonder if instead of just sending out pings, a black box when hitting water should send out a burst of broad spectrum very high powered radio waves that satellites around the globe could detect...
You'd think they also should design them to float with some kind of ejection system on contact with water.
This data is starting to look more and more like the data saying there was WMDs in Iraq. Why not release the data so people can replicate the results. From what I can see they want the plane to be where the thought it might be and are sticking to it firm and fast even though it makes no sense that it would go dark, turn around and then just fly until it dropped.
So why did WTC 7, that third building that was not hit by a plane, collapse as though the top floor had nothing under it?
I posted that question a few months ago, but got no suggestions. I'd be open to any theory that has a rational explanation.
I see videos on youtube if I search for wtc7.
Because they like to ignore that bit and would appreciate it if you didn't keep bringing it up.
The car should keep its occupants safe above all others.
Why? And regardless, why should society allow cars to use our roads if they are going to choose to do more damage to society than they need to?
Ignoring fringe issues of responsibility etc, if I was driving an in a position where I could run over a group of pedestrians at a speed likely to kill them or crash into a verge at a speed likely to kill me I'd like to think that I'd make what I believe is the ethical choice and risk my own life. It becomes much less clear when a machine is making decisions for us, but your position is ridiculous.
If avoiding a pedestrian has a 0.001% chance of leading to me being injured but hitting them has a 99% of killing them then putting my safety above all others means killing that pedestrian to avoid a tiny risk to me. If you accept that in this scenario your 'safety' shouldn't be paramount then it is a simply a matter of degrees. Is a 1% chance of your death more important than a 99% chance of 10 deaths? How about a 99% chance of your death vs a 99% chance of 70 deaths?
I've been hospitalised for intervening in an accident I wouldn't otherwise have been a part of (as a pedestrian rather than driver) because I thought I could stop a worse outcome. If I am willing to make that decision myself, then why should I refuse to buy a car that will act in the manner I would act myself? Why should I allow (by not voting to regulate against) people to use the roads I pay for in a selfish manner that harms society?
I didn't mean that it should just drive top speed to destination regardless of what's in its way, that's stupid. Obviously the car should avoid all accidents where possible and situations where accidents are likely. I'm assuming in this scenario all the cars are driverless and automated, not just yours. But in the event of an unforeseen circumstance causing an unavoidable accident the car should seek to protect it's occupants above others, if it has to say, brake hard or swerve it should do what it can to avoid further accidents or collisions but not to the level where it puts the driver at more risk. If you then impact with another car causing it to go off route it's system should seek to protect it's driver in the same way. In a system like this cars would probably be traveling at higher speeds than now in closer proximity so pedestrians shouldn't be anywhere near where these systems are active. A situation of an almost definite death versus an extremely unlikely one like the one you suggest is obviously some where the line gets drawn, exactly where would be up to a lot of debate I'm sure but if you follow that absolute slope for the car protecting you above all others then it probably wouldn't take you anywhere due the risk that can in no way be fully eliminated that you will die due to an unavoidable accident/catastrophic mechanical failure/force majeure.
But how plausibly can a car judge whether keeping me and my 2 year old infant alive is more or less important than the unknown occupants of another car?
The car should keep its occupants safe above all others. If we're all in these self driving cars the occupants of any others involved will have to rely on their own cars to keep them safe. If your car can decide to let you die because it perceives something else to be more important then that's a car that's not going to sell well.
Did you see the episode? It was, another, excuse to bash on all things American*. The presented t as if it ran out of charge. They really tried to hide the fact that they were not driving the car under normal road conditions.
Umm they were banging around their track at full pelt. And Clarkson is not known for efficient driving.
That said, I like this screen name more than my ol' gamer tag. If people go visit my website, they can be well on their way to eternal life, and my Bro Jesus will have cool things to say to me when we finally meet.
Is that website legit or some kind of piss take? I can't quite be sure:/
Calling them mobiles differentiates from the other types of phones, mainly being pay phones and home phones (or landline).
"Pay phones"? Do you still have those over there? I remember seeing those decades ago when I was a kid. Do you still have rotary phones too? Or how about those phones that had no number at all, and you had to wind a knob to talk to the operator?
"Home phones"? Only old people still have landlines here. You guys still use those too? How quaint. Do you still have to turn a crank on your cars to start the engine too?
That's cool man. So there's no pay phones at all in the USA? How very progressive. I'm afraid the rotary and crank phones are a bit outdated now, you can still get them in second hand shops though. Oh, batteries have cells, you can get storm cells too, guess what? You're made of a shitload of cells! But anyway, you stick to your 'cell' only with your horrible operators and shitty service with extortionate rates while you laugh at foreigners using different words for things because it's Americans who speak proper English, right?
if the phrase was "put down their tools" that would not be idiomatic and would be generally understood. "downed their tools" is an idiom... the closest use for "downed" that I can think of to an American would be if someone "downed their beer" which is to say finished a beer quickly.
To say "I put down my dog" means you killed your dog, you aren't killing your tools if you "down your tools". Downtown has nothing to do with this use either.
What he's saying is there are multiple meanings and uses of down.
Slashdot Mirror
The question is more WHY The Bahamas? Is is a particular hive of scum and villainy or just a testbed because they can?
If we introduce life it becomes much harder to say any life we find in the future isn't just contamination we brought with us.
If it's shooting laser guns at us, chances are it was already there.
Life found on Mars!
Maybe in a billion years, when the sun has expanded a bit and mars is a bit warmer, gets an atmosphere somehow and honest to god martians are looking at the dead blue world and wondering if it ever harbored life.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
But what if the bad guy has a nightstick and a whistle?
You're a complete moron, in no country will the police not shoot someone who has raised a gun at them.
In Britain, the police have to call in backup who carry guns. The regular patrolmen only get nightsticks and whistles.
But raise a gun at those armed officers and they will shoot you.
There should be no blocking of whatever content. What is blocked, is accessible to the people who it's targeted at, but the general audience doesn't see it. It's swept under the carpet. Illegal content that exists on the internet should be visible, so people can complain with their representatives in parliament, or file charges with the police. I say this as one of the founders of Meldpunt (www.meldpunt.org) which is one of the founding parties of Inhope (www.inhope.org).
People should be responsible for their own blocking.
Net neutrality proposals needs to die and quickly. I like that my ISP can scan my email for spam and remove it, I like that the ISP I use for web hosting blocks traffic from sites that are trying attacks against my web site and I am sure the vast majoity of parents like that their school blocks various web sites that are designed to prey on kids. All of this would be prevented by the various net neutrality bills that have come up; it is good that someone in the U.K. with a technical understanding is reading these proposals. Once net neutrality is killed we can switch to the family of laws that are need and that is application neutrality. Application Neutrality is the principle that ISP don't have to treat all sites and data on the internet the same but that they have to treat with a same set of rules for all traffic for a application type. ISP should be able to block email or block various web sites and application neutrality allows them to do so provide they filter email the same or block web content by the same set of rules for all sites.
What the fuck are you talking about? Sounds like you need to install a couple filters and get the fuck out talking about net neutrality because you have no idea what it's about. Enjoy paying extra to get good performance on your streaming services or paying your isp a premium if you want your email delivered now instead of next week. Also kudos for echoing the think of the kiddies line as if schools aren't capable of running their own filters to block inappropriate content, ya'know, like they do at the moment.
Are there any benefits that a random British person could point out, that are the result of UK being in the EU?
As a random British person, no.
No be fair - You can go through the "quick queue" in European airports.
Well, when you put it like that....
Are there any benefits that a random British person could point out, that are the result of UK being in the EU?
As a random British person, no.
Well, that is actually a really well put together explanation that has shifted my view. I still think the whole iMessage thing is a bit too default in and hard to get out of but I guess that's part and parcel of their walled garden. As for my other point, you've smashed that one. Kudos.
How can they be unaware? The default setup is
messages delivered by iMessage are light blue. messages delivered by SMS are green
All over the place when you configure iCloud it asks what you want associated with iCloud and gives you ways of turning stuff off and on. If you blank a phone then from iCloud you have the ability to disassociate it from your account.
___
Anyway the devices are popular for a simple reason they are good quality. Consistently if you look at rankings the iPhone 5S is in the top 3 in every category: battery life, quality of phone, applications, speed... For someone buying a phone you get an almost best of all worlds with no trade offs. Why shouldn't end users want that?
Because you speak with a technical mind. Most of the people I know who have had this problem are women or young or just plain stupid. They mindlessly agree to whatever pops up so they can continue and when they send a text message they expect to send a text message not send a text message that the phone will then lookup the number on its own system and if it finds it send it via a completely different message to 'a device' that person has used, regardless if it has a sim card or not, thereby completely hijacking their message. My wife switched from iphone to galaxy and even though I'd disable imessage on that (because I'm aware of it) we have an old ipad that doesnt hold charge so hadn't been used in months, message from other iphone users where getting delivered to that even though it hadn't been on in months yet she'd logged into the app store on it.
Some have noticed the different colours but didn't know what the meant and one said they just thought iMessage was just what apple called text message, because, well, they're apple and that's the kind of thing they do. The system works perfectly fine while you and your mates who have iphones stay with them but try and leave apples walled garden and they're going to make problems for you.
I will fully admit the latest and recent iphones are excellent devices, despite my opinions of apple. The original ipods and first gen iphones were so shit though that there was no decent reason for someone to get one over the competition. My confusion is how they got so popular before they got good.
So if a message doesnt get delivered to the device, it gets delivered to an email account associated with the device?
No it gets delivered to that iMessage account with that email name (that should have said "iMessage account associated with that email name, which is the Apple ID"), you don't even need it to be associated with a device. That is the whole point, that is why you need to turn iMessage off when you no longer have an iDevice. Messages from your contacts that use iPhones will go to your iMessage account because their devices have been notified that you have an iMessage account, if you do not turn iMessage off then those contacts are still under the belief that you are using iMessage so their messages to you are "delivered" to your iMessage account but you cannot actually receive them without an iDevice.
A truly excellent system....for apple. So many people I know have had this exact issue. Basically if you know about all this you can get around it, but for those that think they're just sending text messages unaware that apple has hijacked them and when that single iphone is lost/broken you're shit out of luck until you go through an awful lot of messing to be able to receive messages again, it's just ridiculous that these devices are so popular. I swear jobs sold the souls of the everyone at apple and put a soul to the devil clause in the apple t&c for it to take off. The ipod wasn't even that good an mp3 player when it first came out, I don't get it.
Yes, because that's why they u-turned on the kinect always connected and console always online lines, and now this, they did that because too many people were happy with it.
Fair enough.
And yeah, I don't have a horse in this race yet either, though I have all three from the last generation. Even so, I distinctly remember the sour taste in my mouth when I got my 360 and discovered I'd have to pay them for the privilege of viewing Netflix, and then being thankful that I already had my Wii, PS3, and Apple TV hooked up and ready to go.
Well, I have a horse in this race and it's already won, been given the ribbon, watered down, fed some oats, and released into a nice pasture to frolic with the mares. It's called a PC and you don't have to worry about bundling, Kinect, being locked out of DLCs (aka Skyrim), etc.
All you have to worry about is drivers, specs, malware, punkbuster, hackers, crackers, mad hatters, not being able to play your games because authentication servers are rammed for weeks, DRM up the wazoo...
PC gaming probably is the most versatile platform out there and is arguably better than console is almost every way, but that doesn't mean it's the awesome blissful, troublefree experience you suggest. In fact that's one of the very few areas PCs fail next to consoles. Granted, for some PC fans that's the best part but I'd say that's a separate hobby.
In a world where spy satellites have 1m resolution, the fact that no country says they found anything within a few days, speaks loudest.
Because governments and spy agencies are in the business or filming every plane in the air and/or random patches of ocean.
So what did they hear? How can you get a false positive on a listening device looking for a specific frequency?
It was probably a bio duck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
I think it's pretty interesting that a number of devices detected pings, but there is apparently (as per the article) nothing was found in the area where they heard the pings.
So what did they hear? How can you get a false positive on a listening device looking for a specific frequency?
I wonder if instead of just sending out pings, a black box when hitting water should send out a burst of broad spectrum very high powered radio waves that satellites around the globe could detect...
You'd think they also should design them to float with some kind of ejection system on contact with water.
This data is starting to look more and more like the data saying there was WMDs in Iraq. Why not release the data so people can replicate the results. From what I can see they want the plane to be where the thought it might be and are sticking to it firm and fast even though it makes no sense that it would go dark, turn around and then just fly until it dropped.
So why did WTC 7, that third building that was not hit by a plane, collapse as though the top floor had nothing under it? I posted that question a few months ago, but got no suggestions. I'd be open to any theory that has a rational explanation.
I see videos on youtube if I search for wtc7.
Because they like to ignore that bit and would appreciate it if you didn't keep bringing it up.
Why? And regardless, why should society allow cars to use our roads if they are going to choose to do more damage to society than they need to? Ignoring fringe issues of responsibility etc, if I was driving an in a position where I could run over a group of pedestrians at a speed likely to kill them or crash into a verge at a speed likely to kill me I'd like to think that I'd make what I believe is the ethical choice and risk my own life. It becomes much less clear when a machine is making decisions for us, but your position is ridiculous. If avoiding a pedestrian has a 0.001% chance of leading to me being injured but hitting them has a 99% of killing them then putting my safety above all others means killing that pedestrian to avoid a tiny risk to me. If you accept that in this scenario your 'safety' shouldn't be paramount then it is a simply a matter of degrees. Is a 1% chance of your death more important than a 99% chance of 10 deaths? How about a 99% chance of your death vs a 99% chance of 70 deaths? I've been hospitalised for intervening in an accident I wouldn't otherwise have been a part of (as a pedestrian rather than driver) because I thought I could stop a worse outcome. If I am willing to make that decision myself, then why should I refuse to buy a car that will act in the manner I would act myself? Why should I allow (by not voting to regulate against) people to use the roads I pay for in a selfish manner that harms society?
I didn't mean that it should just drive top speed to destination regardless of what's in its way, that's stupid. Obviously the car should avoid all accidents where possible and situations where accidents are likely. I'm assuming in this scenario all the cars are driverless and automated, not just yours. But in the event of an unforeseen circumstance causing an unavoidable accident the car should seek to protect it's occupants above others, if it has to say, brake hard or swerve it should do what it can to avoid further accidents or collisions but not to the level where it puts the driver at more risk. If you then impact with another car causing it to go off route it's system should seek to protect it's driver in the same way. In a system like this cars would probably be traveling at higher speeds than now in closer proximity so pedestrians shouldn't be anywhere near where these systems are active. A situation of an almost definite death versus an extremely unlikely one like the one you suggest is obviously some where the line gets drawn, exactly where would be up to a lot of debate I'm sure but if you follow that absolute slope for the car protecting you above all others then it probably wouldn't take you anywhere due the risk that can in no way be fully eliminated that you will die due to an unavoidable accident/catastrophic mechanical failure/force majeure.
But how plausibly can a car judge whether keeping me and my 2 year old infant alive is more or less important than the unknown occupants of another car?
The car should keep its occupants safe above all others. If we're all in these self driving cars the occupants of any others involved will have to rely on their own cars to keep them safe. If your car can decide to let you die because it perceives something else to be more important then that's a car that's not going to sell well.
Did you see the episode? It was, another, excuse to bash on all things American*. The presented t as if it ran out of charge. They really tried to hide the fact that they were not driving the car under normal road conditions.
Umm they were banging around their track at full pelt. And Clarkson is not known for efficient driving.
That said, I like this screen name more than my ol' gamer tag. If people go visit my website, they can be well on their way to eternal life, and my Bro Jesus will have cool things to say to me when we finally meet.
Is that website legit or some kind of piss take? I can't quite be sure :/
And we call them mobile phones, as mobility.
Tablets are also mobile. So are cars.
Calling them mobiles differentiates from the other types of phones, mainly being pay phones and home phones (or landline).
"Pay phones"? Do you still have those over there? I remember seeing those decades ago when I was a kid. Do you still have rotary phones too? Or how about those phones that had no number at all, and you had to wind a knob to talk to the operator?
"Home phones"? Only old people still have landlines here. You guys still use those too? How quaint. Do you still have to turn a crank on your cars to start the engine too?
That's cool man. So there's no pay phones at all in the USA? How very progressive. I'm afraid the rotary and crank phones are a bit outdated now, you can still get them in second hand shops though. Oh, batteries have cells, you can get storm cells too, guess what? You're made of a shitload of cells! But anyway, you stick to your 'cell' only with your horrible operators and shitty service with extortionate rates while you laugh at foreigners using different words for things because it's Americans who speak proper English, right?
if the phrase was "put down their tools" that would not be idiomatic and would be generally understood. "downed their tools" is an idiom... the closest use for "downed" that I can think of to an American would be if someone "downed their beer" which is to say finished a beer quickly.
To say "I put down my dog" means you killed your dog, you aren't killing your tools if you "down your tools". Downtown has nothing to do with this use either.
What he's saying is there are multiple meanings and uses of down.