The real killer question is whether it supports remote deletion like the Kindle does. The feature comparison doesn't mention this. Of course we'll only really know for sure if and when the feature is actually used; claims that it doesn't support it can't really be trusted (and the feature might be added in a later firmware update anyway).
The real problem, IMO, is that Google Voice voicemails are world-readable to begin with. [...] The url scheme is "https://www.google.com/voice/fm/20-digit account id/long b64 encoded binary string", and these urls can be viewed by unauthenticated users
And my gmail account is available to anyone who knows my username and an n-character string (hunter2, starred for obvious resons).
"[...] we can certainly understand that users would want to make them [voice messages] public on their sites but not necessarily searchable directly outside of their own website. We made a change to prevent those to be crawled so only the site owner can decide to index them."
So in other words, Google supports robots.txt? Still, if you put them on your website, some search engine will index them. Moral of the story: don't make something accessible by anyone on the web unless you want anyone to be able to access it.
One time I lived in a place that had several Wronf trees, and my dog would bark up them all damn day long. Now I always be sure there are no Wronf trees whenever I need to move. So I can understand your subject line perfectly.
It was a letdown for me too. All at once, I realized that Skynet etc. were a good thing, and that this was the first evidence of it. But alas, I find it was just something mundane.
"I'm going to the beach at 4."
"Huh? Aren't you going to the movies at 4?"
"Correct."
"...So how are you going to the beach at the same time?"
Whoops, you're an ass.
No, I'd answer "Incorrect" above. The correct/incorrect is referring to the listener's idea of what I'm doing, which he conveys in the question. When he asks "Aren't you going to the movies at 4?", he's also saying "I thought you were going to the movies at 4." That is what the correct/incorrect refers to. Of course to be clearer, I could respond without reference to the question, "I'm not going to the movies".
Agreed; "Are you not going?" conveys that the asker thinks you're not, and wants to confirm that. He wants to communicate this assumption, rather than just asking "Are you going?", which implies he doesn't know one way or another (he could communicate that he thinks you are going by asking "Are you still going?").
But the way he asks it puts the listener in a bind. Should the listener take it literally, or negate its meaning? Negating its meaning just leads to more unclear cases, ones that I might notice but answer in a way that differs from what the asker is assuming. Often I only realize later that a question I asked was ambiguous, or an answer I gave was ambiguous, and then start to wonder whether the other person is doing what I thought he would.
I want to avoid this from the start, so I disambiguate a question with my answer. The asker can still convey his assumption in this case by asking "Are you staying?". If he can't eliminate the negation, he can still ask something like "Is it correct that you're not going?"
So I don't think it's a simple thing like you describe. If you're going to fault people like me, it must be for thinking of the larger picture and the overall effect of ambiguous questions, the king of thinking that programmers do when deciding on coding styles with regard to defect rates.
Yeah, I've gotten to the level know when someone asks me the 'wrong' question I now answer "You're not asking me the right question". I used to answer it.
I do this out of habit now when someone asks me a negated question:
Someone: "Are you not going?"
Me: "Correct"
I used to answer "Yes, I'm not going", but "correct" is a more lazy way now. Answering just "yes" when I'm not going just confuses them, even though they are to blame for asking the negated question in the first place. I mean, it's not too hard to grasp. If the answer to "Are you going?" is "no", then clearly the answer to "Are you not going?" is "yes".
Blah blah blah, try 30 different fonts. Blah blah blah, try 20 different text editors. And HR will still want a copy in word format or plain text format, ignore any formatting, and keyword scan.
I'm thinking that different professions have different levels of social pressure to conform to a certain way of behaving and appearing, and the coder profession has less of this pressure, perhaps because good programmers have to constantly question assumptions and think outside the box to come up with good designs. But hell if I know or care.
By not getting the vaccine you expose other, more vulnerable people to higher risk. Not getting vaccinated is highly irresponsible, and anyone who doesn't should be quarantined.
Yes, exactly; when you're sick, stay the hell away from people until you get better. That's what I do (of course it's usually years between illnesses for me).
It's not easy to account for the lives lost due to waste of limited resources on medicine that doesn't help. If flu vaccines don't help most people, then let's find out so we can spend time doing things that do help.
There are so many conclusions which can drawn from those statistics its silly. Here is another example. Healthy people dont die as often period. If you are sickly you are more likely to still get a disease even if you were given the immunization short. Followed by the fact that sickly people die more often when they do get sick.
So you run a test where you randomly choose people, then randomly divide them into three groups: one which receives no shots, one which receives placebo shots, and one which receives the vaccine. Measure illness rates before and sometime after, then compare the three groups. You could further divide each group into the already-healthy and already-sickly, and see how each sub-group responded. Then you know whether the vaccine is useful in each sub-group.
But I'm not a doctor and hardly study medical stuff...
This is like when a programmer is sure his code works, doesn't need any unit tests, but when such tests are written, they find all sorts of problems. Apparently medicine is full of beliefs that aren't backed by tests; fortunately there's a movement against this, evidence-based medicine.
In this case it seems lots of people believe that vaccines are good, that anything that reduces use of them is bad, and since testing them could cause reduction in use, testing is bad. Never mind that they might not be as good as imagined; this is beyond question, and it's simply a matter of getting others to accept the same belief, no matter what means is used. It really makes me sick to read question-and-answer documents that constantly avoid direct answers to questions of whether a given person gets a benefit from an injection.
That is to say, substances often considered toxic can be benign or beneficial in small doses, and conversely an ordinarily benign substance can be deadly if over-consumed. Even water can be deadly if overconsumed.
Hence my vigilant crusade to educate everyone I encounter about the dangers of DHMO, and the carelessness given to its widespread use in virtually everything.
Successful mid-cycle add-ons I can remember (and have purchased and used) in recent history:
N64: memory expansion
Playstation: analog controller, dual shock
Playstation 2: network/hard drive
And of course the earlier cartridge-based systems had lots of successful add-ons, only they were in each cartridge, so you weren't as aware of them. Examples include battery backup, memory mappers to allow larger games, and custom processors (e.g. SuperFX on SNES).
"Yes, your honor, we had the source code to give to the compiler to produce the binaries, but we couldn't give the source code to the user because we weren't done with it yet."
Surely the publisher provided an editor to clean up the manuscript before publication, thus putting the copyright clearly in the hands of someone besides the author alone.
The GPL doesn't actually restrict what you do with your own intellectual property.
Being copyright, it restricts what one can do with his own real physical property. The libertarian point is that me doing something with my own real physical property isn't depriving anyone else of use of their own real physical property, therefore others do not have a right to restrict what I can do with my own property.
The casinos themselves try to have croupiers that are skilled at tipping the odds in the casinos favor, so the fact that they go to such lengths to stop gamblers from doing exactly what they themselves do is quite off putting.
It's their property, so they set the rules. If you don't feel the exchange of money is worth the experience, don't go. Just like if you don't feel that the exchange of money at the grocery store is worth the produce you get in return, don't shop there.
If a society believes in Free Software, then the GPL's legal application is perfectly simple and valid. To those hostile to freedom in the society, then the application of the GPL becomes something artificially difficult/problematic.
Having recently finally understood the libertarian view, I have had to conclude that the GPL is not libertarian, since it restricts what people can do with their own property (as all applications of copyright law do). But given that copyright law exists and is exercised in many negative ways, I think the GPL is a reasonable thing to have around; it's what I've released virtually all my code under so far.
Slashdot Mirror
The real killer question is whether it supports remote deletion like the Kindle does. The feature comparison doesn't mention this. Of course we'll only really know for sure if and when the feature is actually used; claims that it doesn't support it can't really be trusted (and the feature might be added in a later firmware update anyway).
And my gmail account is available to anyone who knows my username and an n-character string (hunter2, starred for obvious resons).
So in other words, Google supports robots.txt? Still, if you put them on your website, some search engine will index them. Moral of the story: don't make something accessible by anyone on the web unless you want anyone to be able to access it.
One time I lived in a place that had several Wronf trees, and my dog would bark up them all damn day long. Now I always be sure there are no Wronf trees whenever I need to move. So I can understand your subject line perfectly.
It was a letdown for me too. All at once, I realized that Skynet etc. were a good thing, and that this was the first evidence of it. But alas, I find it was just something mundane.
No, I'd answer "Incorrect" above. The correct/incorrect is referring to the listener's idea of what I'm doing, which he conveys in the question. When he asks "Aren't you going to the movies at 4?", he's also saying "I thought you were going to the movies at 4." That is what the correct/incorrect refers to. Of course to be clearer, I could respond without reference to the question, "I'm not going to the movies".
Agreed; "Are you not going?" conveys that the asker thinks you're not, and wants to confirm that. He wants to communicate this assumption, rather than just asking "Are you going?", which implies he doesn't know one way or another (he could communicate that he thinks you are going by asking "Are you still going?").
But the way he asks it puts the listener in a bind. Should the listener take it literally, or negate its meaning? Negating its meaning just leads to more unclear cases, ones that I might notice but answer in a way that differs from what the asker is assuming. Often I only realize later that a question I asked was ambiguous, or an answer I gave was ambiguous, and then start to wonder whether the other person is doing what I thought he would.
I want to avoid this from the start, so I disambiguate a question with my answer. The asker can still convey his assumption in this case by asking "Are you staying?". If he can't eliminate the negation, he can still ask something like "Is it correct that you're not going?"
So I don't think it's a simple thing like you describe. If you're going to fault people like me, it must be for thinking of the larger picture and the overall effect of ambiguous questions, the king of thinking that programmers do when deciding on coding styles with regard to defect rates.
...those rules coming from someone who doesn't capitalize anything, puts two sentences together with a comma, and pluralizes with an apostrophe.
I do this out of habit now when someone asks me a negated question:
Someone: "Are you not going?"
Me: "Correct"
I used to answer "Yes, I'm not going", but "correct" is a more lazy way now. Answering just "yes" when I'm not going just confuses them, even though they are to blame for asking the negated question in the first place. I mean, it's not too hard to grasp. If the answer to "Are you going?" is "no", then clearly the answer to "Are you not going?" is "yes".
Oh my. What kind of job were we discussing again?
I'm thinking that different professions have different levels of social pressure to conform to a certain way of behaving and appearing, and the coder profession has less of this pressure, perhaps because good programmers have to constantly question assumptions and think outside the box to come up with good designs. But hell if I know or care.
Yes, exactly; when you're sick, stay the hell away from people until you get better. That's what I do (of course it's usually years between illnesses for me).
It's not easy to account for the lives lost due to waste of limited resources on medicine that doesn't help. If flu vaccines don't help most people, then let's find out so we can spend time doing things that do help.
So you run a test where you randomly choose people, then randomly divide them into three groups: one which receives no shots, one which receives placebo shots, and one which receives the vaccine. Measure illness rates before and sometime after, then compare the three groups. You could further divide each group into the already-healthy and already-sickly, and see how each sub-group responded. Then you know whether the vaccine is useful in each sub-group.
But I'm not a doctor and hardly study medical stuff...
I don't whether to laugh or cry.
In this case it seems lots of people believe that vaccines are good, that anything that reduces use of them is bad, and since testing them could cause reduction in use, testing is bad. Never mind that they might not be as good as imagined; this is beyond question, and it's simply a matter of getting others to accept the same belief, no matter what means is used. It really makes me sick to read question-and-answer documents that constantly avoid direct answers to questions of whether a given person gets a benefit from an injection.
"That's funny, I don't remember being underwater earlier."
"How odd, it shows I was under water all day yesterday, just blue on every picture."
Hence my vigilant crusade to educate everyone I encounter about the dangers of DHMO, and the carelessness given to its widespread use in virtually everything.
N64: memory expansion
Playstation: analog controller, dual shock
Playstation 2: network/hard drive
And of course the earlier cartridge-based systems had lots of successful add-ons, only they were in each cartridge, so you weren't as aware of them. Examples include battery backup, memory mappers to allow larger games, and custom processors (e.g. SuperFX on SNES).
"Yes, your honor, we had the source code to give to the compiler to produce the binaries, but we couldn't give the source code to the user because we weren't done with it yet."
Surely the publisher provided an editor to clean up the manuscript before publication, thus putting the copyright clearly in the hands of someone besides the author alone.
Being copyright, it restricts what one can do with his own real physical property. The libertarian point is that me doing something with my own real physical property isn't depriving anyone else of use of their own real physical property, therefore others do not have a right to restrict what I can do with my own property.
It's their property, so they set the rules. If you don't feel the exchange of money is worth the experience, don't go. Just like if you don't feel that the exchange of money at the grocery store is worth the produce you get in return, don't shop there.
Having recently finally understood the libertarian view, I have had to conclude that the GPL is not libertarian, since it restricts what people can do with their own property (as all applications of copyright law do). But given that copyright law exists and is exercised in many negative ways, I think the GPL is a reasonable thing to have around; it's what I've released virtually all my code under so far.
...a cute fuzzy bunny gets burned to a crisp. Think of the bunnies!