increase offline bullying by making it illegal to anonymously blow the whistle on it. If you don't want to be bullied online, don't make your identity known online. If the bully doesn't know who you are, how will he target you? Oh, but he wants it illegal to hide your online identity. Wouldn't this increase bullying?
In other words, when they find a correlation, they assume something about past events, in this case that these people's stress levels were higher until they got cats. They're confusing a hypothesis with a conclusion supported by the data. The proper way to test this scientifically is to then take a random sample of people, give half of them cats, and find out whether there is a significant reduction in the stress of those who took cats versus those who didn't. Then they could make the claim, "get a cat for stress reduction".
It is not a PR exercise (well, maybe it is, I haven't read TFA), these types of scenarios are used all the time for crisis testing.
If it had nothing to do with PR, it wouldn't have even been mentioned to the press. When's the last time they reported on a fire drill or internal audit?
We should be able to to see what our police are doing and what our congesspeople are doing. Why? Because they work for us. But once you grant that assertion, it follows that your employer should be able to watch you.
No it doesn't. Public servants are different than employees in a company. Government workers are given powers that private companies don't have, so they demand greater scrutiny. Most people must work, but they can choose not to work for the government if they don't like being under greater scrutiny.
This means that there is also only a SINGLE VENDOR from which software can be obtained. Forget about competitive bidding, negotiating the best package price, etc. Forget it. Medium-to-Large companies will NEVER go for this.
You're right, these companies will probably stick with Microsoft.
Sure, their backdoor is "high-speed*", but they'll find out it's just burst speed, and their favorite spying protocols get throttled by forged packets saying the party ended the phone call even though they really didn't. They should have listened to us about network neutrality!
Holy shit, I never realized how simple real force feedback is. Just some coils around the joystick, and tiny magnets in the stick itself. Console game controllers could have had them all these years. Lame! But since a medical company patented it, no way they'd let the gaming people use it for any reasonable sum.
Except that the display is on the controller. All the swinging around, tilting, turning, etc. will be moving the display with it. I remember Kirby Tilt 'n; Tumble for the Game Boy Color and it was annoying to play due to constantly tilting the system different angles.
Nine years? What the fuck?! I mean, I hate SPAM as much as the next guy, and I spend a stupid amount of time keeping it out of the inboxes of my users, but nine years?!
You're right, he got off light, considering all the wasted time of other people dealing with his SPAM.
This kind of total lame spin on things is almost a reason to make all program development secret! The masses just can't stand being rational and careful about these things.
Maybe not the case here, but consider this: Say Apple is working on some new services with an interface that hasn't stabilized yet. Then they use this in some of their programs, knowing they might have to make changes to keep compatible. Not a problem for them, but if others were using thuis unfinished interface, their code would break some time in the future. Do they publish this unfinished interface and have people complaining that it's not stable, even though it was clearly stated that it wasn't, or do they wait until it's finalized?
Exactly. Dumb, predictable software can be used as a tool, since it does what one tells it and nothing more. "Smart" software is unpredictable, so rather than telling it what to do and moving on, one has to tell it something, then wait to see what it did. Only when software is as smart as a human (or more) will it be as useful as dumb, predictable software.
IIRC there was an image comparison technique where you are supposed to match two images of similar objects or animals. I think here if the environment, color, zoom and other factors are different then there is no way this can be broken.
Except that they aren't using machines to break the code, just to relay it to a set of humans who do nothing but solve them.
Further, could we tax them for holding millions of copies of each work? For example, if a song will be sold millions of times online, could they be taxed for those millions of copies of the song in their possession before they sold them? After all, making an unauthorized copy is equivalent to stealing the CD from the store, in their eyes, so surely they wouldn't mind reporting them to the IRS.
This is why the network neutrality debate is happening. The "somebody else" is going to want to shake you down. And their view is somewhat justified: your decision to use inefficient delivery, is costing them extra money. If you were more responsible, the conflict could be avoided.
Your argument would apply just as well to shaking down anyone because they're causing your users to use bandwidth at all. Even if they used the most efficient technology, the ISP could still say "Your video service is causing our users to use more bandwidth. This must be stopped!"
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. I think the phrase you're looking for is "the idea in and of itself"
There, fixed that for you.
increase offline bullying by making it illegal to anonymously blow the whistle on it. If you don't want to be bullied online, don't make your identity known online. If the bully doesn't know who you are, how will he target you? Oh, but he wants it illegal to hide your online identity. Wouldn't this increase bullying?
Wouldn't an optical mouse be better? The ones with a roller ball are really outdated. Unless you meant a trackball?
Yeah, you can get this stuff everywhere! It's usually called "milk", obtained from the breast of a cow, and quite cheap.
In other words, when they find a correlation, they assume something about past events, in this case that these people's stress levels were higher until they got cats. They're confusing a hypothesis with a conclusion supported by the data. The proper way to test this scientifically is to then take a random sample of people, give half of them cats, and find out whether there is a significant reduction in the stress of those who took cats versus those who didn't. Then they could make the claim, "get a cat for stress reduction".
If it had nothing to do with PR, it wouldn't have even been mentioned to the press. When's the last time they reported on a fire drill or internal audit?
No it doesn't. Public servants are different than employees in a company. Government workers are given powers that private companies don't have, so they demand greater scrutiny. Most people must work, but they can choose not to work for the government if they don't like being under greater scrutiny.
You're right, these companies will probably stick with Microsoft.
I think I saw a place selling that. Mc something.
Sure, their backdoor is "high-speed*", but they'll find out it's just burst speed, and their favorite spying protocols get throttled by forged packets saying the party ended the phone call even though they really didn't. They should have listened to us about network neutrality!
Holy shit, I never realized how simple real force feedback is. Just some coils around the joystick, and tiny magnets in the stick itself. Console game controllers could have had them all these years. Lame! But since a medical company patented it, no way they'd let the gaming people use it for any reasonable sum.
But neither does the judge/jury have to consider the RIAA's claims that they have evidence but won't show it.
Except that the display is on the controller. All the swinging around, tilting, turning, etc. will be moving the display with it. I remember Kirby Tilt 'n; Tumble for the Game Boy Color and it was annoying to play due to constantly tilting the system different angles.
You're right, he got off light, considering all the wasted time of other people dealing with his SPAM.
And isn't sneaker-net entirely legal (fair-use)?
This kind of total lame spin on things is almost a reason to make all program development secret! The masses just can't stand being rational and careful about these things.
Maybe not the case here, but consider this: Say Apple is working on some new services with an interface that hasn't stabilized yet. Then they use this in some of their programs, knowing they might have to make changes to keep compatible. Not a problem for them, but if others were using thuis unfinished interface, their code would break some time in the future. Do they publish this unfinished interface and have people complaining that it's not stable, even though it was clearly stated that it wasn't, or do they wait until it's finalized?
To PROTECT you from MISSING the IMPORTANT points. Or SOMETHING.
Yeah, but MacGyver would have been able to do it with a paper clip made of paper.
Exactly. Dumb, predictable software can be used as a tool, since it does what one tells it and nothing more. "Smart" software is unpredictable, so rather than telling it what to do and moving on, one has to tell it something, then wait to see what it did. Only when software is as smart as a human (or more) will it be as useful as dumb, predictable software.
Except that they aren't using machines to break the code, just to relay it to a set of humans who do nothing but solve them.
Further, could we tax them for holding millions of copies of each work? For example, if a song will be sold millions of times online, could they be taxed for those millions of copies of the song in their possession before they sold them? After all, making an unauthorized copy is equivalent to stealing the CD from the store, in their eyes, so surely they wouldn't mind reporting them to the IRS.
Your argument would apply just as well to shaking down anyone because they're causing your users to use bandwidth at all. Even if they used the most efficient technology, the ISP could still say "Your video service is causing our users to use more bandwidth. This must be stopped!"
Also, not all operating systems are created equal (sic).