They're great if you already want to tinker, but at that age, he's going to need something that's more immediately fun.
I got into computers through games, and the fact that my C64 had a built-in programming language. Not sure what the way into computers is these days but you don't want to start at the deep end.
If you intend a conversation to be private but conduct it shouting at the top of your lungs in a crowded restaurant, should the courts hold your intent trumped your conduct
How often do people do this? No reasonable person would do this in the first place, because it's very clear and obvious that doing so isn't private.
This is a situation where you're actively working to avoid privacy. Nor is it a situation where you need to actively do anything to violate that privacy. It wouldn't be a reasonable expectation from a reasonable person that privacy was expected.
If I was talking at a normal volume in a crowded restaurant, I'd expect privacy, even if it was technically possible for people to listen in.
Tech forums always seem to have a certain Asperger thing going on. They find it hard to put themselves in the position of another person.
To most of us, it should be obvious that someone communicating over a wireless network. There are, after all, many reasons one might use an unencrypted network. It would be remarkable strange behaviour for anyone to actually want people to intercept their data, so much so that one might reasonably expect that permission would need to be made explicit.
If you walked up to someone who was using an open network, and asked "Hello. I'd like to intercept your network traffic, do you mind?" what do you think the answer would be?
Not really. You can't help but to hear it if someone does that.
To tap a wireless network you need to actively listen in, in a manner that is different from what a reasonable person might consider to be the normal mode of use.
It's a tertiary source. Always has been. This is by design.
It relies on things that have been recorded and documented. The benefit of this is that if something is in dispute, you can go to the secondary source and verify it. The primary source may change his mind, or may not be around after a certain time.
This seems the most obvious rationale anyway. There's no particular reason to make an exception here.
Why would 4K be 4096 pixels? K typically means thousand. Even in computers. The only time it meant 1024 was in the late 70's, early 80's where a few people figured the 2.4% error didn't matter.
Number of cameras in London isn't any different from any other city. The report that everyone quotes used ridiculous extrapolation assuming that a major high street was typical.
And most of those were privately owned. Do you live in a country where shops and banks don't use security cameras?
Libel laws are being rewritten.
We do have a good source of Science educated people. It's called Sweden. Seriously, although science education in the UK isn't all it could be, the main problem is that not enough people are going into science. The UK is a big place though, so a realtvely small percentage still means a lot of trained scientists and engineers, and there's all of Europe to pick from.
And for some reason London is a popular place to live. I'm not a huge fan but it clearly has something.
Rape is illegal in the UK as well as in Sweden. And having sex with someone who doesn't consent (if you're asleep you don't consent, and that's the allegation) is generally considered rape.
The point is that the guy who was "arrested for a tweet" was actually making threatening statements. The GGP was suggesting that the UK is the only country where making threatening statements is considered reason to arrest.
"Rape"? The case involves him failing to use a condom.
And also of having sex with a woman while she was asleep.
This whole thing is so disgustingly shady that anyone who spends more than 5 minutes looking at it realizes it's a set up to try and get him into a US or UK controlled area so he can be disposed of properly.
This sounds more like conspiracy hysteria than anything else. Rather than go for the apparently pretty easy route of extraditing from the UK, the Americans want to extradite from Sweden, which will mean they need to get both he Swedish and English legal system to agree to an extradition.
And Google loses market share because it doesn't have as good coverage of these sites as companies that are willing to share the revenue they generate.
Xerox's window system didn't let applications draw in obscured windows. Apple's did. Microsofts used pretty much the same solution. Apple invented the concept of drag and drop, the idea that windows could be dragged by the title bar, pull down menus and the clipboard. This is just a selection.
X, Windows, BeOS, AmigaOS, Iris and others got these concepts from Apple. Not Xerox.
And this is a good thing. We don't want to reinvent the wheel.
Slashdot Mirror
For a 7-year old?
They're great if you already want to tinker, but at that age, he's going to need something that's more immediately fun.
I got into computers through games, and the fact that my C64 had a built-in programming language. Not sure what the way into computers is these days but you don't want to start at the deep end.
How often do people do this? No reasonable person would do this in the first place, because it's very clear and obvious that doing so isn't private.
This is a situation where you're actively working to avoid privacy. Nor is it a situation where you need to actively do anything to violate that privacy. It wouldn't be a reasonable expectation from a reasonable person that privacy was expected.
If I was talking at a normal volume in a crowded restaurant, I'd expect privacy, even if it was technically possible for people to listen in.
Yes. This way we can veryify that at least one other person considers it worth reporting, and we have an explicit source to check.
If I write a story located in US and all the people drive on the right, is it symbolic?
Depends. Is there a lot of discussion about people driving on the right, and possibly a subtle nod to the peculiarity of it?
Tech forums always seem to have a certain Asperger thing going on. They find it hard to put themselves in the position of another person.
To most of us, it should be obvious that someone communicating over a wireless network. There are, after all, many reasons one might use an unencrypted network. It would be remarkable strange behaviour for anyone to actually want people to intercept their data, so much so that one might reasonably expect that permission would need to be made explicit.
If you walked up to someone who was using an open network, and asked "Hello. I'd like to intercept your network traffic, do you mind?" what do you think the answer would be?
Not really. You can't help but to hear it if someone does that.
To tap a wireless network you need to actively listen in, in a manner that is different from what a reasonable person might consider to be the normal mode of use.
It's a tertiary source. Always has been. This is by design.
It relies on things that have been recorded and documented. The benefit of this is that if something is in dispute, you can go to the secondary source and verify it. The primary source may change his mind, or may not be around after a certain time.
This seems the most obvious rationale anyway. There's no particular reason to make an exception here.
You know, I don't think there is. At least not one that anyone considers important.
It's for speculative fiction. This makes the criteria pretty loose.
The City and the City won on year and you could argue that that's neither.
Why would 4K be 4096 pixels? K typically means thousand. Even in computers. The only time it meant 1024 was in the late 70's, early 80's where a few people figured the 2.4% error didn't matter.
Number of cameras in London isn't any different from any other city. The report that everyone quotes used ridiculous extrapolation assuming that a major high street was typical.
And most of those were privately owned. Do you live in a country where shops and banks don't use security cameras?
Libel laws are being rewritten.
We do have a good source of Science educated people. It's called Sweden. Seriously, although science education in the UK isn't all it could be, the main problem is that not enough people are going into science. The UK is a big place though, so a realtvely small percentage still means a lot of trained scientists and engineers, and there's all of Europe to pick from.
And for some reason London is a popular place to live. I'm not a huge fan but it clearly has something.
Nobody drives to London. Way too much traffic!
Seriously though, it is something like 90% of London workers that use public transport.
I'd consider Scandinavian countries,
Taxes are pretty high. So are typical wages. Makes getting a startup started harder.
Iceland and Ireland (proper).
Better - good choices from a business point of view anyway.
Although the issues perceived in Britain are exaggerated somewhat.
Rape is illegal in the UK as well as in Sweden. And having sex with someone who doesn't consent (if you're asleep you don't consent, and that's the allegation) is generally considered rape.
The point is that the guy who was "arrested for a tweet" was actually making threatening statements. The GGP was suggesting that the UK is the only country where making threatening statements is considered reason to arrest.
I thought UK cameras looked at the rear plate.
If you intentionally give people the facilities to commit a crime, with the knowledge that they intend to do so, you're liable.
"Well, I'm going to swing my arms like this, and if you get hit then it's your fault" only works in courts run by 5-year-olds.
Slashdot doesn't delete comments unless absolutely forced to. We're smart enough to know this stupid conspiracy shit is just that.
And also of having sex with a woman while she was asleep.
This sounds more like conspiracy hysteria than anything else. Rather than go for the apparently pretty easy route of extraditing from the UK, the Americans want to extradite from Sweden, which will mean they need to get both he Swedish and English legal system to agree to an extradition.
So, how about cutting wires to the port, and wiring a new port on the other side of the door. Presumably this could be done fairy neatly.
Seems to fundamental flaw is that the access port is on the outside of the door.
It's a moot point though. Hotel rooms aren't secure. Dozens of people have access. My suggestion is to use the safe to store valuables.
Steering? I know from one-man hovercraft that the rudder is mostly useless, and you steer by leaning. You need a Cog to be high enough to do this.
Convince a politician that it's only fair that you get one then.
They do want Google to link to them.
This is a service that makes Google money. They also want some of that money.
And Google loses market share because it doesn't have as good coverage of these sites as companies that are willing to share the revenue they generate.
Xerox's window system didn't let applications draw in obscured windows. Apple's did. Microsofts used pretty much the same solution. Apple invented the concept of drag and drop, the idea that windows could be dragged by the title bar, pull down menus and the clipboard. This is just a selection.
X, Windows, BeOS, AmigaOS, Iris and others got these concepts from Apple. Not Xerox.
And this is a good thing. We don't want to reinvent the wheel.