Not your login information, no. You login through Facebook itself (HTTPS) and it uses some sort of identifier system to verify the login to MS. However, it also lets MS access your name and profile information, especially email address (including friends, although those are supposedly not retained). So no, you don't give MS your login information. You do, however, grant them the right to retain all your searches and use all your public information for any purposes whatsoever, so there is that.
Republic already implies representative rather than direct democracy. It is democratic because the leaders are elected by vote. I suppose you could call it a "constitutional democratic republic." But it depends a lot on exactly how you define your terms ("republic" doesn't have a precise universal definition).
It is a British couple in Britain being charged (criminally) in the UK for fraud (how they got fraud out of running a linking site I have no idea. The site was SurfTheChannel, BTW, since TFS doesn't say). Testimony is being offered by a Boston programmer who helped set up the site and agreed to testify in return for charges against him being dropped. The whole "undercover" bit was just to figure out where the couple lived: the MPAA first had someone pose as a venture capitalist interested in the site who met with the husband and tailed him back to his house, which was then snooped on by a hired PI (who posed as the homebuyer).
FWIW I don't think the case is likely to get terribly far. Similar cases against similar sites have failed in the past, but I don't know how bad the UK justice system is so I cannot say.
No, it's still a democratic republic, it's just a democratic republic where a significant number of the population watches Jersey Shore and similar shit. Not hard to manipulate that.
So in your reality power storage has not been invented yet?
Efficient, large-scale power storage? Nope, doesn't exist. Small-scale, inefficient systems? Sure, thats easy. But thermodynamics states that every time you switch energy format, you lose some energy. The only proposed moderately efficient scalable system I've ever seen for energy storage is flywheels, and those pose a range of PR problems (namely, multi-ton objects spinning at hundreds or thousands of RPMs).
Well, there is one particular satellite that has been well known to cause sea levels to rise quite significantly, so I think you might be on to something here...
Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a positive thing? Privatization will only provide an excuse to cut the NASA budget even more. And NASA is already outsourced to the gills as it is. And it could set the stage for the government bailing on space research and exploration altogether (and no private company is going to pick up the slack on projects with no profit behind them).
How is the ability to get to space cheaper and more efficiently a bad thing? For NASA or anyone else. There is zero reason to "slash" NASA's budget because of this: they are already working closely with SpaceX anyways, and will be commissioning them to launch flights. NASA runs the experiments and bigger scientific projects, like Mars rover missions and whatnot. The ability for them to get their projects into space cheaper can only be a good thing.
Really, if the government wanted to bail on space research they already could have. The DoD already has its rockets, the EU and Russia have theirs, really research is the only reason NASA exists anyways and is why they have existed for 20 years or so. This only helps that, by making the cost-to-orbit cheaper.
Knowing the BSA, it was "are you using any software you didn't pay for?" BAM, pirate!
The average also included developing countries, like China, where of course a lot of pirated software is used (by comparison, only ~1/4 of UK computers have pirated software... supposedly). Also, the study found current enforcement measures were "insufficient." Shocking that the BSA would find that. Looks like we'll need more laws to help them extor... I mean pay for all their software.
Especially the FOSS stuff, that is double-stealing: not paying people and not using their stuff.
Your view is completely inconsistent with the laws in most countries. If I were to kill a man because I panicked while trying to steal bread to feed my starving family, the result would be no less tragic than if I had killed him because I wanted to sleep with his wife. However, the latter killing would have been committed with malice aforethought; such a crime results in murder charges and makes the accused eligible for the death penalty in most states. By contrast, the former would have lacked malice, and in the absence of "special circumstances" laws, such a crime results in a lesser charge, such as manslaughter.
I would argue that the difference there is not in the nature of the crime or whether it should be prosecuted, but only in the extent of the penalty for the crime (I realize that under the law, they are generally considered different crimes for purposes of establishing maximum/minimum penalties). In other words, you can perhaps punish one crime harsher than another (indeed, intent and motivation can and should factor into the punishment), but you cannot prosecute a person for hating another, no matter how much you may want to.
I understand your position. However, my point is that "hate crime" itself should not be considered a separate crime. In other words, no one should be prosecuted for a hate crime as such. The penalty for whatever crime they committed may be increased (or decreased) depending on motivation, yes (in large part because punishment is partly intended as a cure for the criminal in addition to simply being a punishment for a given crime), but the motivation itself cannot of itself be a crime, IMO, not only for free speech purposes but also because of "equal protection under the law." Basically, a crime is a crime no matter who it is against, but the penalty can and should vary because of the intent of the criminal. Therefore, hate cannot in and of itself be a crime, since, well, it isn't. Only a crime can.
Is that he was tried for invasion of privacy and not a hate crime.
Because clearly most crimes are done out of love, right? The whole concept of "hate crime" pisses me off. You should prosecute a person for what they did, not for what they felt while doing it. What a person does is crime. What a person thinks or feels, is only thoughtcrime. A murder is a murder: why should the white person killing a black person (or a straight killing a gay) get a harsher penalty than a white person killing another white? They both did the same damned thing.
The article sez: Google was spamming its own results, but stopped when people called them on it.
No it doesn't. To quote:
Google's statement, according to SearchEngineLand, is:
"We've investigated and are taking manual action to demote www.google.com/chrome and lower the site's PageRank for a period of at least 60 days.We strive to enforce Google's webmaster guidelines consistently in order to provide better search results for users.
While Google did not authorize this campaign, and we can find no remaining violations of our webmaster guidelines, we believe Google should be held to a higher standard, so we have taken stricter action than we would against a typical site."
The demotion is a response to a campaign in which bloggers were found posting low-quality content related to Google Chrome in an effort to promote a Google video about King Arthur Flour. At least one of the posts had a hyperlink to the Chrome download page, which can help a site rise in Google search results through Google's PageRank algorithm. But paying people to include such links violates Google's guidelines.
"So far, only one page in the sponsored post campaign has been spotted with a 'straight' link that passed credit to the Chrome page," Sullivan writes. "It's also unlikely that the campaign overall was designed to build links. But my impression is that Google's deciding to penalize itself anyway with a PR reduction, to be safe."
Oh, and yes, many alcoholics who are dedicated to overcoming it absolutely would put software in their car that prevented them from parking in front of a bar or liquor store. It just doesn't exist.
Your analogy is flawed, for several reasons. Mostly because real life is a lot less fluid than the Internet. Bars also don't randomly pop up in the middle of the street. Porn (and borderline porn) can and does. You can't accidentally drive into a bar: you can accidentally surf into a porn site.
And also the barriers for visiting porn are far, far lower than that for going to a bar. It is literally 1/2 a second away on the Internet, so loosing control for even a few seconds can mean giving into temptation. The nearest bar to my house is at least 7 minutes away, and involves a considerable amount of effort (by comparison). Also, the bar is public (so pressure can help prevent it), the Internet is not. All in all, different temptations call for different responses. Analogy is not perfect, and you are taking it much further than it can go.
If you are saying that you need filtering or censoring software, then you are saying you can't trust yourself to follow your beliefs. If you really do believe in what you are being taught, then it should be incredibly simple for you to avoid tempting content on the internet. "We have to control ourselves" one guy says. If you need these programs, then you obviously aren't controlling yourself. Your religious beliefs are your responsibility. If you can't handle it or control yourself, then maybe you need to look at why you can't.
Did you stop to think that maybe using filtering software is one means of controlling yourself? Just, you know, before hand instead of during (also prevents accidental exposure which could strongly increase the temptation). The principle is the same as alcoholics avoiding bars: avoiding places with temptation is an important component of self control. Probably the most important part, actually, because it exhibits a high degree of forethought and self-knowledge.
Re:btrfs needed the work
on
Linux 3.4 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Checksumming, built-in RAID support, snapshotting, transparent compression, online volume resizing, et alia. Basically, a lot of stuff that is very interesting at the enterprise level and to serious nerds who like to do strange things with their volume management, but nothing particularly important to the average user. It's basically a non-Oracle-owned version of ZFS, if you know what that is.
Or they don't do facial recognition at all, only triggering "male/female" and "going in/going out" and don't store the information beyond that, as it says in TFA had you bothered to read it.
That is, if you believe them. But if you don't, you probably aren't the sort of person likely to go out to bars much anyways, so it doesn't really matter.
First of all, it isn't really a right, at least not yet, and second, without looking at the specific provisions and language of the bill you cannot tell whether or not the restrictions placed are reasonable. It certainly wouldn't be the first time an apparently well intentioned bill was written in such a way as to be incredibly and excessively difficult and expensive to follow. For one thing, TFA mentions that the only people who can access the information are people listed in the consent forms, which means any person doing the research as well as anyone assisting needs to be named, which is a massive PITA. It might even mean certain scientific papers couldn't be published, if it required disclosure of specifics about the genetic information (which is often the point). I feel that a scientists might object to such restrictions.
It would also require any current studies to gain the permission of anyone whose genetics they are currently studying (often thousands for each study), and it essentially means they would have to completely throw out every single data set they have collected once the study is done, too. All in all, these are scientists doing research making the complaint. I don't think their goal is to infringe people's privacy.
And ironically, the bill will probably decrease the privacy of people involved in the research. Since each use requires the authorization of the individuals whose genetics are involved, you can't permanently anonymize the data: someone needs to be able to find out to whom each strand of DNA they are working on belongs (and show proof that each individual has given consent), which means the current anonymization that is standard cannot be employed. Translation: for research purposes, the bill might well end up doing the exact opposite of what is intended.
Not a bad idea. You waste only the tiniest it of fuel, while giving you just enough time to locate most failure scenarios (not all, by any means, but a lot of them). If you didn't hold it on the pad, even the relatively short distance it would rise would require you to continue liftoff (aborting later on, which is very dangerous), since even a tiny fall will destroy the rocket.
Apollo moon missions don't have a rendezvous element so they had the option of launching during prime time.
Well, obviously they did have a rendezvous element, it's just that the target wasn't moving terribly fast (relatively speaking) and there was a valid launch window more or less every day.
I hope so, that would be amazing to see. I am very much hoping to see a visible supernova in my lifetime (unfortunately, they tend to be pretty rare, so it is unlikely, but you never know.) It wouldn't do any damage: pretty much nothing is close enough to do so.
The key here is the word "average." Sure, most users who heard about it will login once, make a post, then go back to Facebook for Farmville to feed their cattle. I'm more interested if there are small groups of people who make posts, because if so Google has a core group of users that they can grow from. And, of course, as TFA points out, the whole point of G+ was the privacy aspect, which they cannot see (I, for one, would almost never post outside some circle: I would use Facebook if I was interested in that kind of thing).
Note: I don't really use G+ or Facebook, although I have accounts on both. I do, however, occassionally see people posting interesting stuff (mainly pictures) on G+, since it ties into my email, and I don't mind it. I had to disable Facebook from sending me emails, since there was so much crap. And it still won't stop. Every email notification option I can find is turned off, and some still get sent. That is why I hate Facebook, more than anything else. They don't respect the users settings, obviously (so I don't expect them to respect privacy settings, either).
Slashdot Mirror
Not your login information, no. You login through Facebook itself (HTTPS) and it uses some sort of identifier system to verify the login to MS. However, it also lets MS access your name and profile information, especially email address (including friends, although those are supposedly not retained). So no, you don't give MS your login information. You do, however, grant them the right to retain all your searches and use all your public information for any purposes whatsoever, so there is that.
Republic already implies representative rather than direct democracy. It is democratic because the leaders are elected by vote. I suppose you could call it a "constitutional democratic republic." But it depends a lot on exactly how you define your terms ("republic" doesn't have a precise universal definition).
It is a British couple in Britain being charged (criminally) in the UK for fraud (how they got fraud out of running a linking site I have no idea. The site was SurfTheChannel, BTW, since TFS doesn't say). Testimony is being offered by a Boston programmer who helped set up the site and agreed to testify in return for charges against him being dropped. The whole "undercover" bit was just to figure out where the couple lived: the MPAA first had someone pose as a venture capitalist interested in the site who met with the husband and tailed him back to his house, which was then snooped on by a hired PI (who posed as the homebuyer).
FWIW I don't think the case is likely to get terribly far. Similar cases against similar sites have failed in the past, but I don't know how bad the UK justice system is so I cannot say.
No, it's still a democratic republic, it's just a democratic republic where a significant number of the population watches Jersey Shore and similar shit. Not hard to manipulate that.
So in your reality power storage has not been invented yet?
Efficient, large-scale power storage? Nope, doesn't exist. Small-scale, inefficient systems? Sure, thats easy. But thermodynamics states that every time you switch energy format, you lose some energy. The only proposed moderately efficient scalable system I've ever seen for energy storage is flywheels, and those pose a range of PR problems (namely, multi-ton objects spinning at hundreds or thousands of RPMs).
Well, there is one particular satellite that has been well known to cause sea levels to rise quite significantly, so I think you might be on to something here...
Well, yes, but not globally.
Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a positive thing? Privatization will only provide an excuse to cut the NASA budget even more. And NASA is already outsourced to the gills as it is. And it could set the stage for the government bailing on space research and exploration altogether (and no private company is going to pick up the slack on projects with no profit behind them).
How is the ability to get to space cheaper and more efficiently a bad thing? For NASA or anyone else. There is zero reason to "slash" NASA's budget because of this: they are already working closely with SpaceX anyways, and will be commissioning them to launch flights. NASA runs the experiments and bigger scientific projects, like Mars rover missions and whatnot. The ability for them to get their projects into space cheaper can only be a good thing.
Really, if the government wanted to bail on space research they already could have. The DoD already has its rockets, the EU and Russia have theirs, really research is the only reason NASA exists anyways and is why they have existed for 20 years or so. This only helps that, by making the cost-to-orbit cheaper.
I'd love to see the questions they use.
Knowing the BSA, it was "are you using any software you didn't pay for?" BAM, pirate!
The average also included developing countries, like China, where of course a lot of pirated software is used (by comparison, only ~1/4 of UK computers have pirated software... supposedly). Also, the study found current enforcement measures were "insufficient." Shocking that the BSA would find that. Looks like we'll need more laws to help them extor... I mean pay for all their software.
Especially the FOSS stuff, that is double-stealing: not paying people and not using their stuff.
Your view is completely inconsistent with the laws in most countries. If I were to kill a man because I panicked while trying to steal bread to feed my starving family, the result would be no less tragic than if I had killed him because I wanted to sleep with his wife. However, the latter killing would have been committed with malice aforethought; such a crime results in murder charges and makes the accused eligible for the death penalty in most states. By contrast, the former would have lacked malice, and in the absence of "special circumstances" laws, such a crime results in a lesser charge, such as manslaughter.
I would argue that the difference there is not in the nature of the crime or whether it should be prosecuted, but only in the extent of the penalty for the crime (I realize that under the law, they are generally considered different crimes for purposes of establishing maximum/minimum penalties). In other words, you can perhaps punish one crime harsher than another (indeed, intent and motivation can and should factor into the punishment), but you cannot prosecute a person for hating another, no matter how much you may want to.
I understand your position. However, my point is that "hate crime" itself should not be considered a separate crime. In other words, no one should be prosecuted for a hate crime as such. The penalty for whatever crime they committed may be increased (or decreased) depending on motivation, yes (in large part because punishment is partly intended as a cure for the criminal in addition to simply being a punishment for a given crime), but the motivation itself cannot of itself be a crime, IMO, not only for free speech purposes but also because of "equal protection under the law." Basically, a crime is a crime no matter who it is against, but the penalty can and should vary because of the intent of the criminal. Therefore, hate cannot in and of itself be a crime, since, well, it isn't. Only a crime can.
Is that he was tried for invasion of privacy and not a hate crime.
Because clearly most crimes are done out of love, right? The whole concept of "hate crime" pisses me off. You should prosecute a person for what they did, not for what they felt while doing it. What a person does is crime. What a person thinks or feels, is only thoughtcrime. A murder is a murder: why should the white person killing a black person (or a straight killing a gay) get a harsher penalty than a white person killing another white? They both did the same damned thing.
So use Opera, or Firefox, or one of dozens of quite often open-source alternatives.
The article sez: Google was spamming its own results, but stopped when people called them on it.
No it doesn't. To quote:
Google's statement, according to SearchEngineLand, is:
"We've investigated and are taking manual action to demote www.google.com/chrome and lower the site's PageRank for a period of at least 60 days.We strive to enforce Google's webmaster guidelines consistently in order to provide better search results for users.
While Google did not authorize this campaign, and we can find no remaining violations of our webmaster guidelines, we believe Google should be held to a higher standard, so we have taken stricter action than we would against a typical site."
The demotion is a response to a campaign in which bloggers were found posting low-quality content related to Google Chrome in an effort to promote a Google video about King Arthur Flour. At least one of the posts had a hyperlink to the Chrome download page, which can help a site rise in Google search results through Google's PageRank algorithm. But paying people to include such links violates Google's guidelines.
"So far, only one page in the sponsored post campaign has been spotted with a 'straight' link that passed credit to the Chrome page," Sullivan writes. "It's also unlikely that the campaign overall was designed to build links. But my impression is that Google's deciding to penalize itself anyway with a PR reduction, to be safe."
Oh, and yes, many alcoholics who are dedicated to overcoming it absolutely would put software in their car that prevented them from parking in front of a bar or liquor store. It just doesn't exist.
Your analogy is flawed, for several reasons. Mostly because real life is a lot less fluid than the Internet. Bars also don't randomly pop up in the middle of the street. Porn (and borderline porn) can and does. You can't accidentally drive into a bar: you can accidentally surf into a porn site.
And also the barriers for visiting porn are far, far lower than that for going to a bar. It is literally 1/2 a second away on the Internet, so loosing control for even a few seconds can mean giving into temptation. The nearest bar to my house is at least 7 minutes away, and involves a considerable amount of effort (by comparison). Also, the bar is public (so pressure can help prevent it), the Internet is not. All in all, different temptations call for different responses. Analogy is not perfect, and you are taking it much further than it can go.
If you are saying that you need filtering or censoring software, then you are saying you can't trust yourself to follow your beliefs. If you really do believe in what you are being taught, then it should be incredibly simple for you to avoid tempting content on the internet. "We have to control ourselves" one guy says. If you need these programs, then you obviously aren't controlling yourself. Your religious beliefs are your responsibility. If you can't handle it or control yourself, then maybe you need to look at why you can't.
Did you stop to think that maybe using filtering software is one means of controlling yourself? Just, you know, before hand instead of during (also prevents accidental exposure which could strongly increase the temptation). The principle is the same as alcoholics avoiding bars: avoiding places with temptation is an important component of self control. Probably the most important part, actually, because it exhibits a high degree of forethought and self-knowledge.
Checksumming, built-in RAID support, snapshotting, transparent compression, online volume resizing, et alia. Basically, a lot of stuff that is very interesting at the enterprise level and to serious nerds who like to do strange things with their volume management, but nothing particularly important to the average user. It's basically a non-Oracle-owned version of ZFS, if you know what that is.
Or they don't do facial recognition at all, only triggering "male/female" and "going in/going out" and don't store the information beyond that, as it says in TFA had you bothered to read it.
That is, if you believe them. But if you don't, you probably aren't the sort of person likely to go out to bars much anyways, so it doesn't really matter.
First of all, it isn't really a right, at least not yet, and second, without looking at the specific provisions and language of the bill you cannot tell whether or not the restrictions placed are reasonable. It certainly wouldn't be the first time an apparently well intentioned bill was written in such a way as to be incredibly and excessively difficult and expensive to follow. For one thing, TFA mentions that the only people who can access the information are people listed in the consent forms, which means any person doing the research as well as anyone assisting needs to be named, which is a massive PITA. It might even mean certain scientific papers couldn't be published, if it required disclosure of specifics about the genetic information (which is often the point). I feel that a scientists might object to such restrictions.
It would also require any current studies to gain the permission of anyone whose genetics they are currently studying (often thousands for each study), and it essentially means they would have to completely throw out every single data set they have collected once the study is done, too. All in all, these are scientists doing research making the complaint. I don't think their goal is to infringe people's privacy.
And ironically, the bill will probably decrease the privacy of people involved in the research. Since each use requires the authorization of the individuals whose genetics are involved, you can't permanently anonymize the data: someone needs to be able to find out to whom each strand of DNA they are working on belongs (and show proof that each individual has given consent), which means the current anonymization that is standard cannot be employed. Translation: for research purposes, the bill might well end up doing the exact opposite of what is intended.
Not a bad idea. You waste only the tiniest it of fuel, while giving you just enough time to locate most failure scenarios (not all, by any means, but a lot of them). If you didn't hold it on the pad, even the relatively short distance it would rise would require you to continue liftoff (aborting later on, which is very dangerous), since even a tiny fall will destroy the rocket.
Apollo moon missions don't have a rendezvous element so they had the option of launching during prime time.
Well, obviously they did have a rendezvous element, it's just that the target wasn't moving terribly fast (relatively speaking) and there was a valid launch window more or less every day.
I hope so, that would be amazing to see. I am very much hoping to see a visible supernova in my lifetime (unfortunately, they tend to be pretty rare, so it is unlikely, but you never know.) It wouldn't do any damage: pretty much nothing is close enough to do so.
No they don't. See their FAQ.
The key here is the word "average." Sure, most users who heard about it will login once, make a post, then go back to Facebook for Farmville to feed their cattle. I'm more interested if there are small groups of people who make posts, because if so Google has a core group of users that they can grow from. And, of course, as TFA points out, the whole point of G+ was the privacy aspect, which they cannot see (I, for one, would almost never post outside some circle: I would use Facebook if I was interested in that kind of thing).
Note: I don't really use G+ or Facebook, although I have accounts on both. I do, however, occassionally see people posting interesting stuff (mainly pictures) on G+, since it ties into my email, and I don't mind it. I had to disable Facebook from sending me emails, since there was so much crap. And it still won't stop. Every email notification option I can find is turned off, and some still get sent. That is why I hate Facebook, more than anything else. They don't respect the users settings, obviously (so I don't expect them to respect privacy settings, either).
Or he knew what was going on because it happened all the time and didn't give a shit because he wasn't paid to care (quite likely).