Oh yeah. Because a crackdown that killed 3,500 people (according to TFA) is clearly the same as throwing away a few tents.
You realize that the OWS movement will never be taken seriously by reasonable people if hyperbole like this seem to be the common view of the movement, right? Because it totally won't. And shouldn't. Not saying it is. What I'm saying is your comments, and comments like this (which I see all the time on/.) only hurt yourself and the movement you (implicitly seem to) support.
The thing that annoys me about OWS (aside from their incredulous disbelief that their right to speak does not extend to impeding other people's ability to live their lives) is that they're not even protesting a tangible THING. They're setting up strawmen, knocking them down, and declaring moral victory. They're not arguing against anybody real, but percieved injustices against the abstract. And the bit about that that REALLY pisses me off is that any good points they make are therefor dismissed by 'the other side' as a result, battle lines are drawn, and after that point, and people rarely 'change teams'.
Fucking douchebags, all...
This is probably the intelligence community at work here. If competent (and from the signs of how well created Stuxnet and Duqu are, they are), people who out these things have nothing to fear. It would almost be an open admission of guilt to "make them disappear." Not to mention the risk of being caught. These worms have worked by subtlety and subterfuge, they won't stop doing that now. And that means not killing people. Really, the idea that intelligence agencies work through murder is mostly (definitely not entirely, but mostly) a Hollywood/ New York Times Bestseller invention. In reality, assassination is way to risky to happen often or be used lightly.
Now, if they were leaking something like a NOC list or exact design documents for thermonuclear warheads, that might be a different story. Stuxnet, however, already did its damage. Duqu probably did too.
I was specifically thinking of Voyager 2, which is described as being on an interstellar mission right now (technically, it might still be in our solar system depending on how exactly you define the boundaries). Such a mission for humans is not really possible, or barely so. Might technically be possible to send a person out there, not really sure. Point was, something won't become a feasible reality until it stops being expensive and inefficient.
Oh yeah, that can't possibly go wrong. Nope, can't think how that might be a mistake.
Still, if the idea of a robot commandeering your limbs sounds a bit, uh, scary, you're not alone. The audience at the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), where the researchers presented their results in September, let out a nervous gasp upon seeing the video of the experiment:
Yeah, I think a nervous gasp might be in order here.
Anyway...with Apple, is it spying if you click "I accept" on the EULA?
Yes.
a)Burying something in a 20-page EULA (or however long it is) in legalese doesn't make it obvious. And more importantly b) spying is still spying even if you know about it. Spying usually implies secrecy, but it by no means requires it.
Yep. MS is big and steady enough that they can keep doing what they are doing (even if that means releasing crap and failed products quite often) and still maintain profitability year after year, and during a recession no less.
Neither Apple nor Google have yet proven themselves in that way. It is by no means clear that Apple will even continue to maintain it's growth without Steve Jobs leading it, and Google is riding on a very dangerous ad-wave that could possibly topple at any time. Both of these companies will probably continue just fine, but massive amounts of growth over a short period of time is a sign that the company is probably rather unstable. Even if they return profitability.
Which you want for investment is entirely up to you and how much you like gambling. Apple and Google are probably safe in the short term, but I wouldn't make any guaranteed or assumptions about ten years from now. It would somewhat surprise me (although in a good way) of Microsoft is gone or even severely crippled ten years from now.
Out of curiosity, have you tried singing while playing? Seems like many musicians can do that just fine, and I know the singing part of the brain is actually wired separately from the speaking part (some people who can't speak due to a brain problem can still sing or speak in poetry).
I certainly can't speak while playing, but then I play trombone and violin, so that probably is unrelated to brain usage patterns.
I didn't have any trouble with his sentence either. Even your first one didn't give me too much trouble (although it wasn't exactly fair since I'd just seen it, and it was still problematic). Your second sentence, on the other hand, is completely unreadable to me. I literally have to go letter by letter.
I'll be reading a book and then realise I've been on auto-pilot for the last 3 pages and actually have no recollection of what I just read.
I've done this too, which is why I often tend to read by sounding things out. I'm pretty sure this helps with writing and grammar skills too, since you get not only the meaning but the way the sentence flows and sounds (as anyone who has tried to figure out an improperly written sentence should have noticed). I always sound out sentences when writing.
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I'm also mildly dyslexic (not enough to impact me significantly: I think reading a lot when I was young helped overcome any problems I may have had), so this may just be my subconscious way of adjusting for that. Worst was actually playing written music: I'd find myself (quite often) displacing the notes. Spent a good 4-5 weeks playing a song before I realized the first note was a third higher than I had thought.
So? He bought it in a box, but when he tried to install it found that the box is really just a gift certificate for a game tied to an online ID.
Just like it says on the back of the box. Kinda hard to see in that picture, I know. It's not like he shouldn't have known exactly what he was buying, had he done due diligence.
Now, that doesn't address the key point about whether you should be able to resell the games. I can definitely understand Valve's reluctance to allow it, however. For physical objects, used reduces the quality, and can be difficult to find and sell (usually occurs at extremely high premiums - say hi, Gamestop!). Digital copies don't degrade and can be bought and sold easily (instantly, and with no third-part premiums). Basically, it isn't impossible to imagine that a developer would sell only half (actually, that may even be optimistic) as many total copies as they otherwise would. Essentially, it would turn into game renting - except that with a sufficiently established system, the "renting" would be almost free (you could resell the game for, theoretically, exactly or only cents less than what you paid for it).
It's really hard for me to get angry at Valve for not allowing that, especially with the insanely good sales they have on nearly constantly.
Corporate involvement in politics wouldn't be (much of) a problem* if the government was actually restricted like it should be. Seriously, why would corporations bother with lobbying if the government couldn't help them? You could solve quite a lot by limiting the government.
*As someone will inevitably point out, the government does need certain powers to regulate corporations (FDA, EPA, etc.) and corporations would still lobby to control those. The solution to this is not readily apparent. Making the positions uninfluenced by elections could be abused far to easily.
Only 500? Wow, I thought it'd be much higher than that. OTOH, I imagine those are 500 mostly incredibly qualified people. As a side note, I imagine NASA has enough test pilots recruited from the air force, so a highly-qualified scientific background is likely to be more useful for them. The website notes that the astronauts will be doing research, so a medical student might actually have some qualifications for them to consider. Not enough, certainly, but the chances are better, while Virgin Galactic seems more interested in simply getting off the ground at this point.
Huh? Google was supposed to release source code for Android? Pretty sure that counts as extra.
Of course, by/. standards everyone is supposed to release their source code, so by that standard, yeah Google did what they were supposed to do. On the other hand, anyone who is truly a proponent of freedom should acknowledge that, being Google's project, they are free to do with it as they like. Including not releasing source, if they see fit.
Well, the third one looks a lot like a city grid. In fact, it looks exactly like the roadmaps in Google Maps of a well-organized downtown, might be some connection there. The "targeting bullseye" might well be just that (calibration for high-altitude photography, seems like the likeliest, especially with the planes in the middle.) The first one is just weird.
Make-work actually seems quite possible for the rest. Certainly wouldn't be a first for China. Anything that keeps their economy expanding they will fund, so it seems far more likely than some sort of super-weapon.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yeah. Because a crackdown that killed 3,500 people (according to TFA) is clearly the same as throwing away a few tents.
You realize that the OWS movement will never be taken seriously by reasonable people if hyperbole like this seem to be the common view of the movement, right? Because it totally won't. And shouldn't. Not saying it is. What I'm saying is your comments, and comments like this (which I see all the time on /.) only hurt yourself and the movement you (implicitly seem to) support.
The thing that annoys me about OWS (aside from their incredulous disbelief that their right to speak does not extend to impeding other people's ability to live their lives) is that they're not even protesting a tangible THING. They're setting up strawmen, knocking them down, and declaring moral victory. They're not arguing against anybody real, but percieved injustices against the abstract. And the bit about that that REALLY pisses me off is that any good points they make are therefor dismissed by 'the other side' as a result, battle lines are drawn, and after that point, and people rarely 'change teams'. Fucking douchebags, all...
So... pretty much politics as usual, eh?
This is probably the intelligence community at work here. If competent (and from the signs of how well created Stuxnet and Duqu are, they are), people who out these things have nothing to fear. It would almost be an open admission of guilt to "make them disappear." Not to mention the risk of being caught. These worms have worked by subtlety and subterfuge, they won't stop doing that now. And that means not killing people. Really, the idea that intelligence agencies work through murder is mostly (definitely not entirely, but mostly) a Hollywood/ New York Times Bestseller invention. In reality, assassination is way to risky to happen often or be used lightly.
Now, if they were leaking something like a NOC list or exact design documents for thermonuclear warheads, that might be a different story. Stuxnet, however, already did its damage. Duqu probably did too.
I was specifically thinking of Voyager 2, which is described as being on an interstellar mission right now (technically, it might still be in our solar system depending on how exactly you define the boundaries). Such a mission for humans is not really possible, or barely so. Might technically be possible to send a person out there, not really sure. Point was, something won't become a feasible reality until it stops being expensive and inefficient.
Actually, since the article is about robots controlling humans, the joke would have to be "In Soviet Russia, you control robots!"
And yes that now is a joke.
When this robot needs a hand, it borrows yours.
Oh yeah, that can't possibly go wrong. Nope, can't think how that might be a mistake.
Still, if the idea of a robot commandeering your limbs sounds a bit, uh, scary, you're not alone. The audience at the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), where the researchers presented their results in September, let out a nervous gasp upon seeing the video of the experiment:
Yeah, I think a nervous gasp might be in order here.
Interstellar travel is already a reality. It is just expensive and inefficient.
But it's the car that has the increased lion capacity in the first place!
Anyway...with Apple, is it spying if you click "I accept" on the EULA?
Yes.
a)Burying something in a 20-page EULA (or however long it is) in legalese doesn't make it obvious. And more importantly b) spying is still spying even if you know about it. Spying usually implies secrecy, but it by no means requires it.
Yep. MS is big and steady enough that they can keep doing what they are doing (even if that means releasing crap and failed products quite often) and still maintain profitability year after year, and during a recession no less.
Neither Apple nor Google have yet proven themselves in that way. It is by no means clear that Apple will even continue to maintain it's growth without Steve Jobs leading it, and Google is riding on a very dangerous ad-wave that could possibly topple at any time. Both of these companies will probably continue just fine, but massive amounts of growth over a short period of time is a sign that the company is probably rather unstable. Even if they return profitability.
Which you want for investment is entirely up to you and how much you like gambling. Apple and Google are probably safe in the short term, but I wouldn't make any guaranteed or assumptions about ten years from now. It would somewhat surprise me (although in a good way) of Microsoft is gone or even severely crippled ten years from now.
Is that a "whooosh" I hear?
Yeah, I mean really. It's already "fish", how less appetizing can you get?
Out of curiosity, have you tried singing while playing? Seems like many musicians can do that just fine, and I know the singing part of the brain is actually wired separately from the speaking part (some people who can't speak due to a brain problem can still sing or speak in poetry).
I certainly can't speak while playing, but then I play trombone and violin, so that probably is unrelated to brain usage patterns.
I didn't have any trouble with his sentence either. Even your first one didn't give me too much trouble (although it wasn't exactly fair since I'd just seen it, and it was still problematic). Your second sentence, on the other hand, is completely unreadable to me. I literally have to go letter by letter.
In the RIAA's view, you never really owned the physical property either and shouldn't have been able to resell that.
I'll be reading a book and then realise I've been on auto-pilot for the last 3 pages and actually have no recollection of what I just read.
I've done this too, which is why I often tend to read by sounding things out. I'm pretty sure this helps with writing and grammar skills too, since you get not only the meaning but the way the sentence flows and sounds (as anyone who has tried to figure out an improperly written sentence should have noticed). I always sound out sentences when writing.
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I'm also mildly dyslexic (not enough to impact me significantly: I think reading a lot when I was young helped overcome any problems I may have had), so this may just be my subconscious way of adjusting for that. Worst was actually playing written music: I'd find myself (quite often) displacing the notes. Spent a good 4-5 weeks playing a song before I realized the first note was a third higher than I had thought.
Proper box art link.
So? He bought it in a box, but when he tried to install it found that the box is really just a gift certificate for a game tied to an online ID.
Just like it says on the back of the box. Kinda hard to see in that picture, I know. It's not like he shouldn't have known exactly what he was buying, had he done due diligence.
Now, that doesn't address the key point about whether you should be able to resell the games. I can definitely understand Valve's reluctance to allow it, however. For physical objects, used reduces the quality, and can be difficult to find and sell (usually occurs at extremely high premiums - say hi, Gamestop!). Digital copies don't degrade and can be bought and sold easily (instantly, and with no third-part premiums). Basically, it isn't impossible to imagine that a developer would sell only half (actually, that may even be optimistic) as many total copies as they otherwise would. Essentially, it would turn into game renting - except that with a sufficiently established system, the "renting" would be almost free (you could resell the game for, theoretically, exactly or only cents less than what you paid for it).
It's really hard for me to get angry at Valve for not allowing that, especially with the insanely good sales they have on nearly constantly.
Corporate involvement in politics wouldn't be (much of) a problem* if the government was actually restricted like it should be. Seriously, why would corporations bother with lobbying if the government couldn't help them? You could solve quite a lot by limiting the government.
*As someone will inevitably point out, the government does need certain powers to regulate corporations (FDA, EPA, etc.) and corporations would still lobby to control those. The solution to this is not readily apparent. Making the positions uninfluenced by elections could be abused far to easily.
Stupid parasites. They should ask "Would you kindly give me my share?" Helps to be polite.
Could be worse. Could be directed by Michael Bay and featuring Shia LaBeouf as Dr. Who.
I'll take cheap CGI.
Only 500? Wow, I thought it'd be much higher than that. OTOH, I imagine those are 500 mostly incredibly qualified people. As a side note, I imagine NASA has enough test pilots recruited from the air force, so a highly-qualified scientific background is likely to be more useful for them. The website notes that the astronauts will be doing research, so a medical student might actually have some qualifications for them to consider. Not enough, certainly, but the chances are better, while Virgin Galactic seems more interested in simply getting off the ground at this point.
Unfortunately they used to work on Firefox...
It isn't the people who used to work on Firefox that are the problem.
Huh? Google was supposed to release source code for Android? Pretty sure that counts as extra.
Of course, by /. standards everyone is supposed to release their source code, so by that standard, yeah Google did what they were supposed to do. On the other hand, anyone who is truly a proponent of freedom should acknowledge that, being Google's project, they are free to do with it as they like. Including not releasing source, if they see fit.
Well, the third one looks a lot like a city grid. In fact, it looks exactly like the roadmaps in Google Maps of a well-organized downtown, might be some connection there. The "targeting bullseye" might well be just that (calibration for high-altitude photography, seems like the likeliest, especially with the planes in the middle.) The first one is just weird.
Make-work actually seems quite possible for the rest. Certainly wouldn't be a first for China. Anything that keeps their economy expanding they will fund, so it seems far more likely than some sort of super-weapon.