Exactly, there's a world of difference between Google implementing a DNT option in their browser and actually honouring it in their websites, let alone the myriad of smaller advertising operators. You are ultimately better off using Adblock to cut these off at the source.
Of more concern, why can't the DNT option be used as an additional tracking item to uniquely identify you? Perfect irony.
From a brief search I understand Google has formed an agreement that suggests their websites will honour DNT, if they don't already.
As previously discussed, IE turns this option on by default, whereas the DNT specification states this should not be done. A weird requirement, perhaps political, and weirdly good work from MicroSoft.
It's like being fined for not locking your gun safe. You're not being charged with the murder somebody committed using your gun.
Obviously a gun is something that generally requires a license in most countries, unlike the internet, so the expectation of access point responsibility is a little far-reaching in my opinion.
The point is that both organic and intensive farming methods can produce both types of tomato. It just so happens that organic farmers currently focus on the gourmet side of the market.
Precisely, it's a borderline useless idea that requires too much integration with a single company for it to catch on. I gather this works by requiring the app to even view the photos, so this makes it incredibly restrictive. I personally have a zero-app policy on Facebook, but I suppose a lot of people are almost tricked into installing apps - "Click here to see friend X's exciting breakfast pic!".
Next, a Facebook app by itself is insufficient. Pure HTML/JavaScript is sandboxed, so it requires you also install a McAffee toolbar so it can hook into the OS. They are unlikely to have a Linux version and, if they do, there are plenty of ways around it. You could hack the kernel if you really had to.
Of course they're not trying to secure an online banking system, just tap into any internet privacy fears that have trickled into the minds of the technically uninclined.
In Australia the consumers of organic food tend to be the types of people who value both 'natural' health and the environment, but for a rationale I have seen more focus on the health side here.
Ironically organic food is worse for the environment in at least that it requires greater land area to be cleared to produce the same amount of food. This is somewhat offset by a reduction in digging oil out of the ground.
Tastelessly, these are pretty minor compared to the problems some cinemagoers had recently with their Batman screening.
On the volume, I recall complaining to the cinema about the piercing sound at the last Harry Potter film. I thought, man I'm getting old, but I play in a rock band and listen primarily to black metal. If they can annoy my ears then it legitimately is too loud.
You're right, I'd conflated their position with the standard SlashDot take on abolishing copyright, which was a bit flip anyway as anti-copyright thought usually applies to public, not private, data.
Reading their site it's not clear exactly what they propose other than 'reform'. As best I can work out they want to reduce the length of copyright and patents to some unstated period, and possibly make it only apply to corporations. For the data-rentention issue you may be better off linking to the Greens who have similar policies on privacy and aren't tainted with the one-issue label (sort of).
The reason is twofold; because they can, and because, unlike mail and telephone calls, web sites are semi-public.
Hopefully this doesn't pass, but if it does hopefully everything shifts to https and then the government can see you went to https://applepierecipesandchildporn.com/ but have no idea at what you looked.
If this principle holds true, then neither should the children receive any of the cash sitting in their parents' accounts, or the house, or any business owned by them. Some people do theorise that we should ban inheritance to limit dynasties, but most people accept that parents have the right to work for the benefit of their children.
No, it makes them human. No matter their situation, everyone needs an outlet for recreation and spoiling themselves, just to feel like their life isn't pure survival and that they're part of society.
Priorities differ, although mine are probably the same as yours when it comes to overpriced Apple products.
The 1950's stat is surprising high to my ears, but might this not prove the point? Increased promiscuity means less need to visit prostitutes, and less religion has lead to increased promiscuity. Of course it all depends how you define promiscuity. It may include prostitution, but it is certainly not equivalent to it as you may be implying.
Reinstalling the OS is surely going to rewrite the MBR. Out of interest, how does a virus fit in enough code in 512 bytes (minus partition table info etc.) to make any meaningful modifications to something as high level as an OS?
I don't think it's surprising that belief systems affect behaviour. As many Muslim men live in conservative theocracies the society itself provides pressure to be less promiscuous so I think the AC's point stands, it is a tricky thing to remove in a study.
Relatedly, reference 93 of the study (" Risk of HIV infection [...] is lower among homeless Muslim men in Kolkata") suggests they equated circumcision with being Muslim, so accounting for behavioural differences between Muslims and non-Muslims would be necessary.
[that there is no loss is] why a very large percentage of Americans have copied music, for example, and have no ethical qualms about doing so,
I think you are partially correct, but partially the reason why people have no qualms is that it's out-of-sight, out-of-mind. The physicallity of taking a CD from a shop makes the consequences obvious. Copying bits from the comfort of your own house does not.
If you genuinely cannot fathom this then here you go;
Primarily it is because of the notion of "acquiring a product without paying for it", or "without permission", both of which rely on the notion of "intellectual property". A related concept is to 'steal' an idea. Sure, you may ultimately disagree, but it doesn't take much mental agility to see how people equate copyright infringement with theft.
I probably save $5 per shopping trip by letting them track my buying.
Why do you think they give you this discount? I suspect they know they are making more than $5 from you through extra sales, not necessarily at the supermarket, but somewhere in your life's purchases.
But perhaps not, maybe it's just part of competition or the inter-company prisoner's dilemma that is advertising.
The contradiction does not invalidate the entire argument. If premise A implies B and also C, yet someone holds both B and !C to be true, it doesn't stop A implying B, it just means they made a mistake thinking about C. The best you could say to such a person is that "if you believe C, doesn't that imply premise A is false?" This is a form of convincing, not argument. You are attacking the premise, which is not intrinsically an invalid thing to do, but in this case the premise is loosely "children should be protected" which both sides agree upon. That's why I think it is an ad hominem - it is attacking the arguer and not really the the argument.
Further, while supporting social welfare personally, I don't find this cliqued Republican position to be contradictory. The abortion argument is about the personhood of the unborn child. Who should fund persons is a different matter.
The other kind of rape would include statutory rape
Interesting, I interpreted "legitimate rape" as somehow juxtaposed to his previous sentences, i.e. illegitimate or "crying wolf" rape, but your interpretation makes sense too.
The outcry against him seems to assume that he believed their were cases where it was illegitimate to complain about rape. This interpretation seems fairly silly and makes the outcry look like nothing but opportunistic politicising.
Really Slashdot, there was really no need to try to work 'mathematics' into the title. Just say "Why doesn't everyone have a debate on abortion?"
On topic, I imagine the belief that "you can't get pregnant if you're raped" is even less common than "you can't get pregnant if you're on top".
To be as fair to Akin as possible he seems to be saying;
"The abortion-for-rape argument is a red herring as it's very difficult to become pregnant from rape. Therefore most women claiming rape to obtain an abortion are fraudulent. In cases of actual rape, overall I still believe the life of the baby takes precedence.
Sure, his premise is clearly wrong, but man the people mindlessly reacting over this really piss me off.
Hypocrisy is just another form of the ad hominen argument. You may have a valid criticism of the behaviour of Republicans but it says nothing about abortion.
It says more about the structure of that particular market, which is why comparisons of the importance of Apple products vs oil are asinine. Nevertheless a company that has achieved a large market cap can be said to have done (past tense) something right, and the total worth does give a decent indication of how important it currently is to society, and therefore how great an affect it's sudden demise would have.
Still, Apple produces mostly interchangable luxury products. Most of the world's population gets by without Apple devices at all, but almost everyone would be affected by Exxon disappearing overnight.
No and yes. This is not uncommon behaviour for rape victims, motivated by denial and guilt. The human mind is very good at compartmentalising contradictory things. Of course the actual crime is "sexual misdemeanour". The connotations of rape are very different.
Swedish law says clearly they can question him anywhere, including where he is at now.
However they appear to be wanting to question him with the intent to charge him. That doesn't work over the phone - "Mr Assange, based on your answers we charge you with sexual misconduct. Could you please come over so we can fine and/or gaol you?"
Ecuador asked for a simple statement from the UK and Sweden that this wasn't some bullshit to give him a rendition ride to the USA and they refused
No, Ecuador asked Sweden to promise that they wouldn't extradite him to the U.S. over an unrelated, hypothetical charge and extradition request. They cannot promise the outcome of a trial before it is needed or actually occurs.
I would like to see them actually be asked this though; to confirm or deny whether they have had any discussions with the U.S. on extradition or made any deals. Such information would probably be classified as uncommentable due to being an 'ongoing investigation'.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, there's a world of difference between Google implementing a DNT option in their browser and actually honouring it in their websites, let alone the myriad of smaller advertising operators. You are ultimately better off using Adblock to cut these off at the source.
Of more concern, why can't the DNT option be used as an additional tracking item to uniquely identify you? Perfect irony.
From a brief search I understand Google has formed an agreement that suggests their websites will honour DNT, if they don't already.
As previously discussed, IE turns this option on by default, whereas the DNT specification states this should not be done. A weird requirement, perhaps political, and weirdly good work from MicroSoft.
It's like being fined for not locking your gun safe. You're not being charged with the murder somebody committed using your gun.
Obviously a gun is something that generally requires a license in most countries, unlike the internet, so the expectation of access point responsibility is a little far-reaching in my opinion.
The point is that both organic and intensive farming methods can produce both types of tomato. It just so happens that organic farmers currently focus on the gourmet side of the market.
Precisely, it's a borderline useless idea that requires too much integration with a single company for it to catch on. I gather this works by requiring the app to even view the photos, so this makes it incredibly restrictive. I personally have a zero-app policy on Facebook, but I suppose a lot of people are almost tricked into installing apps - "Click here to see friend X's exciting breakfast pic!".
Next, a Facebook app by itself is insufficient. Pure HTML/JavaScript is sandboxed, so it requires you also install a McAffee toolbar so it can hook into the OS. They are unlikely to have a Linux version and, if they do, there are plenty of ways around it. You could hack the kernel if you really had to.
Of course they're not trying to secure an online banking system, just tap into any internet privacy fears that have trickled into the minds of the technically uninclined.
Forgive my pedanticism
It's pedantry.
In Australia the consumers of organic food tend to be the types of people who value both 'natural' health and the environment, but for a rationale I have seen more focus on the health side here.
Ironically organic food is worse for the environment in at least that it requires greater land area to be cleared to produce the same amount of food. This is somewhat offset by a reduction in digging oil out of the ground.
It's not ironic as the entire sig is deliberately incorrect as a joke. E.g. "begs" instead of "begets".
If you wish to criticise something then the actual post contains "held private" instead of "held privately" and the misspelling "dramaticly".
Tastelessly, these are pretty minor compared to the problems some cinemagoers had recently with their Batman screening.
On the volume, I recall complaining to the cinema about the piercing sound at the last Harry Potter film. I thought, man I'm getting old, but I play in a rock band and listen primarily to black metal. If they can annoy my ears then it legitimately is too loud.
You're right, I'd conflated their position with the standard SlashDot take on abolishing copyright, which was a bit flip anyway as anti-copyright thought usually applies to public, not private, data.
Reading their site it's not clear exactly what they propose other than 'reform'. As best I can work out they want to reduce the length of copyright and patents to some unstated period, and possibly make it only apply to corporations. For the data-rentention issue you may be better off linking to the Greens who have similar policies on privacy and aren't tainted with the one-issue label (sort of).
It strikes me as odd that the Pirate Party would be against someone copying your data.
The reason is twofold; because they can, and because, unlike mail and telephone calls, web sites are semi-public.
Hopefully this doesn't pass, but if it does hopefully everything shifts to https and then the government can see you went to https://applepierecipesandchildporn.com/ but have no idea at what you looked.
Only the original laborer should receive money.
If this principle holds true, then neither should the children receive any of the cash sitting in their parents' accounts, or the house, or any business owned by them. Some people do theorise that we should ban inheritance to limit dynasties, but most people accept that parents have the right to work for the benefit of their children.
It borders on mental illness.
No, it makes them human. No matter their situation, everyone needs an outlet for recreation and spoiling themselves, just to feel like their life isn't pure survival and that they're part of society.
Priorities differ, although mine are probably the same as yours when it comes to overpriced Apple products.
The 1950's stat is surprising high to my ears, but might this not prove the point? Increased promiscuity means less need to visit prostitutes, and less religion has lead to increased promiscuity. Of course it all depends how you define promiscuity. It may include prostitution, but it is certainly not equivalent to it as you may be implying.
Reinstalling the OS is surely going to rewrite the MBR. Out of interest, how does a virus fit in enough code in 512 bytes (minus partition table info etc.) to make any meaningful modifications to something as high level as an OS?
I don't think it's surprising that belief systems affect behaviour. As many Muslim men live in conservative theocracies the society itself provides pressure to be less promiscuous so I think the AC's point stands, it is a tricky thing to remove in a study.
Relatedly, reference 93 of the study (" Risk of HIV infection [...] is lower among homeless Muslim men in Kolkata") suggests they equated circumcision with being Muslim, so accounting for behavioural differences between Muslims and non-Muslims would be necessary.
[that there is no loss is] why a very large percentage of Americans have copied music, for example, and have no ethical qualms about doing so,
I think you are partially correct, but partially the reason why people have no qualms is that it's out-of-sight, out-of-mind. The physicallity of taking a CD from a shop makes the consequences obvious. Copying bits from the comfort of your own house does not.
I have no clue why that that is.
If you genuinely cannot fathom this then here you go;
Primarily it is because of the notion of "acquiring a product without paying for it", or "without permission", both of which rely on the notion of "intellectual property". A related concept is to 'steal' an idea. Sure, you may ultimately disagree, but it doesn't take much mental agility to see how people equate copyright infringement with theft.
I probably save $5 per shopping trip by letting them track my buying.
Why do you think they give you this discount? I suspect they know they are making more than $5 from you through extra sales, not necessarily at the supermarket, but somewhere in your life's purchases.
But perhaps not, maybe it's just part of competition or the inter-company prisoner's dilemma that is advertising.
The contradiction does not invalidate the entire argument. If premise A implies B and also C, yet someone holds both B and !C to be true, it doesn't stop A implying B, it just means they made a mistake thinking about C. The best you could say to such a person is that "if you believe C, doesn't that imply premise A is false?" This is a form of convincing, not argument. You are attacking the premise, which is not intrinsically an invalid thing to do, but in this case the premise is loosely "children should be protected" which both sides agree upon. That's why I think it is an ad hominem - it is attacking the arguer and not really the the argument.
Further, while supporting social welfare personally, I don't find this cliqued Republican position to be contradictory. The abortion argument is about the personhood of the unborn child. Who should fund persons is a different matter.
The other kind of rape would include statutory rape
Interesting, I interpreted "legitimate rape" as somehow juxtaposed to his previous sentences, i.e. illegitimate or "crying wolf" rape, but your interpretation makes sense too.
The outcry against him seems to assume that he believed their were cases where it was illegitimate to complain about rape. This interpretation seems fairly silly and makes the outcry look like nothing but opportunistic politicising.
Really Slashdot, there was really no need to try to work 'mathematics' into the title. Just say "Why doesn't everyone have a debate on abortion?"
On topic, I imagine the belief that "you can't get pregnant if you're raped" is even less common than "you can't get pregnant if you're on top".
To be as fair to Akin as possible he seems to be saying;
"The abortion-for-rape argument is a red herring as it's very difficult to become pregnant from rape. Therefore most women claiming rape to obtain an abortion are fraudulent. In cases of actual rape, overall I still believe the life of the baby takes precedence.
Sure, his premise is clearly wrong, but man the people mindlessly reacting over this really piss me off.
Hypocrisy is just another form of the ad hominen argument. You may have a valid criticism of the behaviour of Republicans but it says nothing about abortion.
It says more about the structure of that particular market, which is why comparisons of the importance of Apple products vs oil are asinine. Nevertheless a company that has achieved a large market cap can be said to have done (past tense) something right, and the total worth does give a decent indication of how important it currently is to society, and therefore how great an affect it's sudden demise would have.
Still, Apple produces mostly interchangable luxury products. Most of the world's population gets by without Apple devices at all, but almost everyone would be affected by Exxon disappearing overnight.
Does that SOUND like rape to you?
No and yes. This is not uncommon behaviour for rape victims, motivated by denial and guilt. The human mind is very good at compartmentalising contradictory things. Of course the actual crime is "sexual misdemeanour". The connotations of rape are very different.
Swedish law says clearly they can question him anywhere, including where he is at now.
However they appear to be wanting to question him with the intent to charge him. That doesn't work over the phone - "Mr Assange, based on your answers we charge you with sexual misconduct. Could you please come over so we can fine and/or gaol you?"
Ecuador asked for a simple statement from the UK and Sweden that this wasn't some bullshit to give him a rendition ride to the USA and they refused
No, Ecuador asked Sweden to promise that they wouldn't extradite him to the U.S. over an unrelated, hypothetical charge and extradition request. They cannot promise the outcome of a trial before it is needed or actually occurs.
I would like to see them actually be asked this though; to confirm or deny whether they have had any discussions with the U.S. on extradition or made any deals. Such information would probably be classified as uncommentable due to being an 'ongoing investigation'.