It could be that your case was exceptional, but from what I've seen Google News only shows tiny thumbnails of images that are published on the newspaper's website. If you click on the thumbnail to view the image, it takes you to the source - a site of the publisher has decided to use this particular photo.
I don't see a difference between that and showing the excerpt of the article's text under each heading, or analogously the excerpt of the webpage cache in the normal search results.
Personally, I refuse to get a phone until it can withstand orbital reentry, a mine explosion, and a gang of hungry 2yr olds! Seriously, waterproof electronics has always been a specialty item. Meanwhile, the current phones can be pretty damn tough - I've dropped my iPhone on the floor, pavement, etc. numerous times without any notable consequences.
The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US. You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no...
Christ! You fail to grasp most trivial matter - comments are needed for someone to quickly interpret your code. As the gp said, if you're writing for yourself - do whatever, but nobody else wants to waste time "disassembling" some crap you wrote during a stroke of brilliance at 3am on Saturday after five five vodka-redbulls. What you may consider "unimportant" in some cases actually is confusing, and will benefit from brief comment or two. Given the length of your rant, you obviously don't have a problem typing things up. So I would certainly get on board with that prototypical old guy you're bitching about and tell you to suck it up and do it.
Is it just me, or free wifi from Starbucks is just some wishful thinking? I've traveled to San Deigo, Denver and Boston in the past week and tried on several occasions to get wifi signal. And in each case, Starbucks was requiring me to pay. I don't know why I thought it was free... may be it was trumpeted in some earlier slashdot article?
What a useless stance to take! The content is clearly just a tiny sliver of the knowledge that can and should be organized and presented. There are numerous topics in science, technology, math and nature that could be made accessible by expanding wikipedia. I am not sure whether you're trying to argue that it's as comprehensive as it could possibly be, or if the depth of the subjects should be limited on purpose. The former would be surprisingly narrow minded, and the latter is downright harmful.
Nobody has gotten killed here - your analogies are completely baseless. What's more, information wasn't actually stolen here. Yes the records were transmitted, and this guy probably glanced over things he shouldn't have been allowed to see. But as far as I understand, he didn't try to distribute this info further, or used it in any way. Most likely he didn't even read the records. So practically, there's no consequential harm with respect to the medical records here.
I agree what he did (spying on his ex) is illegal, but if his actions did not end up accidentally exposing glaring security problems with the hospital IT, you and the rest of the "think of the children" crowd wouldn't be calling for a public lynching here. 5 years in jail for spying on your gf's e-mail? That seems a bit extreme to me.
How does that work? Do you just watch his show to get annoyed? I could see how one could find a TV host offensive, dumb, sleazy (picturing Rush to come up with these), but to get consistently annoyed by someone who you'd only watch by your own free choice is rare.
I tried to watch the presentation but had to stop because of the nauseating stream of peseudo-technical nonsense that this woman is spewing. She's the "inventor of the Allosphere" - the "dynamically varying digital microscope" where the "researchers interact with data by injecting bacterial code" and defy quantum mechanics by showing "where the electron is at any given point in time and space". Why not just describe it for what it is - a spherical projection screen for visualizing scientific models.
>Uncle Sam send out checks to Americans Are you venting about the $152b economic stimulus package after just witnessing the trillion dollar financial industry bailout? Is this some kind of a denial thing? Politicians are there to serve the people, and while giving handouts to general populace may not be a wise economic move, it is infinitely closer to the true intent than giving money to narrow circles of corrupt businessmen. It amazes me how people who get worked up about spending on social programs somehow overlook the money being given out to commercial interest groups, even if the amount is ten times as large.
>If Appel demonstrates that he does not consider himself bound by the court orders, do you think that he will ever be given the chance to examine source code, from any vendor, ever again? Do you think that anybody will ever be given the opportunity to examine source code?
The whole question should be irrelevant - you should not be able to run something as vital as election using a piece of proprietary software. If they don't want to show the code - they should have no chance at getting the contract in a first place. But thanks to narrow-minded (at best) choices made by politicians we are now in a position where we have to choose between due process and fair election. Disgraceful!
when looking at the PDR and seeing the struct, it is possible for a doc to think about what they are seeing in patients, possibly with other drugs
I am all for requiring organic chem, but I think you're really stretching it with your example. Drug interference would rarely involve direct interaction between the active components - those things are picked up during drug screens. The interaction would almost always be mediated by the body's response, which is far beyond the level of organic chemistry.
I fail to see how Arhtur Andersen's shreading of Enron papers is any better. Any system lacking transparency will have memory holes. And people in positions of consolidated power naturally don't like transparency.
"... actually seen security briefings detaling the threats we face."
Yes, I am sure the telecom companies seen this too - that's why they chose to break the law. It's for your own protection!
History is often a poor and indecisive judge. The Republican party will not dissappear and there will be plenty of people (including Bush himself) who will spend the rest of their days writing books on just how right they were. And while the general opinion of him and his sidekick will be certainly low, they will essentially carry no responsibility for their actions, and will spend the rest of their lives basking in the narrow but numerous circle of cronies. A very well-provided circle, I might add.
I was all excited to read about a BBS that's still running.. and being popular. Wow... wait, your old-school, simplistic BBS is actually just a web site.. with tons of banners, flash and other crap. Man, I am getting old!
Well, there's a precedent for what these douchebags are saying. Let's not forget that they've already sued a company like that out of existence - mp3.com.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because god knows USSR was so strapped for mineral resources!
Remember, just about everybody involved in the financial meltdown was college-educated--their models told them there would be cash.
There .. fixed it for you. Seriously, their goal was/is to maximize personal profits - that's all.
from orbit!
Indeed, the US is sequencing more genomes than any other participating country.
It could be that your case was exceptional, but from what I've seen Google News only shows tiny thumbnails of images that are published on the newspaper's website. If you click on the thumbnail to view the image, it takes you to the source - a site of the publisher has decided to use this particular photo.
I don't see a difference between that and showing the excerpt of the article's text under each heading, or analogously the excerpt of the webpage cache in the normal search results.
Personally, I refuse to get a phone until it can withstand orbital reentry, a mine explosion, and a gang of hungry 2yr olds! Seriously, waterproof electronics has always been a specialty item. Meanwhile, the current phones can be pretty damn tough - I've dropped my iPhone on the floor, pavement, etc. numerous times without any notable consequences.
The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US. You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...
Christ! You fail to grasp most trivial matter - comments are needed for someone to quickly interpret your code. As the gp said, if you're writing for yourself - do whatever, but nobody else wants to waste time "disassembling" some crap you wrote during a stroke of brilliance at 3am on Saturday after five five vodka-redbulls. What you may consider "unimportant" in some cases actually is confusing, and will benefit from brief comment or two. Given the length of your rant, you obviously don't have a problem typing things up. So I would certainly get on board with that prototypical old guy you're bitching about and tell you to suck it up and do it.
"slow-oven-cooked steak" ... I was all in agreement, up until the part where you propose to ruin a nice juicy steak by slow-cooking it. Blasphemy!
Is it just me, or free wifi from Starbucks is just some wishful thinking? I've traveled to San Deigo, Denver and Boston in the past week and tried on several occasions to get wifi signal. And in each case, Starbucks was requiring me to pay. I don't know why I thought it was free ... may be it was trumpeted in some earlier slashdot article?
Exactly. But now it "might constitute fair use" ... and in a year or so it will be "unlikely to constitute", etc. Progress!
>If UCSB had such a system back in the 1990s, then UCSB would likely have produced as much multiprocessor research as Stanford University
Actually, UCSB had exactly such a system in the 90's, called Meiko: "The Department of Computer Science at UCSB purchased a 64-processor CS-2 in June 1994."
What a useless stance to take! The content is clearly just a tiny sliver of the knowledge that can and should be organized and presented. There are numerous topics in science, technology, math and nature that could be made accessible by expanding wikipedia. I am not sure whether you're trying to argue that it's as comprehensive as it could possibly be, or if the depth of the subjects should be limited on purpose. The former would be surprisingly narrow minded, and the latter is downright harmful.
Nobody has gotten killed here - your analogies are completely baseless. What's more, information wasn't actually stolen here. Yes the records were transmitted, and this guy probably glanced over things he shouldn't have been allowed to see. But as far as I understand, he didn't try to distribute this info further, or used it in any way. Most likely he didn't even read the records. So practically, there's no consequential harm with respect to the medical records here.
I agree what he did (spying on his ex) is illegal, but if his actions did not end up accidentally exposing glaring security problems with the hospital IT, you and the rest of the "think of the children" crowd wouldn't be calling for a public lynching here. 5 years in jail for spying on your gf's e-mail? That seems a bit extreme to me.
How does that work? Do you just watch his show to get annoyed? I could see how one could find a TV host offensive, dumb, sleazy (picturing Rush to come up with these), but to get consistently annoyed by someone who you'd only watch by your own free choice is rare.
I tried to watch the presentation but had to stop because of the nauseating stream of peseudo-technical nonsense that this woman is spewing.
She's the "inventor of the Allosphere" - the "dynamically varying digital microscope" where the "researchers interact with data by injecting bacterial code" and defy quantum mechanics by showing "where the electron is at any given point in time and space".
Why not just describe it for what it is - a spherical projection screen for visualizing scientific models.
>Uncle Sam send out checks to Americans
Are you venting about the $152b economic stimulus package after just witnessing the trillion dollar financial industry bailout? Is this some kind of a denial thing?
Politicians are there to serve the people, and while giving handouts to general populace may not be a wise economic move, it is infinitely closer to the true intent than giving money to narrow circles of corrupt businessmen. It amazes me how people who get worked up about spending on social programs somehow overlook the money being given out to commercial interest groups, even if the amount is ten times as large.
>If Appel demonstrates that he does not consider himself bound by the court orders, do you think that he will ever be given the chance to examine source code, from any vendor, ever again? Do you think that anybody will ever be given the opportunity to examine source code?
The whole question should be irrelevant - you should not be able to run something as vital as election using a piece of proprietary software. If they don't want to show the code - they should have no chance at getting the contract in a first place. But thanks to narrow-minded (at best) choices made by politicians we are now in a position where we have to choose between due process and fair election. Disgraceful!
when looking at the PDR and seeing the struct, it is possible for a doc to think about what they are seeing in patients, possibly with other drugs
I am all for requiring organic chem, but I think you're really stretching it with your example. Drug interference would rarely involve direct interaction between the active components - those things are picked up during drug screens. The interaction would almost always be mediated by the body's response, which is far beyond the level of organic chemistry.
I fail to see how Arhtur Andersen's shreading of Enron papers is any better. Any system lacking transparency will have memory holes. And people in positions of consolidated power naturally don't like transparency.
"... actually seen security briefings detaling the threats we face."
Yes, I am sure the telecom companies seen this too - that's why they chose to break the law. It's for your own protection!
History is often a poor and indecisive judge. The Republican party will not dissappear and there will be plenty of people (including Bush himself) who will spend the rest of their days writing books on just how right they were. And while the general opinion of him and his sidekick will be certainly low, they will essentially carry no responsibility for their actions, and will spend the rest of their lives basking in the narrow but numerous circle of cronies. A very well-provided circle, I might add.
I was all excited to read about a BBS that's still running .. and being popular. Wow ... wait, your old-school, simplistic BBS is actually just a web site .. with tons of banners, flash and other crap. Man, I am getting old!
last year. But still, it's impressive. Although I think they're putting them in SSO and not LEO just yet.
Well, there's a precedent for what these douchebags are saying. Let's not forget that they've already sued a company like that out of existence - mp3.com.