Any off-nominal condition I can detect and repair becomes a nominal condition. And I have well-tested code handling all nominal conditions. Thanks for the new design pattern, though. It'll come in handy.
You have to say it twice. Most of them parse it probabilistically as a typo and think you're telling them to stop breathing, since the actual term is so rarely in their paradigm.
I wonder if people would just clue up and stop whining about the national debt?
That debt is in the form of short, medium, and long-term loans. And it's continuously recycled by people buying new bonds to replace the ones that just expired. The amount we actually owe in interest this year is a small portion of this year's budgetary outlays. About half of the defense budget. Roughly $1000 per American.
And your portion of it is, if anything, proportional to your portion of the tax revenues. So unless you're filthy rich (and therefore not entitled to whine about what being an American costs), you're not paying even a 1/population share of it, you're paying some tiny fraction of that.
The fact that you focus on the debt at all means you're a sucker for propaganda.
Focus on the things we're doing with that money. Make the government more efficient. Change the rules for Congress so they can't play political chicken with the economy. Make the Bush family pay their entire wealth to cover part of the cost of the wars they started and profited from. Cheney, too.
Calculate how long it will be until, at given birth and death rates, the bounding surface of the volume of human flesh on the planet will be expanding outward at a rate equal to the speed of light?
Right. So you're going to take your corporate desktop home with you in your pocket, and when you accidentally leave it on a train...
If it's actually protected by a password, and the documents are encrypted, no problem.
If not, it sounds like IT forgot to remind people of how to secure data, and instead were relying on people not copying things from their unsecured network.
The corportations may be wrong, but instead of pointing that out to the authorities repeatedly until something gets done, the black-hats decide they're the ones who are above the law.
If they ever actually accomplish anything, it just emboldens them, and they grab for more.
They may use the "but we're doing it for freedom" argument, but they're really just fucking up someone's business for their own gain, whether monetary or egotistical.
And ask the people whose accounts they've published how they feel about the corporation or the hackers.
At some point, they have to admit it into evidence. At that point you show the judge the law against NSA conducting operations against Americans, and they go to jail instead of you.
G+ allows you to decide which of your circles you treat as a cathedral, and which you treat as a bazaar. And which you treat as a kinky sadomasochistic torture dungeon.
Facebook wants your data. They are a gigantic advertising company. There's no way they'd let you use anonymous pseudonyms.
See how dumb that sounds with such a small change?
Google doesn't actually need to identify you to sell your eyeballs to advertisers. They can track your characteristics and target your demographic just fine without ever getting to know you.
Its reasons for wanting you to identify yourself have more to do with making you behave like you do IRL when you're in their server. It's a cost and liability reduction strategy.
They don't have to enforce it until they need to use it and find it's not working. Then they point to the TOS and lock your account until you do what they want you to do.
As far as whether they do or don't enforce it, well, the millions of fake accounts pretty much tell us how that goes. Up to half of the "people" on FB are the same as one or more other "people" on FB.
Google seems interested in starting out with a community that brings identifiability as an innate feature. Likely they believe that if you are you then you won't be that troll you play on the idiot box.
Slashdot Mirror
It's why ctrl-C still works.
Any off-nominal condition I can detect and repair becomes a nominal condition. And I have well-tested code handling all nominal conditions. Thanks for the new design pattern, though. It'll come in handy.
You're stealing from the future. If they ever manage time travel, they're coming for you.
Jacking off and bitching at your mom from the basement sure isn't.
You have to say it twice. Most of them parse it probabilistically as a typo and think you're telling them to stop breathing, since the actual term is so rarely in their paradigm.
I wonder if people would just clue up and stop whining about the national debt?
That debt is in the form of short, medium, and long-term loans. And it's continuously recycled by people buying new bonds to replace the ones that just expired. The amount we actually owe in interest this year is a small portion of this year's budgetary outlays. About half of the defense budget. Roughly $1000 per American.
And your portion of it is, if anything, proportional to your portion of the tax revenues. So unless you're filthy rich (and therefore not entitled to whine about what being an American costs), you're not paying even a 1/population share of it, you're paying some tiny fraction of that.
The fact that you focus on the debt at all means you're a sucker for propaganda.
Focus on the things we're doing with that money. Make the government more efficient. Change the rules for Congress so they can't play political chicken with the economy. Make the Bush family pay their entire wealth to cover part of the cost of the wars they started and profited from. Cheney, too.
Did he do this one?
Calculate how long it will be until, at given birth and death rates, the bounding surface of the volume of human flesh on the planet will be expanding outward at a rate equal to the speed of light?
Hint: The answer is in the low 4 figures.
A CoolerMaster and a well-aimed Vornado can fix anything.
Right. So you're going to take your corporate desktop home with you in your pocket, and when you accidentally leave it on a train...
If it's actually protected by a password, and the documents are encrypted, no problem.
If not, it sounds like IT forgot to remind people of how to secure data, and instead were relying on people not copying things from their unsecured network.
The corportations may be wrong, but instead of pointing that out to the authorities repeatedly until something gets done, the black-hats decide they're the ones who are above the law.
If they ever actually accomplish anything, it just emboldens them, and they grab for more.
They may use the "but we're doing it for freedom" argument, but they're really just fucking up someone's business for their own gain, whether monetary or egotistical.
And ask the people whose accounts they've published how they feel about the corporation or the hackers.
But the clicks on my cellphone recordings don't have accents.
If they did, how would you ever prove it?
At some point, they have to admit it into evidence. At that point you show the judge the law against NSA conducting operations against Americans, and they go to jail instead of you.
>What are you smoking and can I have some?
Brisket, and no.
Or encrypt it in MS Word. Don't send it anywhere. Just encrypt it.
Well, NCIS has gone Hollywood. It's been a decade since the FBI was living up to a reputation someone else was building for it.
NSA wouldn't run a counterintelligence operation against Americans. That would be illegal and easy to beat.
FBI, on the other hand, could pose as NSA to do it.
As for who can be tamed, don't kid yourself. Everybody's human. Beat us hard enough and we start hating Beethoven.
Most of these people are frustrated authoritarians.
It's how they can justify imposing their view of the legality of their actions on their victims.
And those that didn't leave have turned it into what it is today.
G+ allows you to decide which of your circles you treat as a cathedral, and which you treat as a bazaar. And which you treat as a kinky sadomasochistic torture dungeon.
I think the mistake is thinking that playing around in G+ is anything like software development.
Google is developing Google+. The people in it are just in it.
So it's like the Mall. Only without the shitty food.
I didn't see a single ad in The Matrix.
That's how I know it's not real.
Facebook wants your data. They are a gigantic advertising company. There's no way they'd let you use anonymous pseudonyms.
See how dumb that sounds with such a small change?
Google doesn't actually need to identify you to sell your eyeballs to advertisers. They can track your characteristics and target your demographic just fine without ever getting to know you.
Its reasons for wanting you to identify yourself have more to do with making you behave like you do IRL when you're in their server. It's a cost and liability reduction strategy.
What is FB doing to prevent switching?
It's not. Anyone on FB is free to use G+, and FB can't do anything about that.
But I don't think it's against any law for FB to ask G+ not to use FB to recruit FB users to G+.
They don't have to enforce it until they need to use it and find it's not working. Then they point to the TOS and lock your account until you do what they want you to do.
As far as whether they do or don't enforce it, well, the millions of fake accounts pretty much tell us how that goes. Up to half of the "people" on FB are the same as one or more other "people" on FB.
Google seems interested in starting out with a community that brings identifiability as an innate feature. Likely they believe that if you are you then you won't be that troll you play on the idiot box.
It remains to be seen what Google will do with the information you entrust to Google+.