When Holmes died the first time it's because Conan Doyle actually was irritated by the whole thing and wanted to kill him off. He survived because readers of The Strand Magazine went ape about it and demanded the return of their favourite detective. So ACD bent to the will of the people and the promise of a lucrative paycheck on that one.
Right. Which makes the situation remarkably similar to many of the resurrections described here.
Holmes was dead, but even back then, death could be overcome by popular demand.
Honestly, I was genuinely touched when I read the story of Holmes's death --- despite the fact that it was in a collection of stories and obviously not the last one. I felt more than a bit duped when he returned, even though, as far as returns go, it was well-written, entertaining and reasonably believable in-story.
18% of Americans said that the sun revolves around the earth, rather than the earth revolves around the sun. The question sounds badly worded to me (the earth orbits the sun -- I wouldn't say it "revolves around" the sun), but more importantly: the wrong answer was not that the earth is the center of the universe.
It's a wrong answer, but it doesn't bother me nearly so much as the notion that the earth is the center of the universe.
This piqued my interest so I took a look at an article on "Actualism". Here is the first paragraph:
So in virtue of what is it true that there could have been Aliens when in fact there are none, and when, moreover, nothing that exists in fact could have been an Alien?
If this is a representative sample then I'll stick to wikipedia. Can someone decipher that last sentence for me? I've read it several times and I can't seem to grasp what it is saying.
The problem is that you're not used to certain kinds of philosophical jargon.
The author is asking: Given that there are no aliens and that nothing which exists could have been (counterfactually) an alien, what would make the sentence "There could have been Aliens" true?
It's abstruse philosophy about the problems of what could make a sentence that "X is possible" true, given that X is in fact false, as I understand it. (Perhaps my move from "there could have been..." to "...is possible" is not an equivalence on this view, so read with a grain of salt. I'm not familiar with this theory.)
If you're actually interested: fewer relates to countable nouns, less to uncountable. Less water, fewer glasses. "Less glasses" sounds as wrong as "fewer water".
Of course, few people read edited prose these days, and so most lack the "ear" for poor usage. It will be an odd time for language, with almost everyone literate but not reading books.
Unfortunately for pedants like us, this is just not historically so. The word "less" has applied to countable objects from the beginning. Only relatively recently (1770, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_vs._less).
While I share your pet peeve over less/fewer, we have to admit that this rule was arbitrarily added to the conventions. It's not that people began breaking a rule formerly honored — it's that the rule was made up later.
Wires are public property when public funds subsidize them, or legislatively mandated customer fees provide reimbursement to the telecom companies for building FTTH.
I don't see how that follows. If the government gives money to the telcos to lay wires, ownership depends on the agreement between gov't and telco. It may be that the gov't retained some ownership or control over the wires, but maybe not. It all simply depends on what was decided at the time (and I don't know about that).
If I give you money to purchase a car (slashdot analogy), then I don't own that car unless we decided so at the time. I can't later restrict your use of that car unless this was a precondition of the subsidy.
Bullshit! If you want the Internet to become as bad as cable tv is these days then buy into this bogus horseshit idea this guy is peddling.
Maybe his argument is fallacious, but you sure as hell didn't prove so.
He didn't argue that net neutrality is bad for the internet. He argued that laws requiring net neutrality violate the fifth amendment. Your response is utterly irrelevant.
I'm not saying he's right. I don't know constitutional law, but I do know that, to refute his argument, you need to actually address his claim. You didn't do so.
I don't think this solution fixes anything. As near as I can figger, the guy that uses multiple windows (instead of tabs) is just as vulnerable to this issue as the tab user --- assuming that his top window(s) block the view of other browser windows entirely. The only real issue I see in the article is that, when your attention is diverted from a page and it is hidden from your view, its contents may be changed.
So, tabs are, as far as I can, a red herring here. It's not really about tabs at all. (Someone may correct me if I've missed something.)
The first thing I do to any browser I sit in front of, is to immediately disable the use of tabs. I have never understood why many people think they are a good idea - I think they break a heap of good UI principles.
Thank goodness that your loyalty to UI principles does not restrict my browser's features. I don't want a dozen browser windows, taking up space on the screen and making it difficult to find what I want. I want one window with tabs that have visible icons and (partially visible) titles, so that I can pick the right tab quickly.
Maybe it is an inconsistent use of the ideas of tabs, but it's damned useful nonetheless.
In any case, your primary criticism about tabs has nothing to do with this security issue.
As far as I can tell, the script merely waits a while (hoping that the user's attention is diverted) before changing the contents. Surely, the same idea works about as well if the user uses multiple windows rather than multiple tabs. Just as soon as attention is diverted from the appropriate browser and it is covered by other windows, the content could be changed without the user noticing.
The only difference is that, with multiple windows, a portion of the window may still be visible when the user is looking at another window. In my limited experience, folks tend to maximize windows anyway (I *hate* that!), so that's not a significant issue.
You mean duct tape. What the fuck might "duck tape" be?
"Duck tape" might be the original name of duct tape. Some folks who have presumably actually looked into the history of the term believe that "duct tape" is a mispronunciation of the original term, rather than the other way around.
Wesnoth does not have ranged attacks in any reasonable sense of the term. Units must be adjacent to attack. Civ V adds the capability of ranged attacks between unengaged units.
That's not to say they do it well. Since when do archers fire over ponds and farmers' fields in order to hit city units? How far can these archers shoot? Somehow, that image bothers me.
In any case, I'm certainly not intending to disparage Wesnoth with my comments. Wesnoth is, as far as I've seen, the hands-down best totally original open-source strategy game out there. I'm also not trying to compliment Civ V, since I haven't played the commercial version of Civilization since Civ II.
instead, dump all their work in one big database for free, and these authors, because of much greater ease in accessing their works, see an IMPROVEMENT in their accessibility, marketability, and prominence. imagine fucking that
If authors believe that Google's project is in their interests, then they can explicitly allow Google to use their works. This is perfectly consistent with copyright law.
It seems to me that you want to decide what's good for the author, regardless of his own wishes. The only paternalism I see here is in your proposal, not in copyright law.
We can all agree that there is much wrong with copyright law, but the basic idea that the author controls distribution of his work for a limited time seems a good one. Allowing one company to proceed with the assumption that the author agrees (until he opts out) is a violation of the basic idea of copyright law (and, in this case, seems to grant an inexplicable favor to one company).
It will be interesting to see if there is any real "predictive" value behind this hypothesis. There's only one way to find out, and that's waiting to see if FUTURE (not past) data correlates with the model.
Yes, that will be interesting.
And what about people being identified as "terrorists" on circumstantial evidence strictly because of the "higher probability" of an imminent attack?
The researchers didn't suggest that their model can or should be used to identify terrorists. You seem to be sliding down a slippery slope.
The entire point of free speech and all human rights is that they can't be categorized as more or less important.
T'ain't what the courts say. Different kinds of speech have different amounts of protection. Political speech is most protected and commercial speech among the least protected.
Fact is morality goes out the window when board members look at the dollar signs. Rationalization fully takes over and we get what we have today. There is no leverage won here, just cash.
Maybe that's how things are, but that's really irrelevant to how things should be.
You have the choice of two evils: (1) Google and Microsoft coexist. They both censor but at least there's competition and choice. (2) Google is blocked from China. Microsoft is allowed in because they "play ball". MS quickly becomes a monopoly.
Option 1 has one evil (censorship). Option 2 has two evils (censorship and a corporate monopoly).
Many people believe that if an act is morally prohibited, then it does not matter whether performing that act yields a better outcome than not. Thus, if it is wrong for Google to censor, then the fact that not censoring yields a worse outcome is irrelevant. (Utilitarians would obviously disagree.)
In any case, I don't see that Google has a moral duty to prevent MS from becoming a monopoly and I don't see that there is anything evil about MS monopolizing the Chinese search engine market.
And for those that say, "Google shouldn't censor results," then you are naive.
Some people say Google shouldn't censor results because it is immoral to do so. If it is immoral to censor results, the fact that MS will gain dominance in China is irrelevant. So is the fact that failure to censor will hurt Google's bottom line. Most moral realists believe that moral norms trump other norms, so if it is immoral for Google to censor, then they shouldn't censor.
Note: I'm not necessarily in that camp. I'm not sure whether censoring results in China is morally prohibited or not. I'm just trying to explain why your claim that others are naive is insulting and false. Maybe you think that it's naive to believe that one should do what moral duty requires, but a less sensitive soul may reply that this opinion is just evidence of your own stunted intellectual development.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I could have shot Osama myself for all the wasted hours I've spent in TSA lines because of his antics.
Antics ?
Yes, that rascal! He's a nincompoop, he is.
(Yeah, I'm sure that you didn't mean to such a frivolous term to describe the murder of thousands, but still... )
When Holmes died the first time it's because Conan Doyle actually was irritated by the whole thing and wanted to kill him off. He survived because readers of The Strand Magazine went ape about it and demanded the return of their favourite detective. So ACD bent to the will of the people and the promise of a lucrative paycheck on that one.
Right. Which makes the situation remarkably similar to many of the resurrections described here.
Holmes was dead, but even back then, death could be overcome by popular demand.
Honestly, I was genuinely touched when I read the story of Holmes's death --- despite the fact that it was in a collection of stories and obviously not the last one. I felt more than a bit duped when he returned, even though, as far as returns go, it was well-written, entertaining and reasonably believable in-story.
Er, if we're going that far back, what about Sherlock Holmes? He died a perfectly noble death in a battle against Moriarty, but it didn't take.
Gotta say, I felt kinda cheated when I first read the death and comeback of Holmes.
In fact, the blurb has it wrong.
18% of Americans said that the sun revolves around the earth, rather than the earth revolves around the sun. The question sounds badly worded to me (the earth orbits the sun -- I wouldn't say it "revolves around" the sun), but more importantly: the wrong answer was not that the earth is the center of the universe.
It's a wrong answer, but it doesn't bother me nearly so much as the notion that the earth is the center of the universe.
This piqued my interest so I took a look at an article on "Actualism". Here is the first paragraph:
So in virtue of what is it true that there could have been Aliens when in fact there are none, and when, moreover, nothing that exists in fact could have been an Alien?
If this is a representative sample then I'll stick to wikipedia. Can someone decipher that last sentence for me? I've read it several times and I can't seem to grasp what it is saying.
The problem is that you're not used to certain kinds of philosophical jargon.
The author is asking: Given that there are no aliens and that nothing which exists could have been (counterfactually) an alien, what would make the sentence "There could have been Aliens" true?
It's abstruse philosophy about the problems of what could make a sentence that "X is possible" true, given that X is in fact false, as I understand it. (Perhaps my move from "there could have been..." to "...is possible" is not an equivalence on this view, so read with a grain of salt. I'm not familiar with this theory.)
If you're actually interested: fewer relates to countable nouns, less to uncountable. Less water, fewer glasses. "Less glasses" sounds as wrong as "fewer water".
Of course, few people read edited prose these days, and so most lack the "ear" for poor usage. It will be an odd time for language, with almost everyone literate but not reading books.
Unfortunately for pedants like us, this is just not historically so. The word "less" has applied to countable objects from the beginning. Only relatively recently (1770, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_vs._less).
While I share your pet peeve over less/fewer, we have to admit that this rule was arbitrarily added to the conventions. It's not that people began breaking a rule formerly honored — it's that the rule was made up later.
i have tried in my life to be lucid, coherent, and persuasive in what i say
little did i know all you have to do is say "kiddie porn", and whatever you are trying to argue for, people instantly flock to you sympathetically
so, in that spirit, instead of making a rational argument here, i will simply say
there!
You're not supposed to chant it as if you're cheering kiddie porn on in a football game.
Wires are public property when public funds subsidize them, or legislatively mandated customer fees provide reimbursement to the telecom companies for building FTTH.
I don't see how that follows. If the government gives money to the telcos to lay wires, ownership depends on the agreement between gov't and telco. It may be that the gov't retained some ownership or control over the wires, but maybe not. It all simply depends on what was decided at the time (and I don't know about that).
If I give you money to purchase a car (slashdot analogy), then I don't own that car unless we decided so at the time. I can't later restrict your use of that car unless this was a precondition of the subsidy.
Bullshit! If you want the Internet to become as bad as cable tv is these days then buy into this bogus horseshit idea this guy is peddling.
Maybe his argument is fallacious, but you sure as hell didn't prove so.
He didn't argue that net neutrality is bad for the internet. He argued that laws requiring net neutrality violate the fifth amendment. Your response is utterly irrelevant.
I'm not saying he's right. I don't know constitutional law, but I do know that, to refute his argument, you need to actually address his claim. You didn't do so.
Thanks. According to http://www.java2s.com/Tutorial/JavaScript/0380__Window/windowonBlur.htm, onblur is triggered whenever focus is lost, so it seems to me that moving focus to another window would similarly work for this phishing attack.
Simple solution - don't use tabs in browsers.
I don't think this solution fixes anything. As near as I can figger, the guy that uses multiple windows (instead of tabs) is just as vulnerable to this issue as the tab user --- assuming that his top window(s) block the view of other browser windows entirely. The only real issue I see in the article is that, when your attention is diverted from a page and it is hidden from your view, its contents may be changed.
So, tabs are, as far as I can, a red herring here. It's not really about tabs at all. (Someone may correct me if I've missed something.)
The first thing I do to any browser I sit in front of, is to immediately disable the use of tabs. I have never understood why many people think they are a good idea - I think they break a heap of good UI principles.
Thank goodness that your loyalty to UI principles does not restrict my browser's features. I don't want a dozen browser windows, taking up space on the screen and making it difficult to find what I want. I want one window with tabs that have visible icons and (partially visible) titles, so that I can pick the right tab quickly.
Maybe it is an inconsistent use of the ideas of tabs, but it's damned useful nonetheless.
In any case, your primary criticism about tabs has nothing to do with this security issue.
As far as I can tell, the script merely waits a while (hoping that the user's attention is diverted) before changing the contents. Surely, the same idea works about as well if the user uses multiple windows rather than multiple tabs. Just as soon as attention is diverted from the appropriate browser and it is covered by other windows, the content could be changed without the user noticing.
The only difference is that, with multiple windows, a portion of the window may still be visible when the user is looking at another window. In my limited experience, folks tend to maximize windows anyway (I *hate* that!), so that's not a significant issue.
Am I missing something?
In most U.S. jurisdictions leaving the front door open makes the OWNER guilty of the crime, ...
Er, citation please?
You mean duct tape. What the fuck might "duck tape" be?
"Duck tape" might be the original name of duct tape. Some folks who have presumably actually looked into the history of the term believe that "duct tape" is a mispronunciation of the original term, rather than the other way around.
See, for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duct_tape#Etymology.
Microsoft can't get everyone to pay for windows? no problem they release Windows 8 - Free bot-net Edition..
Aside from the cost, how would this edition differ from other Windows releases?
Wesnoth does not have ranged attacks in any reasonable sense of the term. Units must be adjacent to attack. Civ V adds the capability of ranged attacks between unengaged units.
That's not to say they do it well. Since when do archers fire over ponds and farmers' fields in order to hit city units? How far can these archers shoot? Somehow, that image bothers me.
In any case, I'm certainly not intending to disparage Wesnoth with my comments. Wesnoth is, as far as I've seen, the hands-down best totally original open-source strategy game out there. I'm also not trying to compliment Civ V, since I haven't played the commercial version of Civilization since Civ II.
A Zen master once said, "Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery."
Charles Caleb Colton, 19th century English cleric, was a Zen master?
Or perhaps he just lifted the saw from a Zen master.
instead, dump all their work in one big database for free, and these authors, because of much greater ease in accessing their works, see an IMPROVEMENT in their accessibility, marketability, and prominence. imagine fucking that
If authors believe that Google's project is in their interests, then they can explicitly allow Google to use their works. This is perfectly consistent with copyright law.
It seems to me that you want to decide what's good for the author, regardless of his own wishes. The only paternalism I see here is in your proposal, not in copyright law.
We can all agree that there is much wrong with copyright law, but the basic idea that the author controls distribution of his work for a limited time seems a good one. Allowing one company to proceed with the assumption that the author agrees (until he opts out) is a violation of the basic idea of copyright law (and, in this case, seems to grant an inexplicable favor to one company).
It will be interesting to see if there is any real "predictive" value behind this hypothesis. There's only one way to find out, and that's waiting to see if FUTURE (not past) data correlates with the model.
Yes, that will be interesting.
And what about people being identified as "terrorists" on circumstantial evidence strictly because of the "higher probability" of an imminent attack?
The researchers didn't suggest that their model can or should be used to identify terrorists. You seem to be sliding down a slippery slope.
as well as about 10 pages of solid fluff for the Iron Kingdoms,
I have nothing to add. I just like saying "solid fluff".
Solid fluff. Solid fluff. Solid fluff.
Solid fluff.
The entire point of free speech and all human rights is that they can't be categorized as more or less important.
T'ain't what the courts say. Different kinds of speech have different amounts of protection. Political speech is most protected and commercial speech among the least protected.
Fact is morality goes out the window when board members look at the dollar signs. Rationalization fully takes over and we get what we have today. There is no leverage won here, just cash.
Maybe that's how things are, but that's really irrelevant to how things should be.
You have the choice of two evils:
(1) Google and Microsoft coexist. They both censor but at least there's competition and choice.
(2) Google is blocked from China. Microsoft is allowed in because they "play ball". MS quickly becomes a monopoly.
Option 1 has one evil (censorship). Option 2 has two evils (censorship and a corporate monopoly).
Many people believe that if an act is morally prohibited, then it does not matter whether performing that act yields a better outcome than not. Thus, if it is wrong for Google to censor, then the fact that not censoring yields a worse outcome is irrelevant. (Utilitarians would obviously disagree.)
In any case, I don't see that Google has a moral duty to prevent MS from becoming a monopoly and I don't see that there is anything evil about MS monopolizing the Chinese search engine market.
You think that the American gov't produces anti-China news stories? And they do this because they're pissed that China sells too many products here?
Gotta say, it's a cute theory. Thoroughly unencumbered by facts, but darling nonetheless.
And for those that say, "Google shouldn't censor results," then you are naive.
Some people say Google shouldn't censor results because it is immoral to do so. If it is immoral to censor results, the fact that MS will gain dominance in China is irrelevant. So is the fact that failure to censor will hurt Google's bottom line. Most moral realists believe that moral norms trump other norms, so if it is immoral for Google to censor, then they shouldn't censor.
Note: I'm not necessarily in that camp. I'm not sure whether censoring results in China is morally prohibited or not. I'm just trying to explain why your claim that others are naive is insulting and false. Maybe you think that it's naive to believe that one should do what moral duty requires, but a less sensitive soul may reply that this opinion is just evidence of your own stunted intellectual development.