The fact that the subject line isn't generally very useful is exactly what causes problems when you use it for something else. If the subject was usually useful then everyone would read it, followed by the message, and together they would make sense. But the subject isn't usually useful, so I don't usually read it and if it does contain something useful then chances are I've missed it.
These might be signs of someone being a terrorist. It's just that 99.9% aren't and you're basically taking away privacy from everyone by treating the use of such tools as being suspicious. It's exactly what terrorists want to achieve.
So in the same sense that being right handed is a sign of someone being a terrorist - not all terrorists are right handed but a lot of them are (and maybe some other people too).
I think the key problem here is that the children don't have warning labels attached. I propose that in future hospitals tattoo babies shortly after, or if possible before, birth with something along the lines of "WARNING: child may do dangerous things". Billions of other warning labels would then be unnecessary.
California had a day to recognize Steve Jobs, Dennis Ritchie had a much larger impact on the world at large than Steve did. Steve just was really good at PR.
Absolutely true, but the best response to that is to roll your eyes at the idiots who came up with "Steve Jobs day", not to come up with days for everyone who had a larger impact than him. Einstein had more impact thn Steve Jobs or Dennis Ritchie, but he doesn't get a day as far as I know.
Some people do have (perfectly legal) things they want to hide for whatever social or practical reasons.
Some of us have 'things we want to hide' (or what we would cause 'a desire for privacy') for no social or practical reason, and find it weird that anyone would think that needs a justification.
So, you're arguing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (aka ACTA) isn't a trade agreement?
That does pretty clearly seem to be saying that. Are you having trouble believing that the label attached to something might not accurately reflect its substance or were you making a different point?
Not that this comment will ever be seen, as I'm also stuck permanently on a score of 1.
I post at 1 by choice (if you click the "options" button when posting then there's a tick box for "no karma bonus" - maybe you left it ticked by mistake) and my posts still get seen, I think. They get modded and replied to from time to time.
You mean like the substantial legal costs they are incurring defending and countersuing Apple through various international courts? Oh right, let's ignore all that and pretend that they are just falling over being bullied by Microsoft.
I didn't say anywhere that they were being bullied. I'm saying that they approached it rationally like any other business deal. The fact that they reached a deal with Microsoft doesn't mean that they "came to the conclusion that in a drawn out court battle, Microsoft would win" just as the fact that they hadn't come to a deal the previous day didn't mean that at that point they had come to the conclusion that Microsoft would lose. They think that overall the benefits of the deal outweigh its negatives. That's all.
Same goes with their fight with Apple, right now they haven't made a deal with Apple to settle the issue, evidently they believe that no deal is available that would be net benefit to them. Tomorrow a deal may be on the table that would change that. The lack of a deal today doesn't mean that Apple's defeat in court is certain and if a deal is made tomorrow then that won't mean that Apple's courtroom victory would have been certain.
The major manufacturers would have only come to terms with Microsoft if they came to the conclusion that in a drawn out court battle, Microsoft would win.
That's obviously untrue. They will enter into an agreement with Microsoft if it's advantageous to do so. There are any number of scenarios where that would apply. For example, a 10% chance of Microsoft winning and being awarded $10 billion doesn't compare well with a straight payment of $100 million. A certainly of Microsoft losing but with Samsung paying substantial legal costs along the way doesn't compare well with a series of agreement that net out to essentially nil cost to Samsung (for example agreeing to pay license fees for Android but receiving funds for an advertising campaign for Samsung Windows devices). And so on. We'd need a copy not only of this licensing agreement but of any related deals to decide who won or lost here.
If profits are dropping because they're expanding that's a good thing, assuming you think there's space for them to expand in to.
A lot rides on whether they predicted it. A company that says "we're embarking on three big projects over the next year, costs are expected to rise initially with effects on revenues following in future years" (um, a bit more detailed than that but you get the gist) looks like a company with a plan and hopefully anybody who doesn't like the plan has already sold well before the results show something like what they forecast. A company that says "oh, uh, yeah our costs have gone up a lot due to some projects we're working on" without having forecast that is scary even if the projects are good ones. Don't know which side Zynga falls closer to.
Nothing real about Groupon or Zynga has changed that caused their value to decrease 90%; those sorts of swings are entirely driven by the worst type of speculation.
I doubt that speculation reduced Zynga's profits by 95%. Either their costs have soared for some reason, their revenues plummeted or their books were just plain wrong. Or a bit of two or more of those.
Psychopaths are defined by a lack of empathy and emotional depth, and they are generally really good at faking empathy and emotions. They are extremely hard to test for.
I believe a similar problem applies to identifying witches.
Interesting that you just think you know this, even though the statistical rate of psychopaths is 1-4% for men.
..
Thinking that psychopaths have a place in society is like think that pedophiles have a place in society. It is a dangerous pathology.
If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that 1-4% of men (and presumably some other percentage of women) have no place in society. If I've got that right then what exactly would you propose to do with all these people?
Okay, I guess it was a reference to the Firm. The idea that you can be "set up" to have an affair as opposed to making the choice when the opportunity arises annoyed me too much to follow the rest of the post.
I can see what you're saying, but given that the actual story seems to be that someone I've never heard of says that Eric Schmidt said to him that Google+ is an identity service (a phrase I'm unfamiliar with and don't know the implications of) and finishes with "These aren't exact quotes, but I did my best to paraphrase the gist of what he was saying"... well, I think it's understandable that they felt the need to spice that up a bit.
Why make people in the first place, when you can just imagine every consequence in your imagination ?
What's the difference? You're just a thing in the Red King's dream, after all. If a god imagines a world of people with thoughts and feelings then in what sense have they not been "created", at least from their perspective?
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that the subject line isn't generally very useful is exactly what causes problems when you use it for something else. If the subject was usually useful then everyone would read it, followed by the message, and together they would make sense. But the subject isn't usually useful, so I don't usually read it and if it does contain something useful then chances are I've missed it.
These might be signs of someone being a terrorist. It's just that 99.9% aren't and you're basically taking away privacy from everyone by treating the use of such tools as being suspicious. It's exactly what terrorists want to achieve.
So in the same sense that being right handed is a sign of someone being a terrorist - not all terrorists are right handed but a lot of them are (and maybe some other people too).
Note that is of course also an issue for pets.
Absolutely. Have people learned nothing from the tale of the old woman who swallowed a fly? Ponies should come with warning labels.
I think the key problem here is that the children don't have warning labels attached. I propose that in future hospitals tattoo babies shortly after, or if possible before, birth with something along the lines of "WARNING: child may do dangerous things". Billions of other warning labels would then be unnecessary.
You know what you're supposed to do when you find a phone, right?
Write a submission to Slashdot saying it might be an iPhone 5 prototype cleverly disguised in an old Nokia case?
Do I need to do a scholarly review on this as a Bible translation? :)
Please do.
"a decision would come in the next three to four weeks".. and then a reverse decision every three to four weeks thereafter.
California had a day to recognize Steve Jobs, Dennis Ritchie had a much larger impact on the world at large than Steve did. Steve just was really good at PR.
Absolutely true, but the best response to that is to roll your eyes at the idiots who came up with "Steve Jobs day", not to come up with days for everyone who had a larger impact than him. Einstein had more impact thn Steve Jobs or Dennis Ritchie, but he doesn't get a day as far as I know.
Some people do have (perfectly legal) things they want to hide for whatever social or practical reasons.
Some of us have 'things we want to hide' (or what we would cause 'a desire for privacy') for no social or practical reason, and find it weird that anyone would think that needs a justification.
So, you're arguing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (aka ACTA) isn't a trade agreement?
That does pretty clearly seem to be saying that. Are you having trouble believing that the label attached to something might not accurately reflect its substance or were you making a different point?
Cue antidisestablishmenterianist Apple apologists in 3...2...
I believe they prefer to be called iPologists.
Not that this comment will ever be seen, as I'm also stuck permanently on a score of 1.
I post at 1 by choice (if you click the "options" button when posting then there's a tick box for "no karma bonus" - maybe you left it ticked by mistake) and my posts still get seen, I think. They get modded and replied to from time to time.
You mean like the substantial legal costs they are incurring defending and countersuing Apple through various international courts? Oh right, let's ignore all that and pretend that they are just falling over being bullied by Microsoft.
I didn't say anywhere that they were being bullied. I'm saying that they approached it rationally like any other business deal. The fact that they reached a deal with Microsoft doesn't mean that they "came to the conclusion that in a drawn out court battle, Microsoft would win" just as the fact that they hadn't come to a deal the previous day didn't mean that at that point they had come to the conclusion that Microsoft would lose. They think that overall the benefits of the deal outweigh its negatives. That's all.
Same goes with their fight with Apple, right now they haven't made a deal with Apple to settle the issue, evidently they believe that no deal is available that would be net benefit to them. Tomorrow a deal may be on the table that would change that. The lack of a deal today doesn't mean that Apple's defeat in court is certain and if a deal is made tomorrow then that won't mean that Apple's courtroom victory would have been certain.
The major manufacturers would have only come to terms with Microsoft if they came to the conclusion that in a drawn out court battle, Microsoft would win.
That's obviously untrue. They will enter into an agreement with Microsoft if it's advantageous to do so. There are any number of scenarios where that would apply. For example, a 10% chance of Microsoft winning and being awarded $10 billion doesn't compare well with a straight payment of $100 million. A certainly of Microsoft losing but with Samsung paying substantial legal costs along the way doesn't compare well with a series of agreement that net out to essentially nil cost to Samsung (for example agreeing to pay license fees for Android but receiving funds for an advertising campaign for Samsung Windows devices). And so on. We'd need a copy not only of this licensing agreement but of any related deals to decide who won or lost here.
If profits are dropping because they're expanding that's a good thing, assuming you think there's space for them to expand in to.
A lot rides on whether they predicted it. A company that says "we're embarking on three big projects over the next year, costs are expected to rise initially with effects on revenues following in future years" (um, a bit more detailed than that but you get the gist) looks like a company with a plan and hopefully anybody who doesn't like the plan has already sold well before the results show something like what they forecast. A company that says "oh, uh, yeah our costs have gone up a lot due to some projects we're working on" without having forecast that is scary even if the projects are good ones. Don't know which side Zynga falls closer to.
Nothing real about Groupon or Zynga has changed that caused their value to decrease 90%; those sorts of swings are entirely driven by the worst type of speculation.
I doubt that speculation reduced Zynga's profits by 95%. Either their costs have soared for some reason, their revenues plummeted or their books were just plain wrong. Or a bit of two or more of those.
At least banks will let you use their web site because 3.6.x is tested.
v4 to Infinity? not so much.
No problem using HSBC's website, including viewing statements, making payments, etc. using Firefox 7. Are there really banks that block it?
Psychopaths are defined by a lack of empathy and emotional depth, and they are generally really good at faking empathy and emotions. They are extremely hard to test for.
I believe a similar problem applies to identifying witches.
Interesting that you just think you know this, even though the statistical rate of psychopaths is 1-4% for men.
..
Thinking that psychopaths have a place in society is like think that pedophiles have a place in society. It is a dangerous pathology.
If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that 1-4% of men (and presumably some other percentage of women) have no place in society. If I've got that right then what exactly would you propose to do with all these people?
Okay, I guess it was a reference to the Firm. The idea that you can be "set up" to have an affair as opposed to making the choice when the opportunity arises annoyed me too much to follow the rest of the post.
At my company they just set you up to have an affair
Oh, you poor thing. You couldn't just say "no" for fear of hurting his feelings?
I believe that for the last couple decades John Lennon has not been composing any new songs. In fact I hear a rumor that he's actually de-composing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1oapO3eZ9A
I can see what you're saying, but given that the actual story seems to be that someone I've never heard of says that Eric Schmidt said to him that Google+ is an identity service (a phrase I'm unfamiliar with and don't know the implications of) and finishes with "These aren't exact quotes, but I did my best to paraphrase the gist of what he was saying" ... well, I think it's understandable that they felt the need to spice that up a bit.
What kind of God would punish people who he made that didn't know the difference between right and wrong for doing something wrong?
A capricious one. That's not a logical flaw in the story, just a character flaw of one of the beings in the story.
Why make people in the first place, when you can just imagine every consequence in your imagination ?
What's the difference? You're just a thing in the Red King's dream, after all. If a god imagines a world of people with thoughts and feelings then in what sense have they not been "created", at least from their perspective?