What would the dad have done if this were around eight years ago and his kids wanted to play Persona 3? Live demonstration of how shooting yourself in the head with a handgun doesn't cause physical manifestations of Jungian psychology to come out and fight demons and/or date unrealistic Japanese girls for you?
I'm not going to argue that all trolling is good, but some of it definitely is - trolling is the internet's means of self-regulation. For instance, the article mentions people harassing Zelda Williams on twitter. Does she deserve it? No, she most certainly doesn't. However, what the idiots sending her pictures on twitter don't know is that 4chan likes her (and/v/ reveres her as a goddess ever since the time she posted there), and 4chan also likes her father and his work. I would not be surprised in the slightest if those people wind up doxxed, because they've done something assholish enough to pick up the attention of the internet hate machine. That's the internet regulating itself.
The reverse is true for Jezebel - they're a website run by a company (Gawker Media) that thrives on "click-baiting" and "nerd-baiting", writing overly inflammatory articles about how much they hate men in order to get men (and the angry, militant, extremist feminist sect and tumblr SJW that are Jezebel's typical readership) to click on their articles and comment on just how stupid they are. This is how they make money. Assuming the gore flood isn't Gawker themselves trying to drum up more attention (and thus more clicks and more money), it's the internet regulating itself.
No matter what they do, there will always be internet trolls. There is nothing that can be done about them, short of going full-on 1984 and requiring surveillance cameras and ID cards to access the internet - and I'm not sure even that would stop them. There are always going to be assholes, online or offline, but they always get dealt with eventually.
Looks like the military picked up a copy of Ender's Game and assumed it was some kind of manual for how they should do things. Let's just hope they never find a copy of Neuromancer.
They're not. What's happening is that unemployment numbers are down for several reasons:
1. People who aren't looking for work actively aren't counted as unemployed. This accounts for a very large group of people.
2. People who are finding jobs are finding jobs that do not pay well (see: thousands of college graduates getting minimum-wage jobs out of college because nothing else is available).
3. Unemployment numbers do not count people who are underemployed, such as your friend who is working as a temp when he probably wants to be working full-time hours. There are separate (usually much higher) numbers for underemployment.
In reality, the job market is not getting any healthier - people are finding jobs, but they're finding jobs that don't pay.
I don't know if the author realizes this, but Jezebel (along with pretty much every other Gawker-owned site) is essentially a blog and not at all a news site. In fact, this ENTIRE THING sounds like a typical Gawker tactic known as "clickbaiting" or "nerd-baiting" - essentially, blog authors on Gawker get paid by how many times people read their stories, so they have been known to make headlines that are overly controversial and inflammatory in order to get people to click on them. ' As an example, there is one author on Gawker's "Kotaku" gaming blog named Jason Schrier. About a year ago, Jason Schrier wrote a series of articles decrying the game Dragon's Crown (which features stylized characters with exaggerated body proportions) as sexist and an insult to females and the LGBT crowd. 90% of what he posted were pure opinion pieces that were geared toward baiting as many people into clicking and commenting as possible, because this is how Gawker Media makes money. One of his most-clicked "articles" was a photo of his E3 badge (which featured art from Dragon's Crown) and a blurb about him potentially "boycotting" E3 because they used Dragon's Crown in their promotional material. The whole affair was ridiculous, childish, and geared toward baiting as many people into reading as possible.
There's also Patricia Hernandez, who writes long-winded articles about how various video games are sexist. Her articles are pure tripe, and even she knows it - but she wants to bait as many people into reading as possible so that she makes money.
Jezebel is exactly the same thing, but with feminism instead of videogames. They advocate a position that is so extremist as to be unrealistic, and attract a crowd of feminists who have.. less-than-mainstream views. In fact, I would not be at all surprised if these "rape.gifs" are a false-flag to drum up more attention (and thus more money) for Jezebel - it would certainly explain why Gawker Media would refuse to do anything about it.
This project sounds to me like the NSA is attempting to build their own version of China's "great firewall", and that it'll be used domestically far more than it will be against foreign threats. I can easily see them sharing this with law enforcement agencies, even down to the local level, allowing them to essentially "turn off" internet access at will by blocking packets.
For example, yesterday, the FAA issued a no-fly order for parts of Missouri - this was presumably because there were racially-charged demonstrations over police killings planned for that day - to allow police helicopters free rein over that area. Now, with a system like this in place, I could easily see the police getting some intel that some people might be planning demonstrations and using this system to intercept a specific sub-set of packets: say, anything coming to and from social media from within the borders of the no-fly zone, to stop people organizing as easily.
In the article, they mention that the group attacking WUC was using vulnerabilities in Acrobat Reader, but stopped after Adobe added sandboxing to Acrobat - and then promptly switched to using vulnerabilities in MS Office. Why is it that sandboxing isn't a standard for all popular office software? It seems like had MS sandboxed Office, these attacks likely would've ceased altogether for lack of a vector.
If I've been goofing off at work for years, but do not work as a patent examiner, can I put down on my resume that I worked as a patent examiner if the work (or lack thereof) is virtually the same?
It's because any time you start talking about genetics and race, it starts becoming politically inconvenient. You're going to have someone who inevitably decides that the findings are "racist", even if the finding is something as simple as "There are minor genetic differences between groups of people that are significant enough to support the idea of different races."
The second you mention something like that, people are going to cry out Jim Crow or Hitler, even though no one is saying that the differences make anyone "superior" or "inferior" to anyone else, merely "different".
What I'm wondering is what implications this will have for standardized tests. Most of the tests assume that everyone is on the same playing field - but if this is true, and genetics play a role equal to 50% of a student's learning ability, this would essentially mean that some students will intrinsically perform better than their peers simply because they have the genes and other people don't.
I'm willing to bet that the second they come up with a test for these genes, there will be lawsuits by school districts who lose funding over standardized tests, claiming that they are at an unfair disadvantage because their students simply don't have the genetic makeup to score well on the tests.
There's no way I can see this happening, if only because no one would be willing to settle on a single standard for biometric verification. For instance, I can imagine that some places will want a simple fingerprint.. but others will demand that the fingerprint scanner used by the user to submit their prints detect warmth so that they can be sure that there's no artificial prints, dead bodies, or severed extremities being used to bypass the scan.
Other places will want retinal scans (One eye? Both eyes? Proof of life verification?), voiceprints, voiceprints backed by facial recognition, or any number of other things. In the end, it would lead to the end-user being forced to buy lots of expensive hardware, some of which they may never wind up using. The other thing they don't consider - what about mobile devices that don't have multiple USB ports, or can't support the drivers for biometric scanners?
Passwords can work, but human-readable ones do not. What we need are more secure passwords that aren't human-readable, not Minority Report.
Well, I noticed Halliburton doesn't have a corporate logo, so I started drawing them one that might be less green. The logo is Dick Cheney in a Hummer H-2 running over small woodland creatures while dumping unused barrels of Agent Orange out of the Hummer's trunk and lighting the rainforest on fire with a flamethrower.
Now if only I had any actual artistic talent and this didn't look like a giant blob of orange highlighter.
A few months ago, 60 Minutes aired a series of interviews with Air Force personnel who were behind the F-35 program. All of them said more or less the same thing about the F-35: it doesn't matter if the F-35 is less powerful or doesn't handle as well as other jets, because it was built around radar superiority and being able to detect Russian and Chinese fighters before they could detect it.
If it's the case that the Russians and Chinese now have radar systems that remove that radar superiority, the F-35 now looks like even more of a gigantic waste of money.
This makes Sherwin-Williams and their "Cover the Earth" logo look a lot less like a paint seller/manufacturer and a lot more like some kind of Bond villain.
From what the article says, this hijack went on for months without anyone noticing, and only came to attention because one guy happened to notice that his mining client was connecting to the hijacker's pool server. The first person to notice it did so on March 22nd, when the hack had been running since at least early February. My question is, why didn't people notice their profits vanishing in the month before the first person reported it?
This article really doesn't explain why this finding matters. TEPCO themselves said they do not know how this will effect the decommissioning process for the reactor, if at all. The only thing that seems to be different is that they now believe some of the fuel is still inside the pressure vessel, and it's not clear that they didn't already know that to begin with. It doesn't seem like anything will really change until TEPCO actually sends people in to get a look at it.
Two of the three articles Wikimedia received notices about are for convicted criminals (Gerry Hutch and Renato Vallanzasca) who thrive on publicity for money. Both of them have proved litigious in the past, so it's not surprising they'd want the Wiki pages delisted. However, I can't help but think that running a notoriously violent branch of the Mafia in Milan or robbing banks aren't exactly the kind of things the law hoped would be forgotten.
The use is that you now have a database of 1.2 billion passwords that can be fed into a brute force cracker and used to make "educated guesses" to crack passwords.
If there are 280,000 people on the watch list that are there despite having no recognized ties to any terrorist groups.. why are they on the list at all?
Slashdot Mirror
What would the dad have done if this were around eight years ago and his kids wanted to play Persona 3? Live demonstration of how shooting yourself in the head with a handgun doesn't cause physical manifestations of Jungian psychology to come out and fight demons and/or date unrealistic Japanese girls for you?
Practically the only thing it's missing is commentary about 3D printers.
I'm not going to argue that all trolling is good, but some of it definitely is - trolling is the internet's means of self-regulation. For instance, the article mentions people harassing Zelda Williams on twitter. Does she deserve it? No, she most certainly doesn't. However, what the idiots sending her pictures on twitter don't know is that 4chan likes her (and /v/ reveres her as a goddess ever since the time she posted there), and 4chan also likes her father and his work. I would not be surprised in the slightest if those people wind up doxxed, because they've done something assholish enough to pick up the attention of the internet hate machine. That's the internet regulating itself.
The reverse is true for Jezebel - they're a website run by a company (Gawker Media) that thrives on "click-baiting" and "nerd-baiting", writing overly inflammatory articles about how much they hate men in order to get men (and the angry, militant, extremist feminist sect and tumblr SJW that are Jezebel's typical readership) to click on their articles and comment on just how stupid they are. This is how they make money. Assuming the gore flood isn't Gawker themselves trying to drum up more attention (and thus more clicks and more money), it's the internet regulating itself.
No matter what they do, there will always be internet trolls. There is nothing that can be done about them, short of going full-on 1984 and requiring surveillance cameras and ID cards to access the internet - and I'm not sure even that would stop them. There are always going to be assholes, online or offline, but they always get dealt with eventually.
Actually, I'm reading Diamond Age right now and should've thought of that first.
Looks like the military picked up a copy of Ender's Game and assumed it was some kind of manual for how they should do things. Let's just hope they never find a copy of Neuromancer.
They're not. What's happening is that unemployment numbers are down for several reasons:
1. People who aren't looking for work actively aren't counted as unemployed. This accounts for a very large group of people.
2. People who are finding jobs are finding jobs that do not pay well (see: thousands of college graduates getting minimum-wage jobs out of college because nothing else is available).
3. Unemployment numbers do not count people who are underemployed, such as your friend who is working as a temp when he probably wants to be working full-time hours. There are separate (usually much higher) numbers for underemployment.
In reality, the job market is not getting any healthier - people are finding jobs, but they're finding jobs that don't pay.
Seventeen isn't enough STOP
For a haiku in English STOP
Not even counting stops STOP
I don't know if the author realizes this, but Jezebel (along with pretty much every other Gawker-owned site) is essentially a blog and not at all a news site. In fact, this ENTIRE THING sounds like a typical Gawker tactic known as "clickbaiting" or "nerd-baiting" - essentially, blog authors on Gawker get paid by how many times people read their stories, so they have been known to make headlines that are overly controversial and inflammatory in order to get people to click on them.
'
As an example, there is one author on Gawker's "Kotaku" gaming blog named Jason Schrier. About a year ago, Jason Schrier wrote a series of articles decrying the game Dragon's Crown (which features stylized characters with exaggerated body proportions) as sexist and an insult to females and the LGBT crowd. 90% of what he posted were pure opinion pieces that were geared toward baiting as many people into clicking and commenting as possible, because this is how Gawker Media makes money. One of his most-clicked "articles" was a photo of his E3 badge (which featured art from Dragon's Crown) and a blurb about him potentially "boycotting" E3 because they used Dragon's Crown in their promotional material. The whole affair was ridiculous, childish, and geared toward baiting as many people into reading as possible.
There's also Patricia Hernandez, who writes long-winded articles about how various video games are sexist. Her articles are pure tripe, and even she knows it - but she wants to bait as many people into reading as possible so that she makes money.
Jezebel is exactly the same thing, but with feminism instead of videogames. They advocate a position that is so extremist as to be unrealistic, and attract a crowd of feminists who have.. less-than-mainstream views. In fact, I would not be at all surprised if these "rape .gifs" are a false-flag to drum up more attention (and thus more money) for Jezebel - it would certainly explain why Gawker Media would refuse to do anything about it.
This project sounds to me like the NSA is attempting to build their own version of China's "great firewall", and that it'll be used domestically far more than it will be against foreign threats. I can easily see them sharing this with law enforcement agencies, even down to the local level, allowing them to essentially "turn off" internet access at will by blocking packets.
For example, yesterday, the FAA issued a no-fly order for parts of Missouri - this was presumably because there were racially-charged demonstrations over police killings planned for that day - to allow police helicopters free rein over that area. Now, with a system like this in place, I could easily see the police getting some intel that some people might be planning demonstrations and using this system to intercept a specific sub-set of packets: say, anything coming to and from social media from within the borders of the no-fly zone, to stop people organizing as easily.
I get the whole value of having something out of Snow Crash, but $1400 seems like a pretty high price point for a motorcycle helmet.
In the article, they mention that the group attacking WUC was using vulnerabilities in Acrobat Reader, but stopped after Adobe added sandboxing to Acrobat - and then promptly switched to using vulnerabilities in MS Office. Why is it that sandboxing isn't a standard for all popular office software? It seems like had MS sandboxed Office, these attacks likely would've ceased altogether for lack of a vector.
If I've been goofing off at work for years, but do not work as a patent examiner, can I put down on my resume that I worked as a patent examiner if the work (or lack thereof) is virtually the same?
It's because any time you start talking about genetics and race, it starts becoming politically inconvenient. You're going to have someone who inevitably decides that the findings are "racist", even if the finding is something as simple as "There are minor genetic differences between groups of people that are significant enough to support the idea of different races."
The second you mention something like that, people are going to cry out Jim Crow or Hitler, even though no one is saying that the differences make anyone "superior" or "inferior" to anyone else, merely "different".
What I'm wondering is what implications this will have for standardized tests. Most of the tests assume that everyone is on the same playing field - but if this is true, and genetics play a role equal to 50% of a student's learning ability, this would essentially mean that some students will intrinsically perform better than their peers simply because they have the genes and other people don't.
I'm willing to bet that the second they come up with a test for these genes, there will be lawsuits by school districts who lose funding over standardized tests, claiming that they are at an unfair disadvantage because their students simply don't have the genetic makeup to score well on the tests.
There's no way I can see this happening, if only because no one would be willing to settle on a single standard for biometric verification. For instance, I can imagine that some places will want a simple fingerprint.. but others will demand that the fingerprint scanner used by the user to submit their prints detect warmth so that they can be sure that there's no artificial prints, dead bodies, or severed extremities being used to bypass the scan.
Other places will want retinal scans (One eye? Both eyes? Proof of life verification?), voiceprints, voiceprints backed by facial recognition, or any number of other things. In the end, it would lead to the end-user being forced to buy lots of expensive hardware, some of which they may never wind up using. The other thing they don't consider - what about mobile devices that don't have multiple USB ports, or can't support the drivers for biometric scanners?
Passwords can work, but human-readable ones do not. What we need are more secure passwords that aren't human-readable, not Minority Report.
Well, I noticed Halliburton doesn't have a corporate logo, so I started drawing them one that might be less green. The logo is Dick Cheney in a Hummer H-2 running over small woodland creatures while dumping unused barrels of Agent Orange out of the Hummer's trunk and lighting the rainforest on fire with a flamethrower.
Now if only I had any actual artistic talent and this didn't look like a giant blob of orange highlighter.
A few months ago, 60 Minutes aired a series of interviews with Air Force personnel who were behind the F-35 program. All of them said more or less the same thing about the F-35: it doesn't matter if the F-35 is less powerful or doesn't handle as well as other jets, because it was built around radar superiority and being able to detect Russian and Chinese fighters before they could detect it.
If it's the case that the Russians and Chinese now have radar systems that remove that radar superiority, the F-35 now looks like even more of a gigantic waste of money.
This makes Sherwin-Williams and their "Cover the Earth" logo look a lot less like a paint seller/manufacturer and a lot more like some kind of Bond villain.
What else does this article's author expect Java to be? A programming language and a runtime are exactly what Java is supposed to be.
From what the article says, this hijack went on for months without anyone noticing, and only came to attention because one guy happened to notice that his mining client was connecting to the hijacker's pool server. The first person to notice it did so on March 22nd, when the hack had been running since at least early February. My question is, why didn't people notice their profits vanishing in the month before the first person reported it?
This article really doesn't explain why this finding matters. TEPCO themselves said they do not know how this will effect the decommissioning process for the reactor, if at all. The only thing that seems to be different is that they now believe some of the fuel is still inside the pressure vessel, and it's not clear that they didn't already know that to begin with. It doesn't seem like anything will really change until TEPCO actually sends people in to get a look at it.
I definitely would not ask a scientist to build an engineer, especially a software engineer. That's how you get Frankenstein's monster.
Two of the three articles Wikimedia received notices about are for convicted criminals (Gerry Hutch and Renato Vallanzasca) who thrive on publicity for money. Both of them have proved litigious in the past, so it's not surprising they'd want the Wiki pages delisted. However, I can't help but think that running a notoriously violent branch of the Mafia in Milan or robbing banks aren't exactly the kind of things the law hoped would be forgotten.
The use is that you now have a database of 1.2 billion passwords that can be fed into a brute force cracker and used to make "educated guesses" to crack passwords.
If there are 280,000 people on the watch list that are there despite having no recognized ties to any terrorist groups.. why are they on the list at all?