> I can't complain much though- there's an important difference between going > to a third party (NoScript) to block Google, and Google offering a solution > themselves.
>...copyright was the length of time during which they were forced to pay > royalties while doing so.
Copyright was the length of time during which they were going to have a monopoly. Once it expired they had competitors and were forced to reduce prices.
Slashdot Mirror
You need to put "enjoy" in quotes.
> Until IE implements even half these features...
Or until IE is dead...
> just 80m or a bit thinner than a human hair
80 meters is a pretty substantial hair.
> Maybe if the summary had said "check out how stupid this is..."
It did. It's on Idle.
> File it under 'Fucking-Duh'
Redundant. It's already on Idle.
> this is Uri Geller type of BS
No it isn't. This isn't even fake. It's just inane.
> "Solid State" (TM) electronics was still a few years off [in 1973].
Not true.
> This wouldn't work without the information about you...
Well, no. It works fine without any information about me at all. Your information suffices.
> You'll never know; you'll just look at the privacy policy and say "that's
> cool" and click OK.
Speak for yourself.
> I can't complain much though- there's an important difference between going
> to a third party (NoScript) to block Google, and Google offering a solution
> themselves.
Yes. You can rely on NoScript.
> Do you know how many websites embed the google-analytics code?
I don't care. NoScript blocks Google Analytics for me.
> So your answer is completely unfeasible in the real world.
Works in the one I live in.
> So... how am I going to find out if a site uses Google Analytics without
> going to it and checking the source?
Why would you need to when you have told NoScript to block Google?
> The same could be said of software EULAS, mobile phone contracts, or half a
> dozen other things...
Yes. So what is your answer?
> How on Earth do you know it's all in their head?
Because that's where their eyes are.
> We can and do opt out. But even black-belt geeks that desire privacy have a
> hard time figuring this stuff out.
Why is it so hard to figure out that if you can't figure it out you shouldn't agree to it?
> ...nobody can be perfect.
It doesn't matter if someone can be perfect as long as many people are not.
> ...user would trust Facebook.
Then it's all over anyway for them, isn't it?
> There are 2 kinds of people on this world, those who are stupid and/or
> gullible and those who take advantage of that.
So which are you: a fool or a criminal?
More likely they learned it from the Galaxy Zoo folks.
The subject is not the mathematical idealization of Brownian motion. It's the real thing.
However, these dust particles are so large that the Heisenberg uncertainty is small compared to the measurement error. This is a classical system.
Uncertainty is not relevant here because the "particles" involved are macroscopic bits of dust, not elementary particles.
> And to his credit, [Albert Einstein] has admitted mistakes before.
I don't think he'll do it again, though.
The uncertainty principle is irrelevant to this experiment.
> Wasn't giving money or gifts to a government person once not only a crime
> but treason?
Not in the USA.
> A crime that is[/was?] punished like murder.
Bribery has never been equated to murder under USA law.
> What happened, that someone who does it doesn't instantly get shot?
Have you ever heard of something called a "trial"? (admittedly out of favor with the current adminstration, but most criminals still get one).
> ...copyright was the length of time during which they were forced to pay
> royalties while doing so.
Copyright was the length of time during which they were going to have a monopoly. Once it expired they had competitors and were forced to reduce prices.