Sure, as long as the person who links to my image doesn't mind if I replace it with dickbutt or the image of a huge erect penis at any time, that should be fine.
The fact that people want to copy the content aptly illustrates that it is of real worth to society. Photographers and visual artists (illustrators, graphic designers, etc.) have it hard enough already, you need to give them a break. Unless you want everyone in the world to become a lawyer or corporate drone, that is.
The OP offers no credentials of his own, presents no coherent argument, and voices a personal opinion about a science topic in the most pretentious way possible, using terms like "horseshit", "crap", "lunacy", "theater", and "science-y".
You really can't be trolling more obviously than OP.
Oh man, for a moment I was unsure. I'm glad that some anonymous coward on Slashdot ruled out any doubts about possible negative consequences of climate change based on his extensive expertise on everything sciency, using a cogent argument like yours. Brilliant!
Not the GP AC here but I've got to chime in on your toxic comment here. Aliquis literally stated "Gas the left" and you "agree with the sentiment". That alone disqualifies you from being taken seriously as an adult, and your pretentious, highly biased personal political opinion rant about possible solutions will be left unheard. My advice to you is to get some basic values back first before you write on public forums, maybe think a bit more about whom you agree with and what you write before posting, or otherwise people will never take you seriously and you'll be more and more treated like a crackpot without realizing why. That's not a path you want to go down.
I'm thinking the opposite. Are there actually any people who use web-based apps for serious day to day work? Which kind of applications? I can't think of a single work-related application type for which the available desktop choices don't outperform any web-based choices by a large margin. For many types of applications such as image, movie, and audio editing there are not even any serious web-based competitors yet, for other types of applications they are abysmal or vendor-lock you in for no reason.
To me the web application hype seems more often about burning VC funding and selling startups rather than creating attractive and sustainable products.
But I guess it's good for non-vegetarians and maybe people who are newly vegetarian.
Maybe for some, but I for one prefer expensive ecologically farmed meat to industrialized fake-meat production. The same for lab-grown meat, it's seems to be primarily intended to replace highly dubious meat of unknown origin in processed fast food. For all I know, "Impossible Burgers" is just another wannabe future mass food corporation like Nestle. Nobody should eat this crap anyway.
Due to intensive livestock farming and insanely long transport ways meat is way too cheap nowadays. If proper animal protection laws and ecological standards were in place, it would be a luxury good as it should be and that would also alleviate ethical concerns for people like me who think there is nothing wrong with slaughtering animals per se.
What bollocks, you should be ashamed of yourself for wasting your and our time with this stupid fake-anecdotal drivel. There's science and there are people like who just make up whatever pleases them.
There is a civilian volunteer website that records this data with fairly strict methodology. What can be said is that Obama vastly expanded drone strikes in Pakistan, but it seems that the drone strikes in other regions (mostly Afghanistan, some in Yemen and Somalia) remained more constant. The data is from civilian sources, every datum is confirmed by at least two independent news media. The data is expressed with lower and upper boundaries on the basis of the reports. (It's very common for reports in news media to first report much lower casualties at the early hours of reporting, since many casualties are only known later.) Here is some typical data without alleged combatants killed:
If you take a closer look at the website and datasets you'll find that Obama expanded the drone program and the number of killed civilians, including children, certainly didn't decrease during his time. Overall it seems to me that not to much can be read off from the concrete numbers, though, since there is a lot of randomness involved. Maybe a statistician can take a look at the data sets and tell us more. Anyway, take a look yourself. Conclusion: Whatever you think about US party politics, Obama is definitely not worthy of the Nobel Peace price. I'd personally rather award him the nobel piece of shit price (and also award this price to Trump, for other reasons).
Your sense of reality definitely at fault if you blame the EU for the fact that your government decided to join the EU without holding a referendum first.
Yes, if you're in the UK and don't like the EU and think there should have been a referendum before signing the Maastricht Treaty, then it would have made sense to you never vote for the conservative party again.
Your democratically elected government at the time made this choice, as was the choice of your democratically elected government whether to leave the EU and/or whether there should have been a referendum about it or not.
In your case the choice to join the Maastricht Treaty without a referendum was made by the conservative government of Sir John Major, which also negotiated important aspects of the treaty for the UK.
You know, it's not as if this information is kind of secret, you can look it up yourself next time.
I'm so tired of this anti-EU bullshit. You really need to find a new scapegoat for the failure of your local politicians.
In order for the EU to remove power from any national government, besaid national government would first have to agree with this or, second, there needs to be an unanimous vote by all member states to remove that power.
Any power that is currently not in the hands of national governments and can be overruled by directives is not in their hands because all governments of all member states previously voted to take away that power and give it to the EU to the mutual benefit of all member states. What's even worse about posts like yours is that the people who criticize the EU now for not being democratic enough are exactly the same people who in the past ensured that the EU has this structure, most notably the UK, whose main goal has always been to make the European Parliament as weak as possible, prevent a EU wide defence structure, not having a EU president, etc. The European Parliament is relatively powerless and commissioners appointed by the governments of member states (and voted for by European Parliament, which directly represents all EU citizens) have a relatively high amount of power because member countries wanted to make sure that the European Parliament has less to say than national parliaments.
And what's bizarre about complaining about the monopoly of search engines so late? By design, the commissions mostly become active in such matters after the complaints have reached national level and the whole process takes time.
In a nutshell, quit those silly complaints about the EU. Rather complain about the local politicians like Margaret Thatcher who designed it that way and opt for local politicians that want to give the EU Parliament more power. Remember, the EU parliament is directly voted for by the citizens of the member states.
His wife is involved in the company and for obvious reasons Dotcom has done the best he can to make sure he cannot be associated legally in any way with her company. Mega is about the only company that - again, for obvious reasons - takes end-user encryption seriously, which might make it a natural target for all kinds of entities that do not like the idea of having companies that do not store encryption keys or implement fuse key escrow. There is a vested interest in shattering Mega's reputation, which is not easy, since their implementation and service are outstanding. Those "thousands of Mega logins" represent a ridiculously small fraction of all Mega users and have probably been obtained by compromising their end-user machines (e.g. by some generic malware).
Mega's free service gives you 50GB storage with automated syncing and a very functional web interface. I use it for non-important backups and syncing.
So what, your butthurt reply is relatively irrelevant, as is the Chinese propaganda. Both the US and China are major nuclear powers, it's hard to find a realistic scenario in which a major conventional conflict wouldn't escalate into mutual nuclear destruction. Maybe in Taiwan or some regional conflict about minor islands? Other than that, MAD makes these advanced conventional military toys pointless for homeland defence, which kind of reveals why they are developed - projecting force and showing off one's national dick.
Very informative, but you forgot one important detail. No extradition treaty mandates the extradition and countries sometimes decline otherwise valid extradition requests. For example, a Portuguese court declined in 2011 a valid extradition request for George Wright by the US for armed robbery and murder on the grounds that the person in question has built a new life, and the UK recently declined a valid extradition request by the US for Laurie Love's hacking of the Pentagon. Main concerns against these requests were human rights issues in the US justice and legal system. AFAIK, the US has also declined extradition requests for their citizens in the past, although I haven't found data on this.
Personally, I believe that no country should currently extradite to the US because the US penal system has too many human rights issues and US sentences tend to be not adequate to the crime committed.
It's trivial to train a machine learning software to identify such makeup and single out the persons wearing it. The same is true for any other measures to defeat facial recognition. These are easy to beat technical solutions to the social problem of making automated facial recognition and tracking legal in the first place. Not every surveillance technology that is feasible should be legal. Automated mass surveillance has more perils than benefits.
I don't know about Olsoc's installation but maybe because it's not possible. For example, I have 100+ VST instruments and effects installed on my Windows machine, each of them with a complicated DRM scheme that requires sending emails, logging into websites, etc. It takes about one week of full work or 4-6 weeks of spare-time work to restore the system into a workable state. I know that because I recently changed my system.
Sure you can blame the software companies for their crappy DRM schemes, but for some of us that's the reality and reinstalling Windows from scratch is basically out of question. But hey, at least I'm not working at a recoding studio that could lose many thousands of dollar when there is a problem with their Windows installation...
That's because you've shifted the goalpost from "someone is out there to kill you" to "preventing violence".
You seem to be suggesting that because the average person isn't likely to be able to stop a carefully planned murder that, therefore, all of those people who DO defend themselves should just give up and let their attackers have their way.
No, I do not seem to be suggesting that. Learn how to read & understand texts!
No amount of self-defence training and no guns can save you from someone who wants to kill you. If you have a gun, the guy will find out and shoot you before you can even think 'oops'. If somebody wants to kill you, the only thing that might prevent it is that person's stupidity, lack of dedication to killing you, or a bunch of highly trained bodyguards. Even the latter will probably not stop that person, unless you can afford the best of the best.
That being said, almost all self-defence situations have nothing to do with somebody trying to kill you.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, as long as the person who links to my image doesn't mind if I replace it with dickbutt or the image of a huge erect penis at any time, that should be fine.
The fact that people want to copy the content aptly illustrates that it is of real worth to society. Photographers and visual artists (illustrators, graphic designers, etc.) have it hard enough already, you need to give them a break. Unless you want everyone in the world to become a lawyer or corporate drone, that is.
The OP offers no credentials of his own, presents no coherent argument, and voices a personal opinion about a science topic in the most pretentious way possible, using terms like "horseshit", "crap", "lunacy", "theater", and "science-y".
You really can't be trolling more obviously than OP.
Oh man, for a moment I was unsure. I'm glad that some anonymous coward on Slashdot ruled out any doubts about possible negative consequences of climate change based on his extensive expertise on everything sciency, using a cogent argument like yours. Brilliant!
Not the GP AC here but I've got to chime in on your toxic comment here. Aliquis literally stated "Gas the left" and you "agree with the sentiment". That alone disqualifies you from being taken seriously as an adult, and your pretentious, highly biased personal political opinion rant about possible solutions will be left unheard. My advice to you is to get some basic values back first before you write on public forums, maybe think a bit more about whom you agree with and what you write before posting, or otherwise people will never take you seriously and you'll be more and more treated like a crackpot without realizing why. That's not a path you want to go down.
What does this have to do with socialism? Right-wing authoritarianism is just as good at imposing senseless regulations.
I'm thinking the opposite. Are there actually any people who use web-based apps for serious day to day work? Which kind of applications? I can't think of a single work-related application type for which the available desktop choices don't outperform any web-based choices by a large margin. For many types of applications such as image, movie, and audio editing there are not even any serious web-based competitors yet, for other types of applications they are abysmal or vendor-lock you in for no reason.
To me the web application hype seems more often about burning VC funding and selling startups rather than creating attractive and sustainable products.
I hate article like that one. I want to see the list!
But I guess it's good for non-vegetarians and maybe people who are newly vegetarian.
Maybe for some, but I for one prefer expensive ecologically farmed meat to industrialized fake-meat production. The same for lab-grown meat, it's seems to be primarily intended to replace highly dubious meat of unknown origin in processed fast food. For all I know, "Impossible Burgers" is just another wannabe future mass food corporation like Nestle. Nobody should eat this crap anyway.
Due to intensive livestock farming and insanely long transport ways meat is way too cheap nowadays. If proper animal protection laws and ecological standards were in place, it would be a luxury good as it should be and that would also alleviate ethical concerns for people like me who think there is nothing wrong with slaughtering animals per se.
What bollocks, you should be ashamed of yourself for wasting your and our time with this stupid fake-anecdotal drivel. There's science and there are people like who just make up whatever pleases them.
Steganography is easy to detect if you know the statistical properties of the carrier channel and have access to sufficient amounts of data from it.
There are no phenotypical races anyway.
There is a civilian volunteer website that records this data with fairly strict methodology. What can be said is that Obama vastly expanded drone strikes in Pakistan, but it seems that the drone strikes in other regions (mostly Afghanistan, some in Yemen and Somalia) remained more constant. The data is from civilian sources, every datum is confirmed by at least two independent news media. The data is expressed with lower and upper boundaries on the basis of the reports. (It's very common for reports in news media to first report much lower casualties at the early hours of reporting, since many casualties are only known later.) Here is some typical data without alleged combatants killed:
2017 Afghanistan
civilians killed 13-149
children killed: 2-27
reported injuries: 147-295
2016 Afghanistan
civilians killed: 65-105
children killed: 3-7
reported injuries: 196-243
2015 Afghanistan
civilians killed: 60-77
children killed: 3-16
reported injuries: 142-147
If you take a closer look at the website and datasets you'll find that Obama expanded the drone program and the number of killed civilians, including children, certainly didn't decrease during his time. Overall it seems to me that not to much can be read off from the concrete numbers, though, since there is a lot of randomness involved. Maybe a statistician can take a look at the data sets and tell us more. Anyway, take a look yourself. Conclusion: Whatever you think about US party politics, Obama is definitely not worthy of the Nobel Peace price. I'd personally rather award him the nobel piece of shit price (and also award this price to Trump, for other reasons).
Your sense of reality definitely at fault if you blame the EU for the fact that your government decided to join the EU without holding a referendum first.
Yes, if you're in the UK and don't like the EU and think there should have been a referendum before signing the Maastricht Treaty, then it would have made sense to you never vote for the conservative party again.
Your democratically elected government at the time made this choice, as was the choice of your democratically elected government whether to leave the EU and/or whether there should have been a referendum about it or not.
In your case the choice to join the Maastricht Treaty without a referendum was made by the conservative government of Sir John Major, which also negotiated important aspects of the treaty for the UK.
You know, it's not as if this information is kind of secret, you can look it up yourself next time.
I'm so tired of this anti-EU bullshit. You really need to find a new scapegoat for the failure of your local politicians.
In order for the EU to remove power from any national government, besaid national government would first have to agree with this or, second, there needs to be an unanimous vote by all member states to remove that power.
Any power that is currently not in the hands of national governments and can be overruled by directives is not in their hands because all governments of all member states previously voted to take away that power and give it to the EU to the mutual benefit of all member states. What's even worse about posts like yours is that the people who criticize the EU now for not being democratic enough are exactly the same people who in the past ensured that the EU has this structure, most notably the UK, whose main goal has always been to make the European Parliament as weak as possible, prevent a EU wide defence structure, not having a EU president, etc. The European Parliament is relatively powerless and commissioners appointed by the governments of member states (and voted for by European Parliament, which directly represents all EU citizens) have a relatively high amount of power because member countries wanted to make sure that the European Parliament has less to say than national parliaments.
And what's bizarre about complaining about the monopoly of search engines so late? By design, the commissions mostly become active in such matters after the complaints have reached national level and the whole process takes time.
In a nutshell, quit those silly complaints about the EU. Rather complain about the local politicians like Margaret Thatcher who designed it that way and opt for local politicians that want to give the EU Parliament more power. Remember, the EU parliament is directly voted for by the citizens of the member states.
His wife is involved in the company and for obvious reasons Dotcom has done the best he can to make sure he cannot be associated legally in any way with her company. Mega is about the only company that - again, for obvious reasons - takes end-user encryption seriously, which might make it a natural target for all kinds of entities that do not like the idea of having companies that do not store encryption keys or implement fuse key escrow. There is a vested interest in shattering Mega's reputation, which is not easy, since their implementation and service are outstanding. Those "thousands of Mega logins" represent a ridiculously small fraction of all Mega users and have probably been obtained by compromising their end-user machines (e.g. by some generic malware).
Mega's free service gives you 50GB storage with automated syncing and a very functional web interface. I use it for non-important backups and syncing.
So what, your butthurt reply is relatively irrelevant, as is the Chinese propaganda. Both the US and China are major nuclear powers, it's hard to find a realistic scenario in which a major conventional conflict wouldn't escalate into mutual nuclear destruction. Maybe in Taiwan or some regional conflict about minor islands? Other than that, MAD makes these advanced conventional military toys pointless for homeland defence, which kind of reveals why they are developed - projecting force and showing off one's national dick.
I've read this "news" a few months ago... or maybe a year ago.
Very informative, but you forgot one important detail. No extradition treaty mandates the extradition and countries sometimes decline otherwise valid extradition requests. For example, a Portuguese court declined in 2011 a valid extradition request for George Wright by the US for armed robbery and murder on the grounds that the person in question has built a new life, and the UK recently declined a valid extradition request by the US for Laurie Love's hacking of the Pentagon. Main concerns against these requests were human rights issues in the US justice and legal system. AFAIK, the US has also declined extradition requests for their citizens in the past, although I haven't found data on this.
Personally, I believe that no country should currently extradite to the US because the US penal system has too many human rights issues and US sentences tend to be not adequate to the crime committed.
It's trivial to train a machine learning software to identify such makeup and single out the persons wearing it. The same is true for any other measures to defeat facial recognition. These are easy to beat technical solutions to the social problem of making automated facial recognition and tracking legal in the first place. Not every surveillance technology that is feasible should be legal. Automated mass surveillance has more perils than benefits.
I don't know about Olsoc's installation but maybe because it's not possible. For example, I have 100+ VST instruments and effects installed on my Windows machine, each of them with a complicated DRM scheme that requires sending emails, logging into websites, etc. It takes about one week of full work or 4-6 weeks of spare-time work to restore the system into a workable state. I know that because I recently changed my system.
Sure you can blame the software companies for their crappy DRM schemes, but for some of us that's the reality and reinstalling Windows from scratch is basically out of question. But hey, at least I'm not working at a recoding studio that could lose many thousands of dollar when there is a problem with their Windows installation...
That's because you've shifted the goalpost from "someone is out there to kill you" to "preventing violence".
You seem to be suggesting that because the average person isn't likely to be able to stop a carefully planned murder that, therefore, all of those people who DO defend themselves should just give up and let their attackers have their way.
No, I do not seem to be suggesting that. Learn how to read & understand texts!
No amount of self-defence training and no guns can save you from someone who wants to kill you. If you have a gun, the guy will find out and shoot you before you can even think 'oops'. If somebody wants to kill you, the only thing that might prevent it is that person's stupidity, lack of dedication to killing you, or a bunch of highly trained bodyguards. Even the latter will probably not stop that person, unless you can afford the best of the best.
That being said, almost all self-defence situations have nothing to do with somebody trying to kill you.