Climate change - real or not - is a global issue, not just one relevant to US. Europeans are not as obsessed with god and religion as americans are; Muslims don't follow the ten commandments; and the rest of the world is too busy making more money.
If yes, please tell me where in the article does it say that whatever LG did had anything to do with getting sick while watching 3D movies. The article is a bit too technical for me and I don't really see the connections. Any geeks to my rescue?
Yes alright, I meant believe exactly in the sense you believe in evolution. The point was that a big chunk of americans still think that god created humans in their present form. That level of ignorance in a big chunk of population is worrying.
Losses incurred probably include things like time lost in canceling a card and issuing new one. The wordings of TFA don't make it clear whether he used all those cards or he just sold it to other criminals, so I have no idea how much this guy directly made.
Go to G+ settings and scroll down to the part that says "Google +1". You will see an edit link. If I am not mistaken this should be the option that you want to disable.
So he had no idea when he came up with this project that he might get in trouble with the law even though he _thinks_ he is on the right side of the law? Either this guy is trying to make a point by getting in the grey area (FTFA, he is a consultant for EFF), or a moron. In either way, he is going to need a lot of luck.
It is my understanding that by default if someone adds you to their circle, they are merely subscribing to whatever you post as "public", i.e. for the entire internet. If you don't add them back to a circle of your own and keep posting only to a restricted circle (say "friends") then they don't get to see your posts.
If for some reason you feel obliged to add them back to your circle (maybe to not offend them or whatever), you can always make a circle called "random people" and never include that circle in anything you post.
I personally believe that individuals should be entitled to hold moral values (whether I agree with them or not), and be able to act accordingly (of course, within the constraints of law, etc). In general I would even extend this principle to groups of people, but corporations should be treated as an exception to this "right" imho. One simple reason is the sheer clout they hold over our lives in this day and age. You start treating them like agencies that deserve the same rights as people and you run the risk of ending up with a society where the interest of corporations is supreme simply because they have much more clout that individuals do.
Of course I realize that US courts have usually held the right of a company to do business mostly as they please, but I think it is in general a bad idea. I will stick to my vision of the society I want to live in: let people decide what is moral for them; let elected representatives decide what should be illegal; and let corporations stick to doing business and not chose a "moral side" and force them to stick to the "legal side". Either what wikileaks did was illegal in which case the government/s could get a court order to make VISA and Mastercard to block donations to wikileaks, or it was not illegal in which case the government/s could just suck it up, or try rallying people's support to outlaw wikileaks.
Sure, if I opened a bar and posted a sign saying "Black people not allowed", everyone who is enraged should just stfu and go to a different bar instead. Right?
OP did not suggest in any way that what VISA and Mastercard did was wrong because they did it to wikileaks. It makes a lot of sense to me to expect (maybe even require) companies not to pick moral sides. Let the people choose whether they want to donate to wikileaks, and let the court decide whether wikileaks should be allowed to receive donations.
Just because a company says that all they do is compute the stationary distribution from this matrix, one should not just take their word and relax. ( (sorry, but the buzzword that you used it not immediately relevant here.)
I love Google and I hope they come out clean, but you comment was unnecessary. It is not going to be an investigation into the soundness of mathematics.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Someone believing that god created us in our present form is not a religious nutjob? That's the majority right there.
Yes. Someone mod the GGP up!
We all fucked up at one point or the other, or will :)
Couldn't have said it better. I wish I had mod points.
Climate change - real or not - is a global issue, not just one relevant to US. Europeans are not as obsessed with god and religion as americans are; Muslims don't follow the ten commandments; and the rest of the world is too busy making more money.
If yes, please tell me where in the article does it say that whatever LG did had anything to do with getting sick while watching 3D movies. The article is a bit too technical for me and I don't really see the connections. Any geeks to my rescue?
Yes alright, I meant believe exactly in the sense you believe in evolution. The point was that a big chunk of americans still think that god created humans in their present form. That level of ignorance in a big chunk of population is worrying.
Losses incurred probably include things like time lost in canceling a card and issuing new one. The wordings of TFA don't make it clear whether he used all those cards or he just sold it to other criminals, so I have no idea how much this guy directly made.
US still need to work a lot. 51% of americans do not believe in evolution.
Hilarious!
At the end of the game, The king and the pawn go back in the same box.
Oh that explains it. Using safari can impair your hearing. Everyone else heard a whoosh ;)
Do you use Safari?
The US census bureau projects March next year to be the time when world population hits 7 billion.
Go to G+ settings and scroll down to the part that says "Google +1". You will see an edit link. If I am not mistaken this should be the option that you want to disable.
Wow, the sheer arrogance in this thread. Just wow.
My bad. Thanks for pointing that out.
So he had no idea when he came up with this project that he might get in trouble with the law even though he _thinks_ he is on the right side of the law? Either this guy is trying to make a point by getting in the grey area (FTFA, he is a consultant for EFF), or a moron. In either way, he is going to need a lot of luck.
It is my understanding that by default if someone adds you to their circle, they are merely subscribing to whatever you post as "public", i.e. for the entire internet. If you don't add them back to a circle of your own and keep posting only to a restricted circle (say "friends") then they don't get to see your posts.
If for some reason you feel obliged to add them back to your circle (maybe to not offend them or whatever), you can always make a circle called "random people" and never include that circle in anything you post.
Or did I misunderstand your concern?
Belated* Happy Birthday, America!
I am in Europe and missed it by a few hours. Sorry.
I personally believe that individuals should be entitled to hold moral values (whether I agree with them or not), and be able to act accordingly (of course, within the constraints of law, etc). In general I would even extend this principle to groups of people, but corporations should be treated as an exception to this "right" imho. One simple reason is the sheer clout they hold over our lives in this day and age. You start treating them like agencies that deserve the same rights as people and you run the risk of ending up with a society where the interest of corporations is supreme simply because they have much more clout that individuals do.
Of course I realize that US courts have usually held the right of a company to do business mostly as they please, but I think it is in general a bad idea. I will stick to my vision of the society I want to live in: let people decide what is moral for them; let elected representatives decide what should be illegal; and let corporations stick to doing business and not chose a "moral side" and force them to stick to the "legal side". Either what wikileaks did was illegal in which case the government/s could get a court order to make VISA and Mastercard to block donations to wikileaks, or it was not illegal in which case the government/s could just suck it up, or try rallying people's support to outlaw wikileaks.
Sure, if I opened a bar and posted a sign saying "Black people not allowed", everyone who is enraged should just stfu and go to a different bar instead. Right?
OP did not suggest in any way that what VISA and Mastercard did was wrong because they did it to wikileaks. It makes a lot of sense to me to expect (maybe even require) companies not to pick moral sides. Let the people choose whether they want to donate to wikileaks, and let the court decide whether wikileaks should be allowed to receive donations.
I was talking about the debian logo with the story. Apologies for not putting the tag. You must be a hit at parties too.
The Debian users are going to be pissed..
Are you just trolling? In case you are not:
Just because a company says that all they do is compute the stationary distribution from this matrix, one should not just take their word and relax. ( (sorry, but the buzzword that you used it not immediately relevant here.)
I love Google and I hope they come out clean, but you comment was unnecessary. It is not going to be an investigation into the soundness of mathematics.