Not before that last week it wasn't... either that or the polls and the media are completely ineffective at communicating the sway of the nation.. and that's not so hard to believe.
Australians vote the way the television and talk radio stations tell them to vote.. the week before election day, no matter what the polls say, the party with the most media coverage wins.
Politicians in this country can do anything they like and the sheeple will vote them back into power, so long as they put enough ads on in that last week.
However, I haven't seen anyone question the fact that Google has already copied millions of entire books that they didn't purchase and don't physically own. When did this become legal, and why can't I do the same (or can I)?
It didn't and that's why there's a class action lawsuit against Google... the problem is, the class and Google have already come to an agreement, but they need permission from the state to enact the settlement. See, the way class action lawsuits work is, if you show up a year after the lawsuit is settled you can say "hey, I want a piece of that!" and they'll give you some, assuming you can prove you're a member of the class. What you can't do is say "hey, I don't agree with that!" cause the case has already been settled. As such, the state has a responsibility to make sure the settlement is fair for those slack members of the class who haven't bothered to turn up to court yet.
Haven't you heard of Google Porn Analytics? It conveniently indexes your porn viewing habits and charts your sexual preferences and fetishes. It's in beta now, and I hear you don't even need to login to see your stats!
I'm sure it's completely unrelated to all the stories we've been hearing about Google investigating nuclear reactors and inviting speakers to give tech talks on alternate nuclear power concepts.
This kind of technology takes much of the risk out of burglarizing homes.
Ya know what, unlike you I actually know some burglars... they don't give a shit if you are home or not. They pick which house to attack on a whim and they break in, take what they can get, and get out faster than you can react. If you put up a fight, they shoot you. The myth of a "cat burglar" who sneaks in an upstairs window and leaves a calling card on your pillow is fantasy.
Typically such a flaw appears in web applications. As such, the attacker does not have access to the local machine, and such an attack gives him information would could aid him in gaining access (usernames).
Y'know, that whole list of 25 is really just a few items expanded into verbosity. You could basically narrow it down to unsanitized user input, unencrypted sensitive data, improper or no data length control, improper or no condition control, improper data storage, improper or no linearity control.
Or you could just narrow it down to: user/programmer doesn't care about security.
It's an interesting system, in that you don't have to appeal from a disadvantage, but it also means that more rash decisions are common at the first court as the accused can always appeal.
Does seem a little arbitrary.. maybe there needs to be a mechanism to decide on the amount of cake. But I wonder if the Swedes are aware that the cake is a lie.
Umm.. that's the same on Twitter, where only if you have a private profile do you need to specifically "allow" followers.. by default, anyone can follow anyone, and if you don't like someone, you block them.
Uhhh.. no you didn't. What you did was misconstrue what I was saying..
Twitter, and Buzz, (and I guess Facebook, I don't use it so I don't really know) are RSS feeds for the masses.
They aggregate "updates" together and show you a feed. My feed looks different to your feed, that's the point of it. In order to facilitate conversation the outgoing feed and the incoming feed are aggregated into a single feed. So when I say "hey folks, just signed up to Buzz", it appears in my feed, even though I'm not following myself. That way when someone says "hey, me too!" 15 minutes later I don't have to remember what I said 15 minutes ago.. it looks like upside-down chat.
One of the nifty features of Buzz (and I expect Twitter to copy it soon if it hasn't already) is that you can subscribe to a blog through it.. then whenever someone posts something on their blog you get an update and can go check it out. Unfortunately, this feature was not adequately explained, so when little-miss-freaks-out-alot here decided to tick the "add my reader to my feed" button she assumed she had just broadcast its contents to everyone. That is, she confused the outgoing feed with the incoming feed.
The Google engineers have failed to indicate clearly the origin and destination of updates in the aggregated feed.
Simply put, they shoved in a feature that they thought was neat but didn't consider its UI impact.
Now click on the link that says "William is following 67" or whatever, and look for you name. If you don't see your name, then there's no problem.. but if you do and you don't want that, here's how to fix it:
1. Go to YOUR profile. It will most likely be like Will's, in that it is your name after/profiles/.. and it would only be like this if you *gave* Buzz you name and clicked the box that says "Display my full name so I can be found in search", and if you said you wanted a nice custom url, otherwise it'll just be some arbitrary number. 2. Uncheck the box that says "Display my full name so I can be found in search".. 3. Remove your full name from the boxes if you want.
Now you can go back to the page of the person who is following you... and select "William is following 67" again, and you will discover that you are now listed in the "other people who do not have public profiles" section.
If you want you can also do:
4. click the link that says "Block" after "[Whoever] is following you".
But you don't need to, because your name is no longer public.... of course, I have no idea how you would have gotten a public profile without asking for one... it took me about 3 attempts to figure out how to get one..
Actually no.. this person just misunderstood what she was seeing, and then when she went to rectify the "problem" discovered that she couldn't.. rather than think that maybe she was just wrong in her initial assumption, and try to actually understand how the system works, she lashed out the way bloggers do - with uninformed, barely intelligible dribble.
Well, the fact is that this person, who is clearly non-technical, was misinterpreting what she was seeing. This is the fault of the engineers for writing a crappy UI (it's called "consensus presentation" in UI class guys) but no actual harm was done. None of her private Reader posts were delivered to her abusive ex-husband or the stalkers who email her - it just looked that way because she assumed that if its in her buzz feed then it's in theirs, cause that's the way it works on Twitter/Facebook. Actually, that's not precisely true, she also confused 'follower' and 'following' in a way that makes no sense for those other two services too.
And so we get to the real different between scholarly works and music... if you want to quote someone in your scholarly work, you don't need permission - imagine how terrible scholarly works would be if you did.
Well, despite what the article says, most CubeSats are launched into deteriorating orbits which eventually burn up.
As for radar, yes, it's nice to be able to get ground confirmation and CubeSats are more than big enough to do that, especially considering they are deployed on-orbit in clusters.
Slashdot Mirror
Every time someone does the "Oh wait" routine I can't help but think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RedLetterMedia#p/u/15/FxKtZmQgxrI
Not before that last week it wasn't... either that or the polls and the media are completely ineffective at communicating the sway of the nation.. and that's not so hard to believe.
Howard was voted out because he wouldn't say "no I will not retire during my next term" and Labor's ads capitalized on it perfectly.
Watch the next election. Look at the polls up until the last week before the election, then look who wins the election.. it's like day and night.
Australians vote the way the television and talk radio stations tell them to vote.. the week before election day, no matter what the polls say, the party with the most media coverage wins.
Politicians in this country can do anything they like and the sheeple will vote them back into power, so long as they put enough ads on in that last week.
Meanwhile the original book is still readable after more than 900 years.
Sweet, got an url?
However, I haven't seen anyone question the fact that Google has already copied millions of entire books that they didn't purchase and don't physically own. When did this become legal, and why can't I do the same (or can I)?
It didn't and that's why there's a class action lawsuit against Google... the problem is, the class and Google have already come to an agreement, but they need permission from the state to enact the settlement. See, the way class action lawsuits work is, if you show up a year after the lawsuit is settled you can say "hey, I want a piece of that!" and they'll give you some, assuming you can prove you're a member of the class. What you can't do is say "hey, I don't agree with that!" cause the case has already been settled. As such, the state has a responsibility to make sure the settlement is fair for those slack members of the class who haven't bothered to turn up to court yet.
Or so the salivating media told you.
Haven't you heard of Google Porn Analytics? It conveniently indexes your porn viewing habits and charts your sexual preferences and fetishes. It's in beta now, and I hear you don't even need to login to see your stats!
I'm sure it's completely unrelated to all the stories we've been hearing about Google investigating nuclear reactors and inviting speakers to give tech talks on alternate nuclear power concepts.
This kind of technology takes much of the risk out of burglarizing homes.
Ya know what, unlike you I actually know some burglars... they don't give a shit if you are home or not. They pick which house to attack on a whim and they break in, take what they can get, and get out faster than you can react. If you put up a fight, they shoot you. The myth of a "cat burglar" who sneaks in an upstairs window and leaves a calling card on your pillow is fantasy.
Sheesh.
Typically such a flaw appears in web applications. As such, the attacker does not have access to the local machine, and such an attack gives him information would could aid him in gaining access (usernames).
Y'know, that whole list of 25 is really just a few items expanded into verbosity. You could basically narrow it down to unsanitized user input, unencrypted sensitive data, improper or no data length control, improper or no condition control, improper data storage, improper or no linearity control.
Or you could just narrow it down to: user/programmer doesn't care about security.
Sheesh.
So much shit. So much commentary. Just gimme the list? Here it is:
It's an interesting system, in that you don't have to appeal from a disadvantage, but it also means that more rash decisions are common at the first court as the accused can always appeal.
Does seem a little arbitrary.. maybe there needs to be a mechanism to decide on the amount of cake. But I wonder if the Swedes are aware that the cake is a lie.
Heh, you make an interesting point, and that perception clearly is relevant.
So why aren't you pissed off with Twitter? Anyone can follow me on Twitter.. if I want to do some "private" feed I need to say I want that.
Umm.. that's the same on Twitter, where only if you have a private profile do you need to specifically "allow" followers.. by default, anyone can follow anyone, and if you don't like someone, you block them.
Uhhh.. no you didn't. What you did was misconstrue what I was saying..
Twitter, and Buzz, (and I guess Facebook, I don't use it so I don't really know) are RSS feeds for the masses.
They aggregate "updates" together and show you a feed. My feed looks different to your feed, that's the point of it. In order to facilitate conversation the outgoing feed and the incoming feed are aggregated into a single feed. So when I say "hey folks, just signed up to Buzz", it appears in my feed, even though I'm not following myself. That way when someone says "hey, me too!" 15 minutes later I don't have to remember what I said 15 minutes ago.. it looks like upside-down chat.
One of the nifty features of Buzz (and I expect Twitter to copy it soon if it hasn't already) is that you can subscribe to a blog through it.. then whenever someone posts something on their blog you get an update and can go check it out. Unfortunately, this feature was not adequately explained, so when little-miss-freaks-out-alot here decided to tick the "add my reader to my feed" button she assumed she had just broadcast its contents to everyone. That is, she confused the outgoing feed with the incoming feed.
The Google engineers have failed to indicate clearly the origin and destination of updates in the aggregated feed.
Simply put, they shoved in a feature that they thought was neat but didn't consider its UI impact.
Ok, no worries, let me explain it to you.
First of all, find one of these people who you think is following you and click on their profile. For example:
http://www.google.com/profiles/william.pomerantz#buzz
Now click on the link that says "William is following 67" or whatever, and look for you name. If you don't see your name, then there's no problem.. but if you do and you don't want that, here's how to fix it:
1. Go to YOUR profile. It will most likely be like Will's, in that it is your name after /profiles/ .. and it would only be like this if you *gave* Buzz you name and clicked the box that says "Display my full name so I can be found in search", and if you said you wanted a nice custom url, otherwise it'll just be some arbitrary number.
2. Uncheck the box that says "Display my full name so I can be found in search"..
3. Remove your full name from the boxes if you want.
Now you can go back to the page of the person who is following you... and select "William is following 67" again, and you will discover that you are now listed in the "other people who do not have public profiles" section.
If you want you can also do:
4. click the link that says "Block" after "[Whoever] is following you".
But you don't need to, because your name is no longer public.... of course, I have no idea how you would have gotten a public profile without asking for one... it took me about 3 attempts to figure out how to get one..
Actually no.. this person just misunderstood what she was seeing, and then when she went to rectify the "problem" discovered that she couldn't.. rather than think that maybe she was just wrong in her initial assumption, and try to actually understand how the system works, she lashed out the way bloggers do - with uninformed, barely intelligible dribble.
Well, the fact is that this person, who is clearly non-technical, was misinterpreting what she was seeing. This is the fault of the engineers for writing a crappy UI (it's called "consensus presentation" in UI class guys) but no actual harm was done. None of her private Reader posts were delivered to her abusive ex-husband or the stalkers who email her - it just looked that way because she assumed that if its in her buzz feed then it's in theirs, cause that's the way it works on Twitter/Facebook. Actually, that's not precisely true, she also confused 'follower' and 'following' in a way that makes no sense for those other two services too.
And so we get to the real different between scholarly works and music... if you want to quote someone in your scholarly work, you don't need permission - imagine how terrible scholarly works would be if you did.
Well, despite what the article says, most CubeSats are launched into deteriorating orbits which eventually burn up.
As for radar, yes, it's nice to be able to get ground confirmation and CubeSats are more than big enough to do that, especially considering they are deployed on-orbit in clusters.
Yep, they're betting both ways here.. your comment indicated they were choosing one over the other and that hasn't happened.