Ummm so a CSV would be find for actual data storage, but you still need something to actually *do* the analysis. You have conflated a tool with the data storage format.
"Perhaps people should be more careful about the accusations they make."
Perhaps what really needs to happen is better definition of what 'full access' means and that app should be more 'careful' about which permissions they request.
"Once we became aware of this error, we began working on a client-side fix to request permission for only basic Google profile information,"
Seriously, I have an immediate visceral reaction to any politician that tries to play up the 'think of the children' angle, especially conjunction with technology. Such people inevitably have a poor relationship with technology.
Its good to know that Apple is spending their R&D effort toward making enhancements that the customers want; as opposed to the features the products wants.
This is hardly a surprising action. Instead of addressing the behavior of people, the solution will be to attack a problem with technology. Its 'easier' then trying to fix people.
Frankly I dont give a rats ass what phone manufacturers/carriers feel about this. They have already wasted huge amount of customers time and effort putting in unremovable trashware over the years. Let the damned end users have the choice.
Did you willfully ignore the first part of that post "If ISPs want to function in a way that disregards their common-carrier status,"
If you don't disregard your common carrier status then... etc.
The phone companies have common carrier status, and for the exact hypothetical you posted, keep it that way. Its the ISPs that don't want to be covered under common carrier (for some reason [cough monopolies])
This is a legitimate topic of conversation. "No doxxing" rules (and said enforcement) are really a measure of the forum. Is publicly available information 'dox'? Ostensibly yes, but where do you draw the line? Sometimes its hard to say. If someone goes around with a pseudonym all the time, but then files legal papers, are you forbidden from talking about or linking to the documents because it has that person real name and other public info on it? Does it mean you can no longer reference the public record?
Restriction on doxxing appear to exist for the purpose of preventing overly lazy persons from acting badly. However, as above, once you even talk about the existence of a document in the public record all it takes is to be slightly less lazy to find information. How far do you go? You cannot stop bad actors from acting badly.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm so a CSV would be find for actual data storage, but you still need something to actually *do* the analysis. You have conflated a tool with the data storage format.
TIL that there is a "entire Java SE market"
You're thinking of PayPal.
You cant take the sky from me.
"Perhaps people should be more careful about the accusations they make."
Perhaps what really needs to happen is better definition of what 'full access' means and that app should be more 'careful' about which permissions they request.
"Once we became aware of this error, we began working on a client-side fix to request permission for only basic Google profile information,"
Seriously, I have an immediate visceral reaction to any politician that tries to play up the 'think of the children' angle, especially conjunction with technology. Such people inevitably have a poor relationship with technology.
Its good to know that Apple is spending their R&D effort toward making enhancements that the customers want; as opposed to the features the products wants.
And yes I said exactly what I meant.
As the fist time in history that humans were truly abusive to an AI.
From the new division of Citigroup ThankWorld (tm)!
Interesting how Gawker will peddle conspiracy theories when the target is them.
Meh gawker is dead, good riddance.
Can you put some context on 'large numbers' for the purposes of this discussion?
I don't see that conclusion in this documentation of this ruling. Please be wary of armchair extrapolation.
This is hardly a surprising action. Instead of addressing the behavior of people, the solution will be to attack a problem with technology. Its 'easier' then trying to fix people.
Frankly I dont give a rats ass what phone manufacturers/carriers feel about this. They have already wasted huge amount of customers time and effort putting in unremovable trashware over the years. Let the damned end users have the choice.
In the degenerate case, the echo camber is between ones ears.
I have no doubt Valve will fix this right after they have revamped their support portal.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/fea...
Who was guarding it prior to the 40s/50s?
"Reddit" is banning users? *OR* just the mods of one sub?
Albany county in NY is trying to ban drone use by non-law enforcement
http://app.albanycounty.com/le...
People are legitimately having symptoms, you can try to treat the symptoms even if its psychosomatic
The Nocebo effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Thing different!
Did you willfully ignore the first part of that post "If ISPs want to function in a way that disregards their common-carrier status,"
If you don't disregard your common carrier status then... etc.
The phone companies have common carrier status, and for the exact hypothetical you posted, keep it that way. Its the ISPs that don't want to be covered under common carrier (for some reason [cough monopolies])
That really only applies when the split between malice and stupidity could land at the same place.
This is a legitimate topic of conversation. "No doxxing" rules (and said enforcement) are really a measure of the forum. Is publicly available information 'dox'? Ostensibly yes, but where do you draw the line? Sometimes its hard to say. If someone goes around with a pseudonym all the time, but then files legal papers, are you forbidden from talking about or linking to the documents because it has that person real name and other public info on it? Does it mean you can no longer reference the public record?
Restriction on doxxing appear to exist for the purpose of preventing overly lazy persons from acting badly. However, as above, once you even talk about the existence of a document in the public record all it takes is to be slightly less lazy to find information. How far do you go? You cannot stop bad actors from acting badly.