All those members of the public who will be coming into contact with foreign reporters will be heavily vetted beforehand.
They just can't do that any more. They tried to put a lid on H5N1, for instance, that lasted a few days before news got out. This is Beijing, not Pyongyang.
And honestly I don't see the Beijing 2008 Olympics as a great force for open reporting. That lasts 3 weeks or so?
There has been a media build up for over a year now, which will intensify. Sure, many will parachute in just for the opening day. Recall that one reason the Tiananmen demonstrations built up in 1989 was the concentration of world press there to see a summit with Gorbachev. Obviously China won't let anything like that happen again, but with thousands of reporters around, and the security forces under orders to play nice, there will be lots of non-sport stories. China is already seeing a trend in investigative shit-stirring reporting, as media ownership becomes more business-minded and they publish newspapers people want to buy, stories people want to read, rather than just regurgitating government statements.
a simple text-based BSOD or oops handler is a better idea than something that tries to do a whole bunch of cute graphics etc (which relies on a whole lot more hardware & software to be working properly).
From TFA, the crash screen is a single image file, a screenshot. It's probably no harder to load a single screen than a stream of text. And OSX does have an option to display text error messages if you really want to see them.
With the Beijing Olympics in 2008, they're obliged to allow foreign news reporters virtually free access. But at the same time the old guard is deeply suspicious of foreign media. So you see opening on one hand, clamp down with the other. The country needs the Internet for business, but wants to lock it down to prevent free political discussion. Obviously self-contradictory policies like these can't work practically. In the long run, the media will be free, but in the short term, a lot of people could get ground up. For instance, several reporters, ethnic Chinese but usually foreign citizens, are in jail for long terms for "espionage", reporting "state secrets" for reporting economic statistics, or interviewing people the government would rather stay out of the limelight.
As 2008 approaches, look for a lot of activity on this front.
Frankly, it'd be absurd to ask anyone to censor dynamically changing information such as a Wiki with those kinds of rules.
But this is exactly what search companies like Google must do: Google doesn't censor its own material; it has to dynamically alter what it shows to the user based on dynamically changing information: the entire internet.
Google's algorithms can automate search, but they can't automate blocking any information the Chinese governement objects to. If they try to block on keywords (as they do in China) it's not hard to think up euphemisms. So human censors have to be in the loop. For Wikipedia, that would mean vetting every single edit.
And definitely, Arnold should NOT come back. I think it would be the best thing for the series if they distanced themselves from their star and focused more on story.
The only way the studio will invest in a $200 million movie is with A-list stars.
I had a single volume paperback, a bit over 1000 pages. War and Peace is about 1400 pages.
Actually, the publisher just thought it wouldn't sell as a single fat volume. He thought he'd sell a thousand or so of the first volume, then a few nundred of the latter a year later, expecting few to persevere. Also Tolkien was fussing over the appendices, so it let him get the first part out while he was doing that.
since the only direction they have to go in with this is to show the future war, something most Terminator fans have always been interested in seeing.
For about 5 minutes. Not a whole movie. And I can't see Arnold in this, even if he's quit being governor.
Anyway, they've got time travel, they could go anywhere. Maybe like Back to the Future II they could go back and try to change events in the earlier movies.
MythTV could use a bit of exposure to the great masses of people out there who are completely unaware of this software, yet who could use it to their benefit
The kind of people who need it explained in adspeak aren't going to get very far with installing it anyway.
Under traditional US law, "worth a try" isn't enough reason
There are two kinds of reason here; the reason the cops would want to (which is what I was stating) and the "legal" reason they write down when they have to justify it. In this case, they apparently traced a connection to some kiddie porn site to a Tor router(s). That's enough of a legal excuse to grab them.
I'd take a guess that if the price was right for pirated copies, he wouldn't be making US$ 20 million dollars selling them.
He didn't. See here: "Peterson pleaded guilty in December to the charges of selling illegal software valued at more than $20 million. He earned $5.4 million from the illegal sales, equal to the amount of restitution he must pay." Interesting the Cnet story omits that in favour of the "value" of the software, and ends it with the mandatory quote from the BSA: "Software piracy resulted in a loss of $34 billion worldwide in 2005, a $1.6 billion increase over 2004, according to a study commissioned by the Business Software Alliance."
Yeas, he profited, lots, but they still spun it to seem worse.
(As a side note, I question whether the LOTR *books* would even have been written if there were no profit incentive at all. Or maybe they would've been written, but not with the epic-scale that they have.)
Tolkien had been writing his Middle Earth sagas for decades. He showed them to a publisher early on who told him they were unpublishable. He continued writing anyway. Eventually of course a publisher did turn up who took a risk. Of course there was a profit motive in the publishing, but not the writing. And if it had happened today, perhaps JRR would have written it as a blog and not bothered with publishers at all. He had endless trouble with their changes to his text, both deliberate ("elvish" to "elfen") and accidental.
Log minSeverity[-maxSeverity] stderr|stdout|syslog Send all messages between minSeverity and maxSeverity to the standard output stream, the standard error stream, or to the system log. (The "syslog" value is only supported on Unix.) Recognized severity levels are debug, info, notice, warn, and err. We advise using "notice" in most cases, since anything more verbose may provide sensitive information to an attacker who obtains the logs. If only one severity level is given, all messages of that level or higher will be sent to the listed destination.
SafeLogging 0|1 If 1, Tor replaces potentially sensitive strings in the logs (e.g. addresses) with the string [scrubbed]. This way logs can still be useful, but they don't leave behind personally identifying information about what sites a user might have visited. (Default: 1)
So one would have to deliberately change several defaults to get logs with any data the cops might be interested in. From their point of view, worth a try, but unlikely to be fruitful.
What makes the whole thing so absurd is that if Ahmed really was a terrorist, he's alerted and now will be dormant or extremely careful. If they actually wanted to catch terrorists they'd just quietly observe him and let him transfer his 20 pounds to Afghanistan, and see who he was in contact with.
Ok, so why is playing a game and talking online meaningless?
I didn't say it was. I said it wasn't the same as a "real world" communication.
Are you saying that all real friends must only speak of topical real interests?
No, I didn't say that either.
Most importantly, you can not tell other people that their friendship is less valid.
Why not? But it's not like I was getting in anyone's face, it was a response to the remark quoted. If you like, it refers specifically to my personal experience, which is why I gave some anecdotes to support it.
Who is to say that is the WRONG way to live?
Not me. You obviously got the wrong message, which in itself shows how shallow online communication is. (And please don't take that as a personal attack, it takes to to miscommunicate, including me.)
It's probaly true that these are the messages received, but he has no idea if the emails were sent by the people whose names were on them. Maybe another "prankster" was screwing with him and the supposed sender.
a form of community rarely seen in the real world...
Yes, conceited, and pathetic too. Like looking at porn online is a sex life.
I have some purely online relationships, but they're mostly singe-dimensional; concerned with discussing some esoterica we're both interested in. I really doubt any of us would get on in the real world; none would or could offer support as an actual meatspace friend would. If you think that a relationship based on gaming would be any deeper; just recall it's "role playing". No one is who they pretend to be. Being brave or generous in a virtual world means nothing.
they would consider blogs as news sources to be equal with "real" ones.
I don't have a problem using a blog as a news source. Though I withhold judgement until some confirmation comes. However, most of the blogs linked by Slashdot are actually just cut-and-pasted from "traditional" media, though admittedly usually with some spelling mistakes, groundless speculation and a misleading headline added.
What I would not like is for my ipod to shatter in my pocket, severely damaging the surrounding area.
How would it "shatter"? I find it hard to think how it could cause much of an injury, more than if the screen was plastic. If he screen was facing in, unless it was pierced by something very sharp (which would do plenty of damage by itself), your flesh would cushion it and it and be unlikely to break. If facing out, the iPod should block any glass shards from going in.
Perhaps that's why they use soft plastic though, paranoia of product liability from some unlikely accident.
Slashdot Mirror
They just can't do that any more. They tried to put a lid on H5N1, for instance, that lasted a few days before news got out. This is Beijing, not Pyongyang.
You seem to be living in the 1950s. Business is very powerful in China now. Money talks.
There has been a media build up for over a year now, which will intensify. Sure, many will parachute in just for the opening day. Recall that one reason the Tiananmen demonstrations built up in 1989 was the concentration of world press there to see a summit with Gorbachev. Obviously China won't let anything like that happen again, but with thousands of reporters around, and the security forces under orders to play nice, there will be lots of non-sport stories. China is already seeing a trend in investigative shit-stirring reporting, as media ownership becomes more business-minded and they publish newspapers people want to buy, stories people want to read, rather than just regurgitating government statements.
From TFA, the crash screen is a single image file, a screenshot. It's probably no harder to load a single screen than a stream of text. And OSX does have an option to display text error messages if you really want to see them.
As 2008 approaches, look for a lot of activity on this front.
Because it's an excellent way for people to blow off steam, without havnig any effect on the real world.
But this is exactly what search companies like Google must do: Google doesn't censor its own material; it has to dynamically alter what it shows to the user based on dynamically changing information: the entire internet.
Google's algorithms can automate search, but they can't automate blocking any information the Chinese governement objects to. If they try to block on keywords (as they do in China) it's not hard to think up euphemisms. So human censors have to be in the loop. For Wikipedia, that would mean vetting every single edit.
The only way the studio will invest in a $200 million movie is with A-list stars.
I had a single volume paperback, a bit over 1000 pages. War and Peace is about 1400 pages. Actually, the publisher just thought it wouldn't sell as a single fat volume. He thought he'd sell a thousand or so of the first volume, then a few nundred of the latter a year later, expecting few to persevere. Also Tolkien was fussing over the appendices, so it let him get the first part out while he was doing that.
For about 5 minutes. Not a whole movie. And I can't see Arnold in this, even if he's quit being governor.
Anyway, they've got time travel, they could go anywhere. Maybe like Back to the Future II they could go back and try to change events in the earlier movies.
The kind of people who need it explained in adspeak aren't going to get very far with installing it anyway.
As a Canadian, you can't hear it. Trust us, it's there.
There are two kinds of reason here; the reason the cops would want to (which is what I was stating) and the "legal" reason they write down when they have to justify it. In this case, they apparently traced a connection to some kiddie porn site to a Tor router(s). That's enough of a legal excuse to grab them.
He didn't. See here: "Peterson pleaded guilty in December to the charges of selling illegal software valued at more than $20 million. He earned $5.4 million from the illegal sales, equal to the amount of restitution he must pay." Interesting the Cnet story omits that in favour of the "value" of the software, and ends it with the mandatory quote from the BSA: "Software piracy resulted in a loss of $34 billion worldwide in 2005, a $1.6 billion increase over 2004, according to a study commissioned by the Business Software Alliance."
Yeas, he profited, lots, but they still spun it to seem worse.
Tolkien had been writing his Middle Earth sagas for decades. He showed them to a publisher early on who told him they were unpublishable. He continued writing anyway. Eventually of course a publisher did turn up who took a risk. Of course there was a profit motive in the publishing, but not the writing. And if it had happened today, perhaps JRR would have written it as a blog and not bothered with publishers at all. He had endless trouble with their changes to his text, both deliberate ("elvish" to "elfen") and accidental.
So one would have to deliberately change several defaults to get logs with any data the cops might be interested in. From their point of view, worth a try, but unlikely to be fruitful.
Being fucked up legally is even worse.
What makes the whole thing so absurd is that if Ahmed really was a terrorist, he's alerted and now will be dormant or extremely careful. If they actually wanted to catch terrorists they'd just quietly observe him and let him transfer his 20 pounds to Afghanistan, and see who he was in contact with.
More Roland stories here and here.
I didn't say it was. I said it wasn't the same as a "real world" communication.
Are you saying that all real friends must only speak of topical real interests?
No, I didn't say that either.
Most importantly, you can not tell other people that their friendship is less valid.
Why not? But it's not like I was getting in anyone's face, it was a response to the remark quoted. If you like, it refers specifically to my personal experience, which is why I gave some anecdotes to support it.
Who is to say that is the WRONG way to live?
Not me. You obviously got the wrong message, which in itself shows how shallow online communication is. (And please don't take that as a personal attack, it takes to to miscommunicate, including me.)
It's probaly true that these are the messages received, but he has no idea if the emails were sent by the people whose names were on them. Maybe another "prankster" was screwing with him and the supposed sender.
Yes, conceited, and pathetic too. Like looking at porn online is a sex life.
I have some purely online relationships, but they're mostly singe-dimensional; concerned with discussing some esoterica we're both interested in. I really doubt any of us would get on in the real world; none would or could offer support as an actual meatspace friend would. If you think that a relationship based on gaming would be any deeper; just recall it's "role playing". No one is who they pretend to be. Being brave or generous in a virtual world means nothing.
I don't have a problem using a blog as a news source. Though I withhold judgement until some confirmation comes. However, most of the blogs linked by Slashdot are actually just cut-and-pasted from "traditional" media, though admittedly usually with some spelling mistakes, groundless speculation and a misleading headline added.
Well, I've been using this Seems clear enough. Has no effect at all on the editors, but makes be feel marginally better.
How would it "shatter"? I find it hard to think how it could cause much of an injury, more than if the screen was plastic. If he screen was facing in, unless it was pierced by something very sharp (which would do plenty of damage by itself), your flesh would cushion it and it and be unlikely to break. If facing out, the iPod should block any glass shards from going in.
Perhaps that's why they use soft plastic though, paranoia of product liability from some unlikely accident.
There are extremely tough glasses, eg as used on quality watches.