But the article I found on Google News' health section explained there was no effectiveness in using a ridiculous form of treatment, so reading that article would not actually be useful to people suffering from migraines.
Or it's just that it's lower down in the health section because it's simply far more important for people to know that you can't fix migraines with... botox?
Yeah, we're all screwed up over here. Thanks for the reminder.
Had my own scare at sea. I was sailing in the Med., woke up from a catnap and freaked out by the moon on my mainsail, thinking I drifted into a shipping lane.
That may be the more difficult option, thus not the one immediately suggested. You can quite easily substitute the small sugary food source for your own bees. It's could be much trickier to get your neighbors to risk their crop yields by trying out a different pesticide.
Did you really think my over-the-top hyperbole was a serious discussion of practical solutions? It wasn't meant to be. Sorry if that confused you to the point where you felt the need to devise your own straw man.
Best of luck wishing for a better world where things just sort themselves out. That's definitely practical, and so very likely.
And your answer to this supposed problem you raise, Mr. Cynic, would be... what?
Raise court fees from people who raise an issue with the election system? Fine, or throw people in jail if the judge happens to rule against them? Solve disputes the old fashioned way, in the Colosseum?
Way bigger a problem than the money spent on this minor lawsuit, is that we have taxpayers who are useless asshats who can only complain when taxes aren't spent on them personally, but couldn't be bothered to spend a minute to come up with a better idea.
We're going to have at least an entire generation that will be unelectable to national office because of pervasive data mining. Everyone will have something that can be turned into a media circus scandal, somewhere in their Internet history.
Actually, that could be a good thing here in the United States.
Americans are stupid to not only expect, but actually believe that their politicians are a bunch of perfect little angels. They're fucking politicians for crying out loud. But we forget that and miss the contradiction come election time.
In a world where you know politicians are flawed from the start, people might actually care about important issues like policy, campaign bankrollers, and puppetmasters like turdblossom.
First, it's not like you solicited him for your queer "man on dog" sex. Second- like that clown could win the batshit party nomination, let alone the presidency and get protection. Third- he doesn't believe in using protection anyway.
1) Patent trolls who don't have a product are in no position to threaten a large company. Except in the unusual case of an SCO whose litigation is funded by a major corporation, they can't afford to bring a proper lawsuit. 2) The purpose of cooperation is analogous to the NATO alliance. Yes, Microsoft and Apple are large and would risk a strategically sound suit against Google, risking an equivalent counter-suit. But they wouldn't dare attack a member of a co-op, which would retaliate with a massive number of patent suits, after which they would settle out of court at a major loss. 3) The co-op not only provides a legal defense, but can also yield members a major spike in consumer approval. You become one of the good guys by not spending revenues on legal maneuvers.
The bigger concern is if several of these arise and a "world war" ensues.
Right on. Just measuring time spent on something doesn't determine it's value, that's the wrong metric.
Indeed. And good point with the TV analogy: Faux News yammers on about its ratings, but it's proven to provide low-quality content.
If Plus were laden with advertising the way Facebook is, Google might think that users spending an excessive amount of time on-site is a good metric. But Google+ has no ads that I've noticed, where Facebook has an annoying mess of them.
So what we've got is an apples-to-oranges comparison. (assuming Google actually keeps ads out of the site, an intention which is completely unknown),
We can keep people alive in orbit, which is much harder. It's simply a matter of resource dedication.
Whether we have the money is not the right question- we definitely do, and a whole lot of ignorance is required to believe otherwise. The question is what do we expect to gain by spending the money, and how important is that compared to the things on which we are already spending money.
Good catch. But note that "possible red flags" appears in the second part of the quote (after "also looks for"), which discusses only the case where the scanned app shares a similarity to other apps of concern- those potentially containing unknown malware.
The way I read it is if known malware is detected, it could/should be automatically blocked. But sharing "similarity" with other applications would be a second category which may require more analysis before getting blocked.
Please stop. Don't continue to talk about FOSS if you're going to sound this stupid. You make the rest of us look bad.
This is utter nonsense. Look at Ubuntu which is certainly FOSS. Does that mean no proprietary code will run on it? Of course not. Check out their own market- lots of applications are for sale as binary-only. Disallowing those, or any other business model a developer/publisher wants to employ is not best left up to Ubuntu, or Google. That should be the user's choice.
If you choose to run only open source, that's your right. But if that's the case you're a fanatic on the fringe of society, and nobody agrees with you.
Once an application is uploaded, the service immediately starts analyzing it for known malware, spyware, and trojans. It also looks for behaviors that indicate an application might be misbehaving and compares it against previously analyzed apps to detect possible red flags.
That's a pretty good description of proper scanning for bad code. As TFS stated, this isn't the Apple paradigm where they want to control their users. The purpose is to maintain a profitable marketplace and platform by protecting users who keep hearing about Android malware.
That's one difference, but there are far more. The insurgents we're fighting are neither self-financed nor equipped, they're not temporary soldiers, and they're far more trained. It's also arguable whether they are actually engaged in defensive fighting (certainly not Iraq where they were foreigners, though possibly true for some fraction of Afghan), but if you consider their military and political leaderships it doesn't qualify as defensive.
That last part is why they aren't given POW status, which a lawful militia member would. It's not because we call them 'terrorists' (that's simply why we don't care what happens to them), it's the fact that they're persona non grata in all UN member states. A proper definition is absolutely necessary when you're talking about constitutional law.
Or to look at it another way, a properly locked-down computer is like a person in a hazmat suit - except that to the computer it isn't a massive PITA.
Not a PITA? Tell that to computers who are burdened with a Norton suite installation.:)
But seriously, there's some truth to what you're saying, but the problem is "proper" lockdown isn't common, and certainly not as easy as buying a suit. The average system, and even the average server maintained by a paid "professional", is quite vulnerable. Those who do properly lock-down are still merely (to really beat this analogy to death...) wearing a hazmat suit with a defective zipper. It's never actually secure- it needs constant monitoring and updating and that is a massive PITA.
He's trying to move the conversation off-topic by citing DMCA. This isn't about rooting an iDoohickey, or reverse engineering a network protocol. DMCA doesn't apply here since the point was about unsoldering components, not breaking an actual security mechanism.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd be correct under other circumstances.
But the article I found on Google News' health section explained there was no effectiveness in using a ridiculous form of treatment, so reading that article would not actually be useful to people suffering from migraines.
Neither, because they can just switch to using ground moose for a couple months.
But seriously, they probably don't import very much beef from California dairy farms so this is a non-issue.
Or it's just that it's lower down in the health section because it's simply far more important for people to know that you can't fix migraines with... botox?
Yeah, we're all screwed up over here. Thanks for the reminder.
Had my own scare at sea. I was sailing in the Med., woke up from a catnap and freaked out by the moon on my mainsail, thinking I drifted into a shipping lane.
That may be the more difficult option, thus not the one immediately suggested.
You can quite easily substitute the small sugary food source for your own bees. It's could be much trickier to get your neighbors to risk their crop yields by trying out a different pesticide.
The people are hardly truly "external", so it's a badly coined word
Perhaps, but that's the technical term and everyone agrees on its usage.
Got a problem with the word? Take it up with Webster, or change your handle to HumptyDumpty.
I stand corrected. The biggest problem is opinionated idiots. Thanks for pointing that out.
Did you really think my over-the-top hyperbole was a serious discussion of practical solutions? It wasn't meant to be. Sorry if that confused you to the point where you felt the need to devise your own straw man.
Best of luck wishing for a better world where things just sort themselves out. That's definitely practical, and so very likely.
And your answer to this supposed problem you raise, Mr. Cynic, would be... what?
Raise court fees from people who raise an issue with the election system?
Fine, or throw people in jail if the judge happens to rule against them?
Solve disputes the old fashioned way, in the Colosseum?
Way bigger a problem than the money spent on this minor lawsuit, is that we have taxpayers who are useless asshats who can only complain when taxes aren't spent on them personally, but couldn't be bothered to spend a minute to come up with a better idea.
Pretty much. And the result was we live in a better, more private world thanks to it (assuming Google stays the course, of course).
We're going to have at least an entire generation that will be unelectable to national office because of pervasive data mining. Everyone will have something that can be turned into a media circus scandal, somewhere in their Internet history.
Actually, that could be a good thing here in the United States.
Americans are stupid to not only expect, but actually believe that their politicians are a bunch of perfect little angels. They're fucking politicians for crying out loud. But we forget that and miss the contradiction come election time.
In a world where you know politicians are flawed from the start, people might actually care about important issues like policy, campaign bankrollers, and puppetmasters like turdblossom.
It's been a long time since I studied this in detail back in school, but I'm pretty sure that Maggie Simpson and Mickey Mouse are "fiction".
Kind of like the story of creation.
Dude, you're in public. Chill the hell out and quit being an ass. Nobody cares about your crush on that other guy.
Please don't send the secret service after me.
I wouldn't worry about it.
First, it's not like you solicited him for your queer "man on dog" sex.
Second- like that clown could win the batshit party nomination, let alone the presidency and get protection.
Third- he doesn't believe in using protection anyway.
Google isn't in the business of determining truth. Only relevance. Figuring out which information to believe is still your job.
1) Patent trolls who don't have a product are in no position to threaten a large company. Except in the unusual case of an SCO whose litigation is funded by a major corporation, they can't afford to bring a proper lawsuit.
2) The purpose of cooperation is analogous to the NATO alliance. Yes, Microsoft and Apple are large and would risk a strategically sound suit against Google, risking an equivalent counter-suit. But they wouldn't dare attack a member of a co-op, which would retaliate with a massive number of patent suits, after which they would settle out of court at a major loss.
3) The co-op not only provides a legal defense, but can also yield members a major spike in consumer approval. You become one of the good guys by not spending revenues on legal maneuvers.
The bigger concern is if several of these arise and a "world war" ensues.
Right on. Just measuring time spent on something doesn't determine it's value, that's the wrong metric.
Indeed. And good point with the TV analogy: Faux News yammers on about its ratings, but it's proven to provide low-quality content.
If Plus were laden with advertising the way Facebook is, Google might think that users spending an excessive amount of time on-site is a good metric. But Google+ has no ads that I've noticed, where Facebook has an annoying mess of them.
So what we've got is an apples-to-oranges comparison. (assuming Google actually keeps ads out of the site, an intention which is completely unknown),
The Amundsen–Scott polar station has been manned year-long for a long time now:
http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/wo.html
We can keep people alive in orbit, which is much harder. It's simply a matter of resource dedication.
Whether we have the money is not the right question- we definitely do, and a whole lot of ignorance is required to believe otherwise. The question is what do we expect to gain by spending the money, and how important is that compared to the things on which we are already spending money.
Good catch. But note that "possible red flags" appears in the second part of the quote (after "also looks for"), which discusses only the case where the scanned app shares a similarity to other apps of concern- those potentially containing unknown malware.
The way I read it is if known malware is detected, it could/should be automatically blocked. But sharing "similarity" with other applications would be a second category which may require more analysis before getting blocked.
Please stop. Don't continue to talk about FOSS if you're going to sound this stupid. You make the rest of us look bad.
This is utter nonsense. Look at Ubuntu which is certainly FOSS. Does that mean no proprietary code will run on it? Of course not. Check out their own market- lots of applications are for sale as binary-only. Disallowing those, or any other business model a developer/publisher wants to employ is not best left up to Ubuntu, or Google. That should be the user's choice.
If you choose to run only open source, that's your right. But if that's the case you're a fanatic on the fringe of society, and nobody agrees with you.
Not likely. FTA:
Once an application is uploaded, the service immediately starts analyzing it for known malware, spyware, and trojans. It also looks for behaviors that indicate an application might be misbehaving and compares it against previously analyzed apps to detect possible red flags.
That's a pretty good description of proper scanning for bad code. As TFS stated, this isn't the Apple paradigm where they want to control their users. The purpose is to maintain a profitable marketplace and platform by protecting users who keep hearing about Android malware.
That's one difference, but there are far more. The insurgents we're fighting are neither self-financed nor equipped, they're not temporary soldiers, and they're far more trained. It's also arguable whether they are actually engaged in defensive fighting (certainly not Iraq where they were foreigners, though possibly true for some fraction of Afghan), but if you consider their military and political leaderships it doesn't qualify as defensive.
That last part is why they aren't given POW status, which a lawful militia member would. It's not because we call them 'terrorists' (that's simply why we don't care what happens to them), it's the fact that they're persona non grata in all UN member states. A proper definition is absolutely necessary when you're talking about constitutional law.
Or to look at it another way, a properly locked-down computer is like a person in a hazmat suit - except that to the computer it isn't a massive PITA.
Not a PITA? Tell that to computers who are burdened with a Norton suite installation. :)
But seriously, there's some truth to what you're saying, but the problem is "proper" lockdown isn't common, and certainly not as easy as buying a suit. The average system, and even the average server maintained by a paid "professional", is quite vulnerable. Those who do properly lock-down are still merely (to really beat this analogy to death...) wearing a hazmat suit with a defective zipper. It's never actually secure- it needs constant monitoring and updating and that is a massive PITA.
He's trying to move the conversation off-topic by citing DMCA. This isn't about rooting an iDoohickey, or reverse engineering a network protocol. DMCA doesn't apply here since the point was about unsoldering components, not breaking an actual security mechanism.
It's not necessary because militias are useless in modern warfare, troll-boy.