Asking if you can leave is not acting like an ass!
What the AC said is the best thing. Offer to be helpful, and if they don't want immediate help ask to leave. Repeat until freedom.
They do want your help, because "anything you say can be used against you", tell them that you will not speak to them without legal representation, and that you would require (the USA version of) legal aid. That calls their bluff: they have to either arrest you for nothing (opening them up to a poor pay review, civil legal action, whatever), or you can't help them. And if they were going to arrest you from the off, they would have done so already.
Also, I had a science teacher who taught us in school that caffeine will take up to an hour to ingest into the body, so the immediate effect on most people of perking them up within the first few sips is pretty humorous to me. The pills never did that - it would take a while after I took them to do anything. I would like to find out if that is true, but I think it is.
The placebo effect is pretty damn real. When people believe something, it can have the effect they believe they should have. So if they think drinking tea/coffee/fizzy pop will perk them up, it may do long before it should do, based on absorption rates, etc..
The placebo effect is so powerful that scientific studies have found that people in pain, when injected with saline and told it is morphine, find the pain reduces.
It is possible there is some perking effect from drinks that contain caffeine, but not initially due to the caffeine itself. Maybe it's the initial hit of heat in the face, throat and stomach from a hot drink? Maybe it's the sugar and/or milkiness of tea/coffee? (Sugars and fats are sensed in our mouths, and trigger pleasure receptors in our brains). Maybe it's social conditioning due to advertisements and people's behaviour towards caffeinated drinks (this discussion is full of "I can't function without my morning coffee" type comments, and when we see people consume caffeinated drinks there are often sighs of contentedness, or similar)? None of these may apply to caffeine pills, so someone could feel a perk from drinks, but not pills.
Methamphetamine is certainly not a drug I have any desire to ever use recreationally (for hopefully very obvious reasons), but please bear in mind that much of harm and risk caused by illegal drugs is due to prohibition.
Whilst crystal meth is indeed one of the most powerful drugs used recreationally, you are comparing a legal drug to an illegal drug. Alcohol is relatively safe today, compared to when it was illegal in the USA. The legal status makes massive differences to risks drugs carry.
No, fuck with their data. If people can change their AP's MAC, they should change it to DEADBEEFF00D or something similar, and let Google's system cope with all the duplicates.
Hell, when war driving was the geek's pass time of choice, there were plenty of websites publicising AP details. Just create a script to modify your AP's MAC and SSID at regular intervals to be the same as a random one that is already out there, and to modify your PC's wireless config (to automate re-connecting to this "new" AP).
If enough people concerned about privacy did this, it could put a serious spanner in the works for Google.
Man it sucked re-installing dos and windows from floppies.
This bit of info might be a little late, but IIRC you could copy the contents of the 3.11 floppies to the HDD, and run setup from there. The install process would go much quicker, and the overall install time was quicker to manually do the copying first. Plus no having to watch the install process, and put disks in when it asked.
On the other hand, a tribe that successfully develops some crazy notion of teamwork (or altruism) will beat the other tribes in battles.
Not true.
The tribe with altruistic practices stand a better chance than a tribe without, or with poor, altruistic practices.
But teamwork != win.
The idea that teamwork is the be-all and end-all is something I feel is nurtured (today) by corporate culture, to serve those who run the corporations. We all know that teamwork in a corporation actually means "listen to the boss, and don't question them", not anything like working together and helping each other - a meaning close to what a really team is.
Tribes that can negotiate and come to some kind of agreement before a battle is necessary will essentially beat every other tribe. No battle means no loss of life and resources to the battle, and cooperating tribes can be beneficial for everyone in both tribes.
The people it doesn't benefit are those who seek to rule. Keep your tribe busy fighting (with others, or each other) and the people won't question your rule.
The fact that it is possible to identify how anybody voted in UK General Elections also makes me unhappy, or did you not realise that the ballot papers are traceable?
I think this is only possible so that it is also possible to detect and investigate voting fraud.
IIRC, the ballot paper's number is recorded with the voter's name, but the ballots themselves and audit info are kept separate, and locked up, or at least in the hands of the returning officer (or some other electoral official). There may only be a couple of steps preventing voting fraud, but it could well be enough.
If we had a truly anonymous voting system, how would we detect fraud? I'm not saying the system we have, where if the wrong party came to power, the opposition could (in theory) be rounded up, isn't flawed, but some kind of trade off needs to be found. The only way to have non-anonymous voting and for it to be fair is to have good audit trails, and accountability held by separate individuals. I think this is the system we have, or at least that is what it's meant to be.
Had a continental style scheme been set up, their would have been far less opposition as the main arguments were against the NIR, not the cards themselves.
Absolutely. And the pro-ID people have consistently failed to grasp the gripes all along, and are still missing the point in this discussion! It must be either genuine malice, or terminal ignorance.
For facial recognition to be in a consumer product, it must be relatively cheap to implement. Therefore it either is already being used in other places (like how computerised numberplate reading was used on the UK-Ireland ferry links for years, before being rolled out throughout the UK), or will be soon. Can we look forward to shops automating the recognition of customers to advertise products they think they will want (or are addicted to!), based on past sales? Very Minority Report, if we're referencing contemporary culture.
As for can you turn Natal off? I dunno, if I had an Xbox, I wouldn't truly control it. Just like all Xbox owners.
Paranoids are people who think they are much more important than they really are.
There is a phrase along the lines of "never argue with an idiot, because they will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience".
I shall not take you up on your assertion about paranoia, because it is impossible to argue against that accusation: If someone denies they are paranoid, that just proves to you that they are paranoid. Or they agree with your accusation, and due to how paranoia accusations are phrased, it will mean agreeing with the rest of the accuser's point of view.
I have no fear of my privacy being violated by Google because I don't see any reason why someone should be particularly interested about me.
My fear of Google is that other people who don't care about, or don't get, privacy will give away my privacy with theirs.
Google are particularly interested in you because you have money, and they want it. That is the reason they are interested in you.
In Google's eyes I'm just a statistic. My personal data is no more important to anyone than the data about millions of other consumers.
Yes you are just a statistic, and no more important to Google than the rest of the stats. But those stats are what underpins their business, so they are massively important to Google.
They use data on you, and others, to drive adverts that are designed using the teachings of psychologists to manipulate your thought processes without you noticing what they are doing.
And it works, as you seem to think Google's activities are benign.
I'm safe in the numbers, just like I'm anonymous when walking down a busy street. everyone can see me, but nobody cares.
Ahh, you actually don't get it. You have come up with an analogy (which you do comprehend), think it matches the complex and abstract world of computing, and assume you understand.
Google's tracking is like you are walking down a busy street, it's just that 80% of the slabs on the ground can uniquely identify you, and will log your footsteps to the second. And so do most premesis you enter. And if you speak to anyone else on that street, there's a good chance Google will know about it.
If you haven't realised, what makes computers (and machines) so damn useful is that they are able to do jobs too tedious and repetitive for a human being to be able to do, and do reliably. Anonymity, as a person in a crowd, is possible from a human observer. But when it is your machine in a crowd of machines, being watched by machines, things are different.
And us "paranoid" privacy bores don't appreciate it when people fail to understand, and give away their privacy. It puts expectations on all others to give up privacy, and you are giving away everyone's bargaining chip with businesses.
It's like doing overtime at work for nothing. Your peers will soon come to resent you if you do that too much, or too frequently, because it raises the expectations of the employer.
Many people fear (rightly IMHO) that legalese too often has specific meanings that you have to be a lawyer to actually understand the implications; that it doesn't mean what you'd think it means.
And the customers are probably right. The company will have hired a lawyer to write the contract, and the contract will be designed to make sure that the writer's side will win in every possible situation.
I just go the other way, and as I won't read the contract, I know the staff won't check my signature either. So I write "duress", "do not agree", or "do not understand" in the signature box. It has never been noticed, and good luck if they want to hold me to that contract!
Just like how TFA talks about illusory opt-out system, Google are up to it again:
Those that are concerned about their privacy can install an add-on and permanently disable the script. After installing the add-on, you'll notice that the browser still sends a request for this file: http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js when visiting a page that uses Google Analytics, but it no longer sends information to Google Analytics.
So Google don't get all the info they want, but they still get a log entry from users of this extension every time their browser requests http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js (with date/time, and of course the referrer). And if they have a cookie set for google-analytics.com (or accept 3rd party cookies), that'll be logged too. So the users still can potentially be tracked, even when they have taken steps to avoid it.
There isn't a search as effective as Google, so I'm not about to stop using it. It's just they are totally untrustworthy in my opinion, so I use protection when connecting to Google's ports. I use Scroogle SSL via TOR. Yeah, it's a little slow (about dial up speed, 15 years ago), but it is worth it: 100 results by default (without a cookie), no cruft, no corporations getting info that they will only use to try and convince me to give them time/money.
An IP and port# doesn't identify a MAC, and a MAC doesn't necessarily identify the hardware, and the hardware doesn't necessarily identify the user.
Save a copy of http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/oui.txt, use the following command to change your MAC to a valid, but fake, address. This doesn't work with all network drivers out there..... my Atheros wifi card doesn't work if I try to change the MAC, but an RALink based USB wifi dongle does.
Golden axe for instance look better on the PC imho.
The reason we thought our Amiga games was so superior was to some extent because TVs blurred the image so much so one didn't saw how much it sucked;)
320x200 at 256 colors vs 320x256 at 32 colors?
Are you saying that the Amiga looked better because many people used it with a TV, rather than a monitor as a PC would have?
Something very odd I remember when getting a monitor for my Amiga (500) was that the game (...brain jam,/me wikipedias) Mercenary had coloured stars during the opening sequence, whereas on a TV they were all white.
So maybe the Amiga had better graphic capabilities when used on a monitor, rather than on a TV with the RF modulator?
With a monitor, you could also put Workbench into an interlaced mode, which doubled the resolution. Not sure if this was possible on a TV. Flickered a lot though, IIRC.
Plus now they are interested, they show through their own actions, they have no moral limit to how far they will go. This action by them is blatantly effectively punishing Thought Crimes. I guess talking about AdBlock is against what the business wants, which is effectively compliant consumers who don't learn how to block advert bombardment.
Talk of Adblock is a signal that the user is empowering themselves. If you want to make money with computers, the last thing you want is the user to become empowered, you need them reliant on you, the man in the middle providing a service.
Long term successful products on computers do not empower users, they make users dependent. Now, for an example, this'll go 2 ways: Windows (insightful please), MacOS (flamebait from the fanboys). But the point is valid. You don't learn about computers using those platforms, you learn about those platforms. We've all seen Windows users who brain shuts down in front of OSX, or Mac users who bitch about any other platform - it is because they are familiar with their platform, but not the ideas behind what they are doing.
Facecrook, Google et al. use the same idea: be the middle man, make the user come to you as the first thing when they need to contact someone, or want some information, etc..
I'd imagine they'd infiltrate private filesharing sites and help collect IP data on torrents. This can be pretty damaging as these people can operate in the background and go undetected pretty easily--how are you going to tell who is and isn't a spy?
WB wouldn't dare distribute other studios' films, and as many private sites need a ratio to be maintained, these "anti-pirates" will only seed WB films: WB films are the only thing that WB is authorised to distribute.
So these interns will probably be quite easy to find. The problems will come when false accusations are levelled against normal users. But disrupting the private networks is probably just as much of the aims of WB as actually finding out about the insides of private networks.
Nazis: round up jews, gays, 'undesirables', put them in camps, starve them, gas them, shoot them, hang them, throw them into ovens, make soap out of them. Villagers: watch friends family, thown into ovens, starved, gassed, shot, hung, after some prick down the road turned them into the nazis. Nazis leave, you kill guy that got half your village and friends tortured and murdered. BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE!!!!
Sorry, I saw no mention of courts examining the behaviour of anyone in those statements.
Whilst there are differences from one point of view, there aren't from others. And the point of view that most decent people take is that if you are going to take the moral high ground about killing human beings, you don't demonstrate your point by killing human beings.
It didn't need to be in an ABC News article any more than the creators of Independence Day needed to explain to the masses how humans could create a computer virus that could infect alien computers. The latter was still very successful and the former will be read by the masses who really don't care about the details, nor should they.
If you expect the news to be as realistic as Independence Day, then no, ABC don't need to explain things properly.
But the news shouldn't be an action film, though one look at it shows you it isn't far away: explosions, violence, a bit of human interest, all washed down with a big serving of nationalism.
If you let the news get away with dumbing things down too far and too frequently, then they will exploit that sooner or later, dumbing down stories to obscure the news company's own interests in a story.
All you need to be is a minority in the "wrong place" and you will get unnecessary and unwelcome police attention.
And minority doesn't just mean black and in a white area, it can mean that you fit any criteria that the police think is unusual for the area - like age of car you're driving, length of hair, style of dress....
A friend of mine was arrested, and was treated respectfully by the police, assured that answering questions now would make everything easier later etc. etc. and then when he came to court all his statements are read out by the officers, out of context and with their 'interpretation' of his meaning, needless to say not to his benefit. Hardly seems like the reasonable actions they promised.
If you or I lie to the police it is "perverting the course of justice". If they lie to us it's "well done, you've made sarge".
Sorry, it's just the state hookers who are the pubic servants![1]
Whilst joking, here's a good 'un:
Why do the police always go round in groups of 3?
One to read anything that could be useful, one to write down anything that could be useful, and one to keep an eye on the two dangerous subversives!
[1] Idea for software, probably patentable, but I am going to release it here into the public domain: spell checkers should flag words that are spelt correctly, but that could still be a typo of another valid word. Maybe underline the unknown words in red, and possible typos in orange. Perhaps the system should only flag words that could carry innuendo, like my public/pubic typo?
Could you tell us more about these target systems? Thanks.
Hmm, there's gotta be a WP article to link to at this point, but I can't find a good 'un.
A lot of game theory was based on the idea that people are not actually altruistic. Combined with the fiefdoms that existed within the UK civil service, the government came up with the idea of creating a Free Market of rewards to measure and assess the performance of state employees.
Massively simplified, if a policeman solves a crime, he gets a point towards his next pay rise or promotion. But it appears that solving something like a rape is worth the same as solving a crime like drug possession. Considering that to solve a rape, it would require many hours of police work, getting an error free case to court, etc.. But solving a case of pot possession is as simple as "I'm going to search you under section 44". Pat-down... "Is this your weed?" "Yes" "Do you accept this police caution" "Yes" Case closed, achievement unlocked.
The effect is that the police focus on simple (usually victimless) crimes, not ones that require actual police work!
A real world example of targets being gamed to the detriment of everyone is the target in hospitals to get the time reduced from when someone comes into an A&E department and when they are seen. What some hospitals did was to simply get a nurse to go round the waiting room and greet people. Bang, patients interacted with by medical staff, times reduced, targets hit.
The excellent films by Adam Curtis give a lot of insight into the modern world. The films that make up The Trap talk about targets, and some of their real world consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
Act like an ass and enjoy being detained.
Asking if you can leave is not acting like an ass!
What the AC said is the best thing. Offer to be helpful, and if they don't want immediate help ask to leave. Repeat until freedom.
They do want your help, because "anything you say can be used against you", tell them that you will not speak to them without legal representation, and that you would require (the USA version of) legal aid. That calls their bluff: they have to either arrest you for nothing (opening them up to a poor pay review, civil legal action, whatever), or you can't help them. And if they were going to arrest you from the off, they would have done so already.
Also, I had a science teacher who taught us in school that caffeine will take up to an hour to ingest into the body, so the immediate effect on most people of perking them up within the first few sips is pretty humorous to me. The pills never did that - it would take a while after I took them to do anything. I would like to find out if that is true, but I think it is.
The placebo effect is pretty damn real. When people believe something, it can have the effect they believe they should have. So if they think drinking tea/coffee/fizzy pop will perk them up, it may do long before it should do, based on absorption rates, etc..
The placebo effect is so powerful that scientific studies have found that people in pain, when injected with saline and told it is morphine, find the pain reduces.
It is possible there is some perking effect from drinks that contain caffeine, but not initially due to the caffeine itself. Maybe it's the initial hit of heat in the face, throat and stomach from a hot drink? Maybe it's the sugar and/or milkiness of tea/coffee? (Sugars and fats are sensed in our mouths, and trigger pleasure receptors in our brains). Maybe it's social conditioning due to advertisements and people's behaviour towards caffeinated drinks (this discussion is full of "I can't function without my morning coffee" type comments, and when we see people consume caffeinated drinks there are often sighs of contentedness, or similar)? None of these may apply to caffeine pills, so someone could feel a perk from drinks, but not pills.
Methamphetamine is certainly not a drug I have any desire to ever use recreationally (for hopefully very obvious reasons), but please bear in mind that much of harm and risk caused by illegal drugs is due to prohibition.
Whilst crystal meth is indeed one of the most powerful drugs used recreationally, you are comparing a legal drug to an illegal drug. Alcohol is relatively safe today, compared to when it was illegal in the USA. The legal status makes massive differences to risks drugs carry.
No, fuck with their data. If people can change their AP's MAC, they should change it to DEADBEEFF00D or something similar, and let Google's system cope with all the duplicates.
Hell, when war driving was the geek's pass time of choice, there were plenty of websites publicising AP details. Just create a script to modify your AP's MAC and SSID at regular intervals to be the same as a random one that is already out there, and to modify your PC's wireless config (to automate re-connecting to this "new" AP).
If enough people concerned about privacy did this, it could put a serious spanner in the works for Google.
Man it sucked re-installing dos and windows from floppies.
This bit of info might be a little late, but IIRC you could copy the contents of the 3.11 floppies to the HDD, and run setup from there. The install process would go much quicker, and the overall install time was quicker to manually do the copying first. Plus no having to watch the install process, and put disks in when it asked.
On the other hand, a tribe that successfully develops some crazy notion of teamwork (or altruism) will beat the other tribes in battles.
Not true.
The tribe with altruistic practices stand a better chance than a tribe without, or with poor, altruistic practices.
But teamwork != win.
The idea that teamwork is the be-all and end-all is something I feel is nurtured (today) by corporate culture, to serve those who run the corporations. We all know that teamwork in a corporation actually means "listen to the boss, and don't question them", not anything like working together and helping each other - a meaning close to what a really team is.
Tribes that can negotiate and come to some kind of agreement before a battle is necessary will essentially beat every other tribe. No battle means no loss of life and resources to the battle, and cooperating tribes can be beneficial for everyone in both tribes.
The people it doesn't benefit are those who seek to rule. Keep your tribe busy fighting (with others, or each other) and the people won't question your rule.
The fact that it is possible to identify how anybody voted in UK General Elections also makes me unhappy, or did you not realise that the ballot papers are traceable?
I think this is only possible so that it is also possible to detect and investigate voting fraud.
IIRC, the ballot paper's number is recorded with the voter's name, but the ballots themselves and audit info are kept separate, and locked up, or at least in the hands of the returning officer (or some other electoral official). There may only be a couple of steps preventing voting fraud, but it could well be enough.
If we had a truly anonymous voting system, how would we detect fraud? I'm not saying the system we have, where if the wrong party came to power, the opposition could (in theory) be rounded up, isn't flawed, but some kind of trade off needs to be found. The only way to have non-anonymous voting and for it to be fair is to have good audit trails, and accountability held by separate individuals. I think this is the system we have, or at least that is what it's meant to be.
Had a continental style scheme been set up, their would have been far less opposition as the main arguments were against the NIR, not the cards themselves.
Absolutely. And the pro-ID people have consistently failed to grasp the gripes all along, and are still missing the point in this discussion! It must be either genuine malice, or terminal ignorance.
I wasn't sure exactly what Natal was, so Wikipedia'd too, and that does mention the facial recognition. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Project_Natal
For facial recognition to be in a consumer product, it must be relatively cheap to implement. Therefore it either is already being used in other places (like how computerised numberplate reading was used on the UK-Ireland ferry links for years, before being rolled out throughout the UK), or will be soon. Can we look forward to shops automating the recognition of customers to advertise products they think they will want (or are addicted to!), based on past sales? Very Minority Report, if we're referencing contemporary culture.
As for can you turn Natal off? I dunno, if I had an Xbox, I wouldn't truly control it. Just like all Xbox owners.
A camera? In your house? Connected to a computer not controlled by the owner? That can do individual facial recognition? No fucking way.
This is going to be a massive hit with the "privacy, that's for squares who don't use facebook" crowd, though.
Paranoids are people who think they are much more important than they really are.
There is a phrase along the lines of "never argue with an idiot, because they will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience".
I shall not take you up on your assertion about paranoia, because it is impossible to argue against that accusation: If someone denies they are paranoid, that just proves to you that they are paranoid. Or they agree with your accusation, and due to how paranoia accusations are phrased, it will mean agreeing with the rest of the accuser's point of view.
I have no fear of my privacy being violated by Google because I don't see any reason why someone should be particularly interested about me.
My fear of Google is that other people who don't care about, or don't get, privacy will give away my privacy with theirs.
Google are particularly interested in you because you have money, and they want it. That is the reason they are interested in you.
In Google's eyes I'm just a statistic. My personal data is no more important to anyone than the data about millions of other consumers.
Yes you are just a statistic, and no more important to Google than the rest of the stats. But those stats are what underpins their business, so they are massively important to Google.
They use data on you, and others, to drive adverts that are designed using the teachings of psychologists to manipulate your thought processes without you noticing what they are doing.
And it works, as you seem to think Google's activities are benign.
I'm safe in the numbers, just like I'm anonymous when walking down a busy street. everyone can see me, but nobody cares.
Ahh, you actually don't get it. You have come up with an analogy (which you do comprehend), think it matches the complex and abstract world of computing, and assume you understand.
Google's tracking is like you are walking down a busy street, it's just that 80% of the slabs on the ground can uniquely identify you, and will log your footsteps to the second. And so do most premesis you enter. And if you speak to anyone else on that street, there's a good chance Google will know about it.
If you haven't realised, what makes computers (and machines) so damn useful is that they are able to do jobs too tedious and repetitive for a human being to be able to do, and do reliably. Anonymity, as a person in a crowd, is possible from a human observer. But when it is your machine in a crowd of machines, being watched by machines, things are different.
And us "paranoid" privacy bores don't appreciate it when people fail to understand, and give away their privacy. It puts expectations on all others to give up privacy, and you are giving away everyone's bargaining chip with businesses.
It's like doing overtime at work for nothing. Your peers will soon come to resent you if you do that too much, or too frequently, because it raises the expectations of the employer.
NoScript blocks Google Analytics for me.
Only after you manually removed it from the whitelist, where it is by default, along with a bunch of other advertising domains!
Many people fear (rightly IMHO) that legalese too often has specific meanings that you have to be a lawyer to actually understand the implications; that it doesn't mean what you'd think it means.
And the customers are probably right. The company will have hired a lawyer to write the contract, and the contract will be designed to make sure that the writer's side will win in every possible situation.
I just go the other way, and as I won't read the contract, I know the staff won't check my signature either. So I write "duress", "do not agree", or "do not understand" in the signature box. It has never been noticed, and good luck if they want to hold me to that contract!
Just like how TFA talks about illusory opt-out system, Google are up to it again:
Those that are concerned about their privacy can install an add-on and permanently disable the script. After installing the add-on, you'll notice that the browser still sends a request for this file: http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js when visiting a page that uses Google Analytics, but it no longer sends information to Google Analytics.
So Google don't get all the info they want, but they still get a log entry from users of this extension every time their browser requests http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js (with date/time, and of course the referrer). And if they have a cookie set for google-analytics.com (or accept 3rd party cookies), that'll be logged too. So the users still can potentially be tracked, even when they have taken steps to avoid it.
There isn't a search as effective as Google, so I'm not about to stop using it. It's just they are totally untrustworthy in my opinion, so I use protection when connecting to Google's ports. I use Scroogle SSL via TOR. Yeah, it's a little slow (about dial up speed, 15 years ago), but it is worth it: 100 results by default (without a cookie), no cruft, no corporations getting info that they will only use to try and convince me to give them time/money.
An IP and port# doesn't identify a MAC, and a MAC doesn't necessarily identify the hardware, and the hardware doesn't necessarily identify the user.
Save a copy of http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/oui.txt, use the following command to change your MAC to a valid, but fake, address. This doesn't work with all network drivers out there..... my Atheros wifi card doesn't work if I try to change the MAC, but an RALink based USB wifi dongle does.
ifconfig eth0 down hw ether `cat oui.txt | grep \(base\ 16\) | sed 's/\(..\)/:\1/g' | cut -b2-9 | shuf | tail -1``dd if=/dev/urandom count=1 bs=$RANDOM 2> /dev/null | md5sum | sed 's/\(..\)/:\1/g' | cut -b1-9`
Golden axe for instance look better on the PC imho.
The reason we thought our Amiga games was so superior was to some extent because TVs blurred the image so much so one didn't saw how much it sucked ;)
320x200 at 256 colors vs 320x256 at 32 colors?
Are you saying that the Amiga looked better because many people used it with a TV, rather than a monitor as a PC would have?
Something very odd I remember when getting a monitor for my Amiga (500) was that the game (...brain jam, /me wikipedias) Mercenary had coloured stars during the opening sequence, whereas on a TV they were all white.
So maybe the Amiga had better graphic capabilities when used on a monitor, rather than on a TV with the RF modulator?
With a monitor, you could also put Workbench into an interlaced mode, which doubled the resolution. Not sure if this was possible on a TV. Flickered a lot though, IIRC.
Plus now they are interested, they show through their own actions, they have no moral limit to how far they will go. This action by them is blatantly effectively punishing Thought Crimes. I guess talking about AdBlock is against what the business wants, which is effectively compliant consumers who don't learn how to block advert bombardment.
Talk of Adblock is a signal that the user is empowering themselves. If you want to make money with computers, the last thing you want is the user to become empowered, you need them reliant on you, the man in the middle providing a service.
Long term successful products on computers do not empower users, they make users dependent. Now, for an example, this'll go 2 ways: Windows (insightful please), MacOS (flamebait from the fanboys). But the point is valid. You don't learn about computers using those platforms, you learn about those platforms. We've all seen Windows users who brain shuts down in front of OSX, or Mac users who bitch about any other platform - it is because they are familiar with their platform, but not the ideas behind what they are doing.
Facecrook, Google et al. use the same idea: be the middle man, make the user come to you as the first thing when they need to contact someone, or want some information, etc..
As much as I dislike the DEB being passed, I could care less about it because it has zero actual effect on me,
Why do you care, when it has no bearing on you? Oh, you actually mean you couldn't care less.
People sound fucking retarded when they fuck that phrase up.
I'd imagine they'd infiltrate private filesharing sites and help collect IP data on torrents. This can be pretty damaging as these people can operate in the background and go undetected pretty easily--how are you going to tell who is and isn't a spy?
WB wouldn't dare distribute other studios' films, and as many private sites need a ratio to be maintained, these "anti-pirates" will only seed WB films: WB films are the only thing that WB is authorised to distribute.
So these interns will probably be quite easy to find. The problems will come when false accusations are levelled against normal users. But disrupting the private networks is probably just as much of the aims of WB as actually finding out about the insides of private networks.
Nazis: round up jews, gays, 'undesirables', put them in camps, starve them, gas them, shoot them, hang them, throw them into ovens, make soap out of them.
Villagers: watch friends family, thown into ovens, starved, gassed, shot, hung, after some prick down the road turned them into the nazis. Nazis leave, you kill guy that got half your village and friends tortured and murdered. BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE!!!!
Sorry, I saw no mention of courts examining the behaviour of anyone in those statements.
Whilst there are differences from one point of view, there aren't from others. And the point of view that most decent people take is that if you are going to take the moral high ground about killing human beings, you don't demonstrate your point by killing human beings.
It didn't need to be in an ABC News article any more than the creators of Independence Day needed to explain to the masses how humans could create a computer virus that could infect alien computers. The latter was still very successful and the former will be read by the masses who really don't care about the details, nor should they.
If you expect the news to be as realistic as Independence Day, then no, ABC don't need to explain things properly.
But the news shouldn't be an action film, though one look at it shows you it isn't far away: explosions, violence, a bit of human interest, all washed down with a big serving of nationalism.
If you let the news get away with dumbing things down too far and too frequently, then they will exploit that sooner or later, dumbing down stories to obscure the news company's own interests in a story.
All you need to be is a minority in the "wrong place" and you will get unnecessary and unwelcome police attention.
And minority doesn't just mean black and in a white area, it can mean that you fit any criteria that the police think is unusual for the area - like age of car you're driving, length of hair, style of dress....
A friend of mine was arrested, and was treated respectfully by the police, assured that answering questions now would make everything easier later etc. etc. and then when he came to court all his statements are read out by the officers, out of context and with their 'interpretation' of his meaning, needless to say not to his benefit. Hardly seems like the reasonable actions they promised.
If you or I lie to the police it is "perverting the course of justice". If they lie to us it's "well done, you've made sarge".
"Fuck 'em, and their law".
Sorry, it's just the state hookers who are the pubic servants![1]
Whilst joking, here's a good 'un:
Why do the police always go round in groups of 3?
One to read anything that could be useful, one to write down anything that could be useful, and one to keep an eye on the two dangerous subversives!
[1] Idea for software, probably patentable, but I am going to release it here into the public domain: spell checkers should flag words that are spelt correctly, but that could still be a typo of another valid word. Maybe underline the unknown words in red, and possible typos in orange. Perhaps the system should only flag words that could carry innuendo, like my public/pubic typo?
Could you tell us more about these target systems? Thanks.
Hmm, there's gotta be a WP article to link to at this point, but I can't find a good 'un.
A lot of game theory was based on the idea that people are not actually altruistic. Combined with the fiefdoms that existed within the UK civil service, the government came up with the idea of creating a Free Market of rewards to measure and assess the performance of state employees.
Massively simplified, if a policeman solves a crime, he gets a point towards his next pay rise or promotion. But it appears that solving something like a rape is worth the same as solving a crime like drug possession. Considering that to solve a rape, it would require many hours of police work, getting an error free case to court, etc.. But solving a case of pot possession is as simple as
"I'm going to search you under section 44". Pat-down... "Is this your weed?"
"Yes"
"Do you accept this police caution"
"Yes"
Case closed, achievement unlocked.
The effect is that the police focus on simple (usually victimless) crimes, not ones that require actual police work!
A real world example of targets being gamed to the detriment of everyone is the target in hospitals to get the time reduced from when someone comes into an A&E department and when they are seen. What some hospitals did was to simply get a nurse to go round the waiting room and greet people. Bang, patients interacted with by medical staff, times reduced, targets hit.
The excellent films by Adam Curtis give a lot of insight into the modern world. The films that make up The Trap talk about targets, and some of their real world consequences.