We've had programs writing poetry for a while now. The earliest I'm aware of is RACTER with The Policeman's Beard is Half Constructed, 1983. I found much of it to be banal, but I found some of it to be amazing. It wrote:
More than iron, more than lead, more than gold I need electricity.
I need it more than I need lamb or pork or lettuce or cucumber.
I need it for my dreams.
Linux can be installed on tablets. I would research a seven inch tablet, a distro that suits you, install Linux, encrypt the hard-drive, and power-down the device when not in use.
It would be resource consuming for the NSA to redirect a computer assembled in Britain and shipped to a Brit, but it would be trivial for the NSA to redirect a computer shipping from America. Therefore, this news is more damaging to US firms.
I'm not sure if the NSA seeking to exploit technology is particularly damaging to US firms. The NSA is seeking to exploit all technologies, not just American-based ones.
I think the part that does damage American firms, was the end of the second article. It read that the NSA has been redirecting the shipping of some computers to their address, installing software or hardware, repacking the device, and shipping it to the purchaser.
I'm disinterested. I tried one link: Department of Fisheries & Oceans muzzles its scientists. The article is a long tirade against
Under revised Fisheries and Oceans Canada rules, scientists working in its central and Arctic region cannot be involved in publishing research until a DFO division administrator has reviewed it "for any concerns/impacts to DFO policy."
It goes on for fifteen paragraphs about how George Orwell would love it, the government is awful, this is an attack on science. Eventually they included a paragraph to give at least some information:
Kevin Stringer, DFO ecosystems and oceans science assistant deputy minister, said the aim of the "minor modifications to publication procedures" are to eliminate duplication of peer reviews and ensure government intellectual property rights are respected in third-party publications.
"Publishing and communicating scientific work is a crucial element of what we do," he wrote in an email.
I didn't check out the large number of links, but a large number newsbending links does not a journalist make. Don't use blogs to get your news.
I'll be happy for you to point out a single instance of me trolling
Awww, apparently I hurt somebody's feelings! I'd apologize, but then, I'm not sorry. I stand by my original statements: the police didn't arrest him for no reason, these were NOT trumped up charges, this man was NOT railroaded into jail because police wanted an arrest. This was a case of a man deliberately setting out to probe the efficacy of security for the G-20 summit by purchasing chemicals used in bomb making, again - *in an attempt to prove that the security for the G-20 summit was ineffective.* In essence, he was betting that security wouldn't take notice of his activities... and he lost his bet.
The short explanation is that he didn't do anything illegal, so you're trolling by pretending:
these were NOT trumped up charges
If he didn't do anything illegal, they must be trumped up charges.
It was you that was being quoted for apologizing. It seems pretty straight-forward what you were apologizing for.
I'm a trolling jerk
My posting history here will put that misconception to rest pretty quickly.
Your comment history doesn't absolve you of anything. If you replied to a thousand comments that were in no way trolling comments, that doesn't mean your one-thousand and first comment couldn't possibly have been a troll. Each comment is judged on it's merits. But I acknowledged you seem to be unfamiliar with legal logic to have been aware of that.
It's not illegal to purchase chemicals, even if they are chemicals related to bomb-making. I might give you that it's merit to interview someone, but performing legal activities is not a reason to incarcerate someone, even if it's temporarily. You're defence didn't illustrate any reason to suggest incarcerating him for a year was merited.
I think it's pretty intuitive you yourself would be outraged for being incarcerated for a year because of the coincidence of performing several legal activities.
Artist's have _always_ been willing to take credit for their own work. We know of plenty of authors prior to the last few hundred years: Livy, Homer, Aquinas, you name it. The fact that some authors opened their work by honouring their muse, or inspiration, has nothing to do with them taking credit for their own work. Some of them, certainly not all, worked in the tradition of honouring the inspiration, but they still took credit for their work. Otherwise, how would we know who wrote what.
The only exception is author's who wrote in culture's that pre-date writing, or did not have reasonable access to writing, such as the Beowulf poet, or the Green Knight poet. Even then, I'm sure the only reason authorship wasn't recorded was because those that orally passed on the story, excluded the original author's credits.
None of the above. Receiving email with potentially malicious content would be so devastating for some organizations that it's not worth the security risk. While it's unlikely their security would be breached by an unknown vulnerability, if they were breached, the data loss would be devastating. Thus, when they can receive documents through a secure fax which could not breach their database, they will sometimes opt to receive transmissions through fax.
In organizations that have access to large databases of sensitive information, the security risk makes secure faxes preferable. For instance, the Internal Revenue Service has access to nearly everyone's financial information, a security breach, however unlikely it might be, would be devastating.
True, but if Bing will produce customized searches equivalent to holding a mirror up to someone's face, people might opt for Bing instead of Google's "high road." I agree with you that it's better for society to have an opt-in system, I just imagine it might be too risky for a company to implement such a system.
These two systems revolve around how badly people want their mirrors.
"I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions, [Eric Schmidt] elaborates. They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next."
Google has mentioned a number of times that customization is a major feature of their searches. While this summary isn't without cause to be nervous about such a thing, instead of algorithms to correct algorithms, it's no major feat to allow users to disable some of the non-spam related algorithms. In fact, it's no major feat to disable algorithms by subcategory: geographical location, operating system, language, search history, etc.
Wikipedia thinks having diverse contributors helps develop well-written, unbiased comprehensive treatments on various subjects. In this case, the argument goes, topics of typically male interest tend to receive more attention from the larger male contributor base, whereas topics of typical female interest receive less.
Seems a statement of suspicious sketch. As long as I've been paying attention to Wikipedia there've been rules and guidelines to promote particular behaviours and dissuade others, from writing styles to definitions of what counts as evidence. Is the author saying the hackerish Wikipedia base will co-operate with other guidelines, but not ones promoting diversity? Suspect.
Futher, "adopting openness means being 'open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists,'" also seems to be non-intuitive. I wonder what evidence drew those conclusions. If it was a Wikipedia article, at least I could follow the citation.
A bonus disagree comes from
"According to the OpEd Project, an organization based in New York that monitors the gender breakdown of contributors to “public thought-leadership forums,” a participation rate of roughly 85-to-15 percent, men to women, is common — whether members of Congress, or writers on The New York Times and Washington Post Op-Ed pages.
It would seem to be an irony that Wikipedia, where the amateur contributor is celebrated, is experiencing the same problem as forums that require expertise."
I don't think that's ironic at all. 85% of experts wear black socks, ironically 85% of the population also wears black socks.
I think toastar was referring to doublethink. That something that's the height of journalist integrity is being criticised as being so bad it is beyond "journalistic failure."
While I appreciate all who fight the good fight for a better breasted television of tomorrow, I think the disjunction is between a freedom and a right.
We have freedom of publication, which means the government can't stop you from making a publication, but we don't have a right, which means the government is not obligated to cover costs related to publication. The same goes for your example of the freedom to gather, it's not a right, and the government isn't required to pick up travel costs of anyone who wants to gather anywhere.
And I'm glad, I don't want to fund a government that makes all those examples rights.
In my opinion it is despicable for them to discriminate against customers based on political beliefs
I completely disagree. I don't know how discrimination works where you are, but in Canada discrimination laws only apply to groups. So if John Hitler Smith came in to my shop, and I know him because he's a prominent author who advocates segregation, I can tell him to take a hike if I want to. In Canada, the government only steps in if I refuse to serve a group of people, such as Asians, or supporters of the Liberal political party. Otherwise, the business is mine and will be run as I see fit.
Another intuitive example is how we view business property. A business is private property, and the police will come and remove someone based solely on my whim. If I tried to go to the mall and hand out pamphlets about a controversial topic, I will be removed and I will not have any voice on the issue just because they discriminated "against [a customer] based on political beliefs." It isn't public property even though it's used by the public.
If Amazon doesn't want to fight the good fight with Wikileaks, so be it, that's their choice. I wish they would, and because they can, I think less of them, but I wouldn't describe it as despicable or disgusting, and it's certainly not discrimination.
Yes, nowadays our view on the environment is that it is fragile. In the sixties the general view on the environment was that it was robust. For instance, abandon a suburban house and nature will take it back over time. The summary quietly acknowledges this viewpoint, they were trying to see if they could disrupt the magnetosphere, much less damage it.
This has not been my experience. Neither do I think privacy is, for the most part, predilected to a technical background as one of your commenters noted. My network of friends is small (164), but my degree was English and all of my friends are non-technical. I'd say most, though not all, are concerned with privacy.
In fact, I think they are too concerned with privacy. They have that beaten over the head zealousness when it comes to issues of privacy —I mean, they automatically think it's important without considering the issue. For instance, Amazon is very good at suggesting books if I share my preferences with them. Me, I'm okay sharing my literary preferences. They would not be because it's "personal information" and therefore sacred. Zombies.
Full disclosure: I live in Canada where the government has interferred with Facebook over privacy issues. And it was all over the news. Maybe my friends are more concerned with privacy because the news has told them to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux can be installed on tablets. I would research a seven inch tablet, a distro that suits you, install Linux, encrypt the hard-drive, and power-down the device when not in use.
It would be resource consuming for the NSA to redirect a computer assembled in Britain and shipped to a Brit, but it would be trivial for the NSA to redirect a computer shipping from America. Therefore, this news is more damaging to US firms.
I'm not sure if the NSA seeking to exploit technology is particularly damaging to US firms. The NSA is seeking to exploit all technologies, not just American-based ones.
I think the part that does damage American firms, was the end of the second article. It read that the NSA has been redirecting the shipping of some computers to their address, installing software or hardware, repacking the device, and shipping it to the purchaser.
It goes on for fifteen paragraphs about how George Orwell would love it, the government is awful, this is an attack on science. Eventually they included a paragraph to give at least some information:
I didn't check out the large number of links, but a large number newsbending links does not a journalist make. Don't use blogs to get your news.
It's hard to see how his nationality is relevant if the nation is not involved.
I'll be happy for you to point out a single instance of me trolling
Awww, apparently I hurt somebody's feelings! I'd apologize, but then, I'm not sorry. I stand by my original statements: the police didn't arrest him for no reason, these were NOT trumped up charges, this man was NOT railroaded into jail because police wanted an arrest. This was a case of a man deliberately setting out to probe the efficacy of security for the G-20 summit by purchasing chemicals used in bomb making, again - *in an attempt to prove that the security for the G-20 summit was ineffective.* In essence, he was betting that security wouldn't take notice of his activities... and he lost his bet.
The short explanation is that he didn't do anything illegal, so you're trolling by pretending:
these were NOT trumped up charges
If he didn't do anything illegal, they must be trumped up charges.
For what, exactly?
It was you that was being quoted for apologizing. It seems pretty straight-forward what you were apologizing for.
My posting history here will put that misconception to rest pretty quickly.
Your comment history doesn't absolve you of anything. If you replied to a thousand comments that were in no way trolling comments, that doesn't mean your one-thousand and first comment couldn't possibly have been a troll. Each comment is judged on it's merits. But I acknowledged you seem to be unfamiliar with legal logic to have been aware of that.
This is a shameful response.
It's not illegal to purchase chemicals, even if they are chemicals related to bomb-making. I might give you that it's merit to interview someone, but performing legal activities is not a reason to incarcerate someone, even if it's temporarily. You're defence didn't illustrate any reason to suggest incarcerating him for a year was merited.
I think it's pretty intuitive you yourself would be outraged for being incarcerated for a year because of the coincidence of performing several legal activities.
For instance, the holodeck safety protocols continually go offline.
Artist's have _always_ been willing to take credit for their own work. We know of plenty of authors prior to the last few hundred years: Livy, Homer, Aquinas, you name it. The fact that some authors opened their work by honouring their muse, or inspiration, has nothing to do with them taking credit for their own work. Some of them, certainly not all, worked in the tradition of honouring the inspiration, but they still took credit for their work. Otherwise, how would we know who wrote what.
The only exception is author's who wrote in culture's that pre-date writing, or did not have reasonable access to writing, such as the Beowulf poet, or the Green Knight poet. Even then, I'm sure the only reason authorship wasn't recorded was because those that orally passed on the story, excluded the original author's credits.
None of the above. Receiving email with potentially malicious content would be so devastating for some organizations that it's not worth the security risk. While it's unlikely their security would be breached by an unknown vulnerability, if they were breached, the data loss would be devastating. Thus, when they can receive documents through a secure fax which could not breach their database, they will sometimes opt to receive transmissions through fax.
In organizations that have access to large databases of sensitive information, the security risk makes secure faxes preferable. For instance, the Internal Revenue Service has access to nearly everyone's financial information, a security breach, however unlikely it might be, would be devastating.
True, but if Bing will produce customized searches equivalent to holding a mirror up to someone's face, people might opt for Bing instead of Google's "high road." I agree with you that it's better for society to have an opt-in system, I just imagine it might be too risky for a company to implement such a system.
These two systems revolve around how badly people want their mirrors.
Google has mentioned a number of times that customization is a major feature of their searches. While this summary isn't without cause to be nervous about such a thing, instead of algorithms to correct algorithms, it's no major feat to allow users to disable some of the non-spam related algorithms. In fact, it's no major feat to disable algorithms by subcategory: geographical location, operating system, language, search history, etc.
Exactly. It's not ironic at all.
Wikipedia thinks having diverse contributors helps develop well-written, unbiased comprehensive treatments on various subjects. In this case, the argument goes, topics of typically male interest tend to receive more attention from the larger male contributor base, whereas topics of typical female interest receive less.
Futher, "adopting openness means being 'open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists,'" also seems to be non-intuitive. I wonder what evidence drew those conclusions. If it was a Wikipedia article, at least I could follow the citation.
A bonus disagree comes from
I don't think that's ironic at all. 85% of experts wear black socks, ironically 85% of the population also wears black socks.
I think toastar was referring to doublethink. That something that's the height of journalist integrity is being criticised as being so bad it is beyond "journalistic failure."
While I appreciate all who fight the good fight for a better breasted television of tomorrow, I think the disjunction is between a freedom and a right.
We have freedom of publication, which means the government can't stop you from making a publication, but we don't have a right, which means the government is not obligated to cover costs related to publication. The same goes for your example of the freedom to gather, it's not a right, and the government isn't required to pick up travel costs of anyone who wants to gather anywhere.
And I'm glad, I don't want to fund a government that makes all those examples rights.
I completely disagree. I don't know how discrimination works where you are, but in Canada discrimination laws only apply to groups. So if John Hitler Smith came in to my shop, and I know him because he's a prominent author who advocates segregation, I can tell him to take a hike if I want to. In Canada, the government only steps in if I refuse to serve a group of people, such as Asians, or supporters of the Liberal political party. Otherwise, the business is mine and will be run as I see fit.
Another intuitive example is how we view business property. A business is private property, and the police will come and remove someone based solely on my whim. If I tried to go to the mall and hand out pamphlets about a controversial topic, I will be removed and I will not have any voice on the issue just because they discriminated "against [a customer] based on political beliefs." It isn't public property even though it's used by the public.
If Amazon doesn't want to fight the good fight with Wikileaks, so be it, that's their choice. I wish they would, and because they can, I think less of them, but I wouldn't describe it as despicable or disgusting, and it's certainly not discrimination.
I agree it's unlikely. DDOS'ing is a less effective means compared to their recent practice of seizing the domain.
Actually the Canadian party in power is a minority government. Right now they don't have absolute power. ;)
Yes, nowadays our view on the environment is that it is fragile. In the sixties the general view on the environment was that it was robust. For instance, abandon a suburban house and nature will take it back over time. The summary quietly acknowledges this viewpoint, they were trying to see if they could disrupt the magnetosphere, much less damage it.
This has not been my experience. Neither do I think privacy is, for the most part, predilected to a technical background as one of your commenters noted. My network of friends is small (164), but my degree was English and all of my friends are non-technical. I'd say most, though not all, are concerned with privacy.
In fact, I think they are too concerned with privacy. They have that beaten over the head zealousness when it comes to issues of privacy —I mean, they automatically think it's important without considering the issue. For instance, Amazon is very good at suggesting books if I share my preferences with them. Me, I'm okay sharing my literary preferences. They would not be because it's "personal information" and therefore sacred. Zombies.
Full disclosure: I live in Canada where the government has interferred with Facebook over privacy issues. And it was all over the news. Maybe my friends are more concerned with privacy because the news has told them to be.