I've never been a paranoid one, and even in this case I don't think it's a *huge* deal (it's certainly a deal, but not a huge one), but I think what they are getting at is that this gives them the ability to connect the dots. Say you have an ad for a job opening that is only shown to gay people. User clicks said ad, and is sent to a specific entry point which can be recorded. User proceeds to apply for job. I'm not sure that this can cause much damage... if they weren't looking for gay people they wouldn't have posted ads to the... but I can definitely see paranoid people not liking this (and I'm not saying they are wrong in feeling this way, just that I'm not quite as paranoid). I'm sure a lot of people have their sexual orientation public on facebook, but don't tell their coworkers or employers (Oscar from the office until season 3 episode 1, for example).
Please explain the logic to me of how a more trusting audience means that the source lies more often. I'll give you a hint: there is no possible way to logically come to that conclusion.
This is exactly what Rachel Maddow and John Stewart have accomplished. The only argument you have against Fox News is: "if you don't think they are the worst news organization ever, you are an idiot." What a great argument. Do you get most of your news from the Daily Show?
Fox doesn't make everything up. You just haven't heard the stuff in question on any other stations because they avoid reporting on a lot of topics that hurt their respective causes.
Yes, it is extreme sometimes, and even often, but the Fox News hate has more to do with politics than a lack of truth.
Microsoft has been making pretty awesome products lately. I'm afraid, though, that many of them are failing because of their image, and in fact this is the very reason that I'm not even going to consider getting a Windows Phone 7 in the near future. Even if it is a better underlying platform than Android, the community will be what makes or breaks it, and to the community, Microsoft just isn't cool enough anymore.
This post is not intended to be insightful or anything. It's just a rant about myself.
I'm starting to question my geekiness. I've always considered myself a geek (well, more of a nerd according to my definition of those two words), but I don't fit into any of the stereotypes listed in that blog post. I'm not a gamer. I'm not an overclocker (I do like good hardware, but I don't obsess over it). I'm not obsessed with any geek movies/series (star wars, etc. I enjoy some of them, but am in no way obsessed). It advises to ask geeky questions... but to me that would be an immediate dealbreaker. I don't want a girl who knows anything about CPU architecture or programming languages. I wouldn't mind someone with knowledge of some sort of science or technology, but *not* computer science or computer/electrical engineering. Not sure why that's a turnoff for me. Maybe it's just experience with the type of girls in those fields.
In regards to some of the posts in this/. thread, I am *very* picky about girls that I would be interested in having a relationship with. A lot of girls like geeks. I think I can do better than a girl with a pulse. I hope...
You present a good point, but I think there's one issue with it.
Those suggestions seem to be sorted by frequency of searches, so what you're getting is *more* common and less obscure searches (and ads) early on as you type, and gradually gets more specific and (probability-wise) more obscure as you finish your search phrase.
Read the article. This is ridiculous. Not a single person here has read the dang thing. It says *clearly* that there is NOT a separate security checkpoint for private and public planes.
And just to be clear, I'm not only talking about speed (though speeds have certainly increased). The main thing I'm talking about is overall data transfer. 10 years ago you may have had a 2mbps cable connection, but it sat idle much more than it does today.
I don't know how you're at +5 right now. Based on the/. summary it appears that this was a public airport. What's to stop him from giving the weapons to someone else who is getting on a public flight? No point in having the security check at that point.
To the 3 comments above mine: Real1tyCzech's example means that they would then be able to give the weapons to someone else after they pass through security, who could then use them to do whatever they want with a passenger airplane (and to the passengers on the plane).
Broadband prices *HAVE* decreased. A lot. You're just using more of it now. Now the average person uses 50 "broadbands," and pay what they paid for 1 "broadband" 10 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never been a paranoid one, and even in this case I don't think it's a *huge* deal (it's certainly a deal, but not a huge one), but I think what they are getting at is that this gives them the ability to connect the dots. Say you have an ad for a job opening that is only shown to gay people. User clicks said ad, and is sent to a specific entry point which can be recorded. User proceeds to apply for job. I'm not sure that this can cause much damage... if they weren't looking for gay people they wouldn't have posted ads to the... but I can definitely see paranoid people not liking this (and I'm not saying they are wrong in feeling this way, just that I'm not quite as paranoid). I'm sure a lot of people have their sexual orientation public on facebook, but don't tell their coworkers or employers (Oscar from the office until season 3 episode 1, for example).
The only thing you've shown is a correlation. There are thousands of other factors.
Please explain the logic to me of how a more trusting audience means that the source lies more often. I'll give you a hint: there is no possible way to logically come to that conclusion.
Even if that study is true, how does that show anything about Fox News? If anything they are more trusting because they haven't been lied to as much.
This is exactly what Rachel Maddow and John Stewart have accomplished. The only argument you have against Fox News is: "if you don't think they are the worst news organization ever, you are an idiot." What a great argument. Do you get most of your news from the Daily Show?
By "true word" you must mean "liberal slant."
Fox doesn't make everything up. You just haven't heard the stuff in question on any other stations because they avoid reporting on a lot of topics that hurt their respective causes.
Yes, it is extreme sometimes, and even often, but the Fox News hate has more to do with politics than a lack of truth.
CNN is just as bad.
Windows 7. And yes, XBOX 360. And believe it or not, IE9 has some really awesome stuff. Office 2010
Maybe not recent, but awesome, particularly with recent updates:
C#, Visual Studio
Microsoft has been making pretty awesome products lately. I'm afraid, though, that many of them are failing because of their image, and in fact this is the very reason that I'm not even going to consider getting a Windows Phone 7 in the near future. Even if it is a better underlying platform than Android, the community will be what makes or breaks it, and to the community, Microsoft just isn't cool enough anymore.
Windows has been on tablets for a decade, and they aren't at all bad.
Javva? (that's 2 "v"s, not a w) Is that how you pronounce Java in Canadia?
This post is not intended to be insightful or anything. It's just a rant about myself.
I'm starting to question my geekiness. I've always considered myself a geek (well, more of a nerd according to my definition of those two words), but I don't fit into any of the stereotypes listed in that blog post. I'm not a gamer. I'm not an overclocker (I do like good hardware, but I don't obsess over it). I'm not obsessed with any geek movies/series (star wars, etc. I enjoy some of them, but am in no way obsessed). It advises to ask geeky questions... but to me that would be an immediate dealbreaker. I don't want a girl who knows anything about CPU architecture or programming languages. I wouldn't mind someone with knowledge of some sort of science or technology, but *not* computer science or computer/electrical engineering. Not sure why that's a turnoff for me. Maybe it's just experience with the type of girls in those fields.
In regards to some of the posts in this /. thread, I am *very* picky about girls that I would be interested in having a relationship with. A lot of girls like geeks. I think I can do better than a girl with a pulse. I hope...
You present a good point, but I think there's one issue with it.
Those suggestions seem to be sorted by frequency of searches, so what you're getting is *more* common and less obscure searches (and ads) early on as you type, and gradually gets more specific and (probability-wise) more obscure as you finish your search phrase.
Read the article. This is ridiculous. Not a single person here has read the dang thing. It says *clearly* that there is NOT a separate security checkpoint for private and public planes.
And just to be clear, I'm not only talking about speed (though speeds have certainly increased). The main thing I'm talking about is overall data transfer. 10 years ago you may have had a 2mbps cable connection, but it sat idle much more than it does today.
FTA:::
"The airport doesn’t have separate boarding arrangements for private-jet users, Uno said."
FTA::
"The airport doesn’t have separate boarding arrangements for private-jet users, Uno said."
FTA:
"The airport doesn’t have separate boarding arrangements for private-jet users, Uno said."
Did you read the part where he got stopped at security (ie the entire point of the article)? He was at the same security checkpoint as everyone else.
I don't know how you're at +5 right now. Based on the /. summary it appears that this was a public airport. What's to stop him from giving the weapons to someone else who is getting on a public flight? No point in having the security check at that point.
To the 3 comments above mine: Real1tyCzech's example means that they would then be able to give the weapons to someone else after they pass through security, who could then use them to do whatever they want with a passenger airplane (and to the passengers on the plane).
Broadband prices *HAVE* decreased. A lot. You're just using more of it now. Now the average person uses 50 "broadbands," and pay what they paid for 1 "broadband" 10 years ago.
I was thinking the same thing. It must be on average per day, or billion, like you said.
I got up to 100 Ls before it stopped (exactly 100, so I imagine 100 is the character limit). Some of them had ~3,000 results.
GNOME: Official release: 3 March 1999
As the first poster in this thread notes, "They only cite documents going back to 1998."
Not saying that it should be a valid patent, just that GNOME doesn't qualify as prior art.
First thing I found on newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148348
The speed that a drive needs to be to saturate SATA II is 300MB/sec (2 bits of overhead per byte, if I'm not mistaken).